News1 min ago
Shouild Same-Sex Parents Be Featured In School Books?
288 Answers
http://
Would this type of thing be beneficial to children as young as five, or only create confusion?
Would this type of thing be beneficial to children as young as five, or only create confusion?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Man, woman, babies, family. The basic foundation of society.//
According to some but there are many societies where children are brought up by the community as a whole.
What some claim as "the way it must be" is really nothing more than religiously based traditions. Religious prejudice and dogma have been around for so long that they can't even recognise it.
According to some but there are many societies where children are brought up by the community as a whole.
What some claim as "the way it must be" is really nothing more than religiously based traditions. Religious prejudice and dogma have been around for so long that they can't even recognise it.
In fairness to craft, she ay just have gone to bed. It was 1.00a.m. after all.
I don't think it is necessarily " wrong" to view parents as being one man, one woman. This has after all been the way of things in Western Society for so long that we can barely contemplate any other way. But it is not the only parental structure in existence: other cultures can rely on multiple parents each taking care of their own and each other's children, or perhaps one man having several wives, or one woman having several husbands.
In this sense there is nothing special, or privileged, about the one man, one woman family that is normal in the UK over than that it is just the way we have done things for a while. I suppose it is the simplest way to go from biological necessity (of course two men or two women cannot reproduce on their own) to parenthood. But it is neither the only way nor inherently the best way. Studies suggest that the most important aspect of a child's upbringing is not the gender of the parents (or, if you prefer, legal guardians), but the stability they provide. Thus, two men or two women in a stable relationship, providing love and security, is far superior to a dysfunctional heterosexual marriage. Similarly, two abusive men are more damaging for the child they are looking after than a single parent who supports his or her offspring.
The emergence of same-sex parents -- or families in which the two adults who are entrusted with the protection and nurturing of one or more young children -- is one of the biggest social changes there has ever been, and also one of the fastest. But there is no reason yet to believe that it is either damaging to children or threatening to the institution of family as many see it. Nor is there any reason to believe that this will change -- that is, that in the future such relationships will be damaging to children. Far more damaging is to allow or to encourage that child to judge others on the basis of their sexuality, gender, race, age or creed. This judgment and prejudice is often a result of never addressing the issues early in life and even actively ignoring them.
Given that same-sex parents are here to stay, it is to everyone's best interest that children are both made aware about their existence, and taught not to be suspicious of them.
I don't think it is necessarily " wrong" to view parents as being one man, one woman. This has after all been the way of things in Western Society for so long that we can barely contemplate any other way. But it is not the only parental structure in existence: other cultures can rely on multiple parents each taking care of their own and each other's children, or perhaps one man having several wives, or one woman having several husbands.
In this sense there is nothing special, or privileged, about the one man, one woman family that is normal in the UK over than that it is just the way we have done things for a while. I suppose it is the simplest way to go from biological necessity (of course two men or two women cannot reproduce on their own) to parenthood. But it is neither the only way nor inherently the best way. Studies suggest that the most important aspect of a child's upbringing is not the gender of the parents (or, if you prefer, legal guardians), but the stability they provide. Thus, two men or two women in a stable relationship, providing love and security, is far superior to a dysfunctional heterosexual marriage. Similarly, two abusive men are more damaging for the child they are looking after than a single parent who supports his or her offspring.
The emergence of same-sex parents -- or families in which the two adults who are entrusted with the protection and nurturing of one or more young children -- is one of the biggest social changes there has ever been, and also one of the fastest. But there is no reason yet to believe that it is either damaging to children or threatening to the institution of family as many see it. Nor is there any reason to believe that this will change -- that is, that in the future such relationships will be damaging to children. Far more damaging is to allow or to encourage that child to judge others on the basis of their sexuality, gender, race, age or creed. This judgment and prejudice is often a result of never addressing the issues early in life and even actively ignoring them.
Given that same-sex parents are here to stay, it is to everyone's best interest that children are both made aware about their existence, and taught not to be suspicious of them.
A question for the objectors.
http://
http://
Not a popular view I know, but why teach such young children anything about relationships at all. Let's not forget in many households the word "Daddy" is not mentioned. Why can't we let the little ones be children until such times as they need to know of relationships. Furthermore I feel it is the parents' role in life to educate them NOT the state. Teachers should concentrate on basic numeracy and literacy in the early years and properly prepare children for the future.
How is it "at the expense" of people with other views?
Same sex relationships have existed forever, but in secret because of the religiously based bigotry. There are still societies where such relationships are punishable by death.
The "expense" raised by the narrow-minded has always been borne by those people who find themselves to be different from the "norm".
Fascist religious attitudes need to be challenged and overcome. Including same sex couples in children's books reflect the reality of life.
Those who object need to recognise that it is they who have the problem and get over it.
Same sex relationships have existed forever, but in secret because of the religiously based bigotry. There are still societies where such relationships are punishable by death.
The "expense" raised by the narrow-minded has always been borne by those people who find themselves to be different from the "norm".
Fascist religious attitudes need to be challenged and overcome. Including same sex couples in children's books reflect the reality of life.
Those who object need to recognise that it is they who have the problem and get over it.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.