Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

California first-graders learn about marriage equality

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 12:30pm

    A good positive step.
    Here’s hoping for more.

  2. Marvellous! A good step forward in reducing the incidence of homophobia. You can bet the religious right wing anti same-sex marriage hate groups will use it as a weapon to spread those vile, disgusting lies about us.

  3. Teach the bloody parents first.

    Whats the point in reading to kids when they go home and hear the exact opposite

    1. The point is that the parents might not be willing to change their views, whereas the childs prejudices aren’t already set. Besides, having a contrasting opinion given to them at school will at least encourage the children to think

      1. Well I’m not comfortable excluding parents from their own childrens education

        1. But why should parents have absolute control over what their children learn. Surely children have a right to experience different views.

          1. Yes when they are at University

          2. not all kids go to uni. and surely education at all ages should open childrens minds to the huge diversity on this planet

          3. It seems ridiculous that children should in essence be brainwashed by only being exposed to one view til uni. I was an enquiring sort of child and formed my views from knowledge obtained from a variety of sources. It did me no harm I can assure you

          4. Brainwashed? Calm down dear.

            Kids learn anti gay attitudes at home thats where the education should start.

          5. Fair enough James!, but what about those households where the parents aren’t flexible enough of mind to step outside their own inherited bigotry? What’s to happen to kids in those circumstances?

          6. Rehan. If the parents are not breaking the law then nothing can be done. I’m into freedom of choice and thought even if I don’t like it.

          7. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 3:08pm

            Scott
            There are some adults still willing to learn and the fact plenty do over time change there views to be supportive suggests that teaching the parents is still very much an important issue.

          8. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 3:09pm

            Gay Seraph
            Thing is surely there can only be one view on how someone is born?

          9. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 3:11pm

            Rehan
            I do see what your saying.
            I guess you have to hope at some stage they become adult enough to see differently and learn that bigotry doesn’t make society work better.

        2. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 3:05pm

          Indeed James! I think it is as important to teach both parent and child.
          That is where we learn after all the effectiveness of debate and acceptance.

      2. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 3:04pm

        Trouble is Gay Seraph that we have a situation where the parents can totally override what their child has been taught.
        So teaching the parents first, or at least as well, goes a long way to trying to improve things.

        1. I certainly agree that the parents should be given the chance to educate themselves further about acceptance for the lgbti (etc) community and marriage equality, I don’t feel however that means that there is “no point” in teaching the children without teaching the parents. Its better to at least to something which is a move in the right direction, rather than wait til we could do everything at once. Hopefully a program for educating the parents will be a natural extension of this program

          1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 4:41pm

            Yeah, I can see your point, I agree with that. I think prehaps first and foremost teach the children the respect we all need in life and deserve of course.
            Whilst I would hope a program for educating adults there is a good change of children teaching those more open minded parents and putting the others who resent to shame and hopefully into a minority.

    2. I agree that efforts should be made to target the parents as well. However most peoples prejudices are set by the time they reach university. And if you look at mine for an example, UCL, they tend to just exemplify prejudices rather than tackling them.

      1. I don’t agree. Prejudice is based on ignorance we do not stop learning by the time we reach uni.

      2. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 3:15pm

        I think the biggest problem is those people, as on another comment page, learning the difference between being sexually explicit and teaching about the acceptence of Gay relationships.
        To many bigotted people seem to think the two have to go together maybe based one what they personally get up to.
        That certainly doesn’t help already pushed predjudices because those people can’t see beyond their own noses.

    3. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 3:01pm

      Actually James! I think thats the best comment.
      Teaching the parents does go a long way.

    4. Of course teaching the parents would be the ideal, but sometimes it’s just too late. It’s like with Creationism — all you can try to do in a school is to raise an awareness, as objectively as possible, that one dominant convention isn’t the only possibility.

      1. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 10:26am

        That is true to a point but there are still a lot of people that when they learn about the LGBT do change their minds and become supportive, without the help from children.

  4. This is wonderful, and will make such a difference. Now if only this sort of process could spread…

  5. I hope they teach this without bringing sex of any kind into it. The kids should have a childhood. I’m all in favour of it otherwise.

    1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 3:19pm

      I don’t see why it would mean bringing sex into it.
      This alone is a prejudice.
      That you cannot teach about the acceptance of Gay relationships with adding explicit sex.
      Why would it?
      Why does it suddenly change and turn to sex just because it’s about Gay people?
      This is about accepting people can love one another, you don’t need to talk about sex with that, it’s irrelevent esp to young children.

    2. Once again you have a false premise. In European countries that have the most tolerant attitudes and lowest sti and teen pregnancy rate young children are made aware of sex very broadly. Not telling children about graphic stuff. But for example when i was i the netherlands i saw a book they use to teach children in primary school which showed that when adults love each other they have a special hug, and in the case of a woman and a man this special hug leads to a baby.

      THery also teach children about the inappropiatness of sex for children, which is why scandinavian countries have higher rates of prosecutions for sexual abuse. Abused children are aware that what adults are doing to themm is wrong.

      So can people please stop the daily mail “sexualising children” bs.

      1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 3:37pm

        All that 5 to 7 year olds need to learn is that society is diverse and showing it is diverse.
        I think the human body it taught at about 8 but sex, I would rather a child be an openminded child playing as a child.
        I think there is difference between having open minded classes though where is the subject arises it is talked about.
        For example I new very young I was Gay.
        At 8 a little help could have helped esp from the bullying that followed me most of my school life.
        Having said that my best friend was pregnant at 12 and got expelled form school for being so.
        I think there to be honest the whole system just needs to be open minded and up for discussion.
        Relationship fine as early as possible but sex I would say more towards secondary school.

    3. When I was a young child (maybe 7/8) I had a book which taught about the body and about sex. It included pictures. I had a childhood as was not scarred by learning these things.
      Similarly I learnt what a blowjob was at 8 and yet managed to enjoy my childhood. There is no reason why the two should be mutually exclusive.
      Moreover, there is no reason why sex of any kind should be included in discussions on marriage equality and gay relationships. Kids know that people get married, there’s no reason why they shouldn’t be told that two men or two women can, and knowing that has nothing to do with sex.

      1. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 10:36am

        Yeah, I guess it shows different children mature differently.
        I knew the words and means young as do most children.
        I suppose a lot of this is down the to the parents just not wanting their children to know because they fear it’ll lead to them growing up quickly.
        They are mostly irrational fears mind since like you say children know some things young anyway.
        I think the big problem is schools tend not to account or know how to deal with a child who may know who they are at that young age.
        So what is more important about teaching about relationships young without the need for sex to be involved is so that those children don’t feel pressured into thinking they are wrong to feel that way.
        Children all need to be special and that means letting them grow with out adult interference just guidence.

  6. This is what right whingers will never understand. We dont want sensitivity training we want truth.
    Gay people were denied their right to freedom of association, the right to privacy and the right to a family life. And we struggled against that.
    Gay people have done great things for this country, there have been gay kings (williams the conquerers son i think his name was rufus).
    It is scientific fact that homosexuality is present in many animals and across all societies.
    All we want is for theses truths to be taught in schools, its not about sensitivity it is about teaching children FACTS!

    Man oh man I hope one day a law like this gets introduced over here.

    1. Are you saying you’re in favour of teaching children as young as 6 about sex?

      1. It’s not mentioning sex though it’s about mentioning our role in history and society and showing we are everywhere. It will not mention sex any more that a straight sex ed would

        1. That’s ok then.

      2. Actually yes i am. But not in the way you think. But making children aware that there are forms of intimacy that are appropriate for adults only and that they shouldnt be scared of such things.

        1. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 3:27pm

          Sorry I don’t agree.
          Intimacy or a sexual nature doesn’t need to be taught til later schooling.
          Surely it’s about accepting society and those within it, as Hamish says about history, culture, society.
          Showing we exist.
          Relationships can be taught without the need for sex to be involved.
          This is about letting the future grow to be tolerant and open minded, that kind of development needed to be from the young but no way does sex need to be a part of that.

          1. I think I may need to be more clear in what im saying. I absolutely agree that talking about sex must be age appropriate. However making young children aware of the fact that there is a special form of intimacy that only adults who love each other can do has numerous benefits.

            For example it leads to abused children realising that the abuse they suffer is not appropriate, and thus they can report it.
            It also makes children aware that sex is the ultimate form of intimacy, and that it is not something that should be entered into lightly.

            But i do agree that teaching sex free gay history is more important to obtain. Purely due to historical accuracy.

          2. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 3:41pm

            I agree on your comment about helping children of abuse but that would happen with a more open form of teaching I think anyway.
            Well I would hope.
            I think the Church needs to address this issue because as long as their schools teach being Gay as wrong they aid those abusers by keeping the children ashamed of what they are being put through.
            Something I know lives with you for the rest of your life.

  7. martyn notman 26 May 2011, 1:59pm

    ..whats that i hear? is it Dail mail readers heads exploding?
    See it can be done sensitively and without fuss, its not the end of the world and it isnt going to turn them all into raving cottagers overnight. Well done California

    1. Hollywood is in California. The place where the worst culture on earth spreads it’s anti gay message. Start with realistic portrayals of LBTG in movies. So no more cross-dressing psychos, murderous lesbians or camp throw away men then congratulate California

      1. And the fact that there are no out gay actors in hollywood says it all. The acting profession is full of poofs and tarts ffs

      2. martyn notman 26 May 2011, 3:00pm

        thats a bit over the top- hollywood is certainly not the hotbed of rampant homophobia it was when Celluloid Closet was written 30 years ago. Not quite sure how it relates to story either??

        1. Point is you’re praising California that state has more pressing issues rather than reading books to kids.
          http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/12/local/la-me-gay-homeless-20101212

          These older established gay men have their own agenda and dont seem to care about anyone else

          LGBT people are still stereotyped by Hollywood. In the Movie The Hangover the guy who drugs everyone and touches people inappropriately is gay and the nasty gangster is gay.

          1. martyn notman 26 May 2011, 3:51pm

            so because theres a more pressing issue (and i agree its important) we should stop educating kids about homophobia until its sorted?
            Hangover is a dreadful film, theres quite a few of them around but hollywood is a lot better at producing films that treat us with some respect nowadays- Brokeback, kids are alright etc.Tarring them all with the same brush isnt fair..

          2. Nah Writing a kids book while youngsters are living on the street is a waste of time. Were at bloody war people are dying!
            You want to see a real humane portrayal of a gay man watch
            Daniel Auteuil The closet its french and real the neighbour is excellent
            http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0243493/

          3. Jock S. Trap 26 May 2011, 4:43pm

            Trouble with homophobia is as long as we give those bigots the words “Yes but you can’t can you” we cannot deal with it effectively.
            Only will full Equality can we really make our mark to stamp it out.

  8. Homosexual degeneracy now spreading in California schools…. What a shame for California!

    1. Look everyone, I’m Rich, and I crave attention: blah balh degenerate blah blah I’m so brave blah blah homosexual – you are one fcuking dull git.

      1. I actually find him quite amusing in a sad, rather pathetic kind of way. His bad grammar, spelling and missing words make me feel grateful that I’m not him, so he does kind of deserve applause for unintentionally making the rest of us feel good about ourselves.

        1. You said it…. I sometimes feel guilty that I was born with my intelligence, which is so infinitely far above that of little Richie here, its kinda embarrassing.

        2. ..and providing ample material for psychologists.

  9. I would love to see this in Oz. i’ve got three kids and they’ve all grown up knowing that some men like to marry men, some women to marry women and some women to men. That’s how i teach it to a three year old with absolutely no problems. If they have questions when they get older, as my nine year old has, I answer them honestly and let the way i answer it be guided by what he’s asking. It’s honestly not a big deal teaching kids about different types of relationships since they’re all grounded in the same thing. And yes, absolutely, kids should be taught about same sex relationships as a matter of course regardless of what their parents think. I’d rather protect the rights of the young LGBT kids than the parents. Wish this was around when I was a kid.

    1. I’d rather protect the rights of the young LGBT kids than the parents.
      .
      Totally agree with you there, Audrey.

    2. Jock S. Trap 27 May 2011, 10:43am

      Here! Here! Audrey!!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all