Back-to-school time. Time to get back to questions about sex in kindergarten picture books.
Recently, homosexual extremists flooded David Parker's blog with their typical stream of nonsense and silly questions. They disputed the idea that the picture book (given without his knowledge to his kindergarten child) had anything to do with sex, and therefore is not covered by the Massachusetts Parental Notification law. The book, Who's In A Family, clearly gives the message that lesbian and "gay" couple parents are on a natural and moral par with traditional families.
MassResistance is not afraid to answer their silly questions. But how sad that it's necessary to state the obvious, and articulate what was once just common sense! (Note: Mr. MassResistance speaks only for himself, and no one else.)
Silly homosexual extremist question #1: You continue to duck and dodge the real issue behind the "cartoon picture book." What do pictures, stories, anecdotes, or any other representation of the makeup of an individual child's family have to do with sex and sexuality? And if two moms and their daughter washing the family dog IS about sex, then why isn't two heterosexual parents and their child sitting down to a meatloaf dinner about sex?
Silly homosexual extremist question #2: Many of us in the great anonymous Massachusetts wilderness have been waiting since April to hear David Parker explain, in his own words, just EXACTLY what "Who's in a Family" has to do with sex and sexuality. Because, the laws of the Commonwealth succinctly state that a parent may opt his/her child out of any classroom lesson or discussion dealing with sex and sexuality. Unless you can illucidate [sic] the "sexual" content of "What's [sic] in a Family" or any of the books in your child's kindergarten classroom (or freely available in the school library, for that matter), then you are asking to EXPAND and/or rewrite the established definition of parental notification.
MassResistance responds:
The basic problem here is that perverted sexual relationships are being forcefully injected into the daily lives of normal people. To say that the existing Parental Notification law in Massachusetts doesn't cover this possibility is like saying that John Adams should have spelled out (in the Massachusetts constitution) that sodomy was not a valid basis for marriage; or that since the Bible doesn't expressly mention credit card fraud, it's not stealing.
The attempted normalization of homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, bisexual, questioning, or polyamorous "marital" arrangements has changed everything. Where once we would have said that a pre-school picture book with scenes of families (with a mommy and a daddy) going about their daily activities was NOT about sex, once a two-daddy family is included, it IS about sex -- even for the traditional families portrayed.
The homosexual extremists have politicized and sexualized everything they come near. And they have destroyed the innocence of early childhood.
From the time a child comes into the world, he observes his parents (one male, one female) interact. Sometimes they hug or kiss. And yes, he registers the fact that they sleep in the same bed. And sometimes the bedroom door is locked and he hears noises. This is a child's normal introduction to sex. It is simply put before him in the context of normal, healthy family activities. Pictures of a normal two-parent family in a picture book do convey a message to the child: This is a family.
Usually, a child's introduction to this normal context of sex and sexuality is unremarkable and would not fall under the Massachusetts Parental Notification law. This is because such normal story books (or family photos) do not present the child with any jarring, startling, or unnatural concepts. His thoughts and imaginings will not proceed into the parents' bedroom at the age of 5 or 6 upon seeing a traditional family picture.
But the minute you present him with an abnormal, unusual, bizarre arrangement, which he knows instinctively in his gut is not right, is odd, off-kilter, or unnatural -- this will provoke a sense of uneasiness followed by new and strange imaginings. He'll ask (openly or privately), "Why does my classmate have two mommies? I thought a mommy needed a daddy to have a baby?"
If a young child is presented with a novel, unusual image of a family, with two mommies or two daddies (or three daddies?), the child will naturally next wonder if they kiss and hug and share a bed. How do they make babies? It's the perversion of normal relations that brings in SEX on a level beyond that a kindergartner should be dealing with. Then, it becomes a lesson on SEX at a level covered by state law protecting parental rights.
(Of course there's another question that we are not dealing with now: Does a school have the right to undermine parents' religious and moral beliefs they are trying to teach their child?)
We come back to the fact that heterosexual parenting is normal -- and the child absorbs the inherent sex lesson slowly, by osmosis. But abnormal homosexual couplings are forcing the child to imagine questions about sexual activities that would otherwise come at a much older age. It's homosexual perversion being forcefully pushed into our faces that's causing a problem.
The Parker case is about "coercive indoctrination" of vulnerable, very young children. The homosexual activists know how powerful images are in their brainwashing campaign. That's why they're putting this book into little children's hands without parental knowledge.
