I’m going to slightly disagree only because I think teaching that something is OK and teaching something exists cannot be separated. Obviously, existence and justification are not the same, but existence implies justification. Somewhere in the human psyche is the concept that an action or idea is acceptable to the extent that it has being. From this same root comes the idea that natural = good (because a natural thing has more existence than an unnatural thing) and that majority = good (because the minority exists less than the majority).

Why? Beats me. Is this correct? Maybe not. Nevertheless, there it is. I’m afraid there is no neutral ground here.

Please take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYtr6-gP0t8

If there’s a kid who’s parents are a gay couple, the teacher would have to have the Parkers on speedial.

“Josh is talking about his Moms again, should I send junior to make some copies for me? Oh, and Susan just got back from visiting her Uncles in Palm Springs, maybe junior can spend the day with the school nurse?”

yeah, i’d consider that a curriculum change.

Oh, now I’m a liar, am I?

Alvin has some great quotes from Mr. Parker that make clear that it was not “the subject of homosexuality” to which he objected but even the acknowledgment of the existance of same-sex families.

Yes, we all know that the book Who’s in a Family started off the argument in the first place. That’s beside the point I brought up.

BTB’s original post on this, to which you have now pointed twice, said,

[Parker] set out to change school policy so that his child not be exposed to that fact [of same-sex couples and their families].

Nothing was said about Parker demanding a change in curriculum. The page of Alvin McEwen’s says also nothing about such a demand. And it is about whether or not the Parkers ever made this demand that I am curious.

I fail to see how asking if the Parkers did indeed make this demand is making any assertion, let alone a misleading one.

As far as your bugaboo over the FRC video goes, just how is reporting from Alvin McEwen, or ABC, or the Boston Globe better than a video interview of the Parkers themselves, no matter who did the interviewing? On the video we get to hear the Parker’s own words as they leave their own lips!

Unless you think the folks at the Family Research Council used dubbing and special video effects to put words into the Parker’s mouths, the fact that it is an FRC video is entirely irrelevant.

I believe it’s pronounced “oo -guh – dee – BOO – guh – dee” but may be shortened to “oog -dee -BOOG – dee.”

Alvin has some great quotes from Mr. Parker that make clear that it was not “the subject of homosexuality” to which he objected but even the acknowledgment of the existance of same-sex families.

And sorry, folks, but I just can’t recommend a Family Research Council video as a primary source of information on the Parkers, their goals, or their actions. I think we all know why.

Based on my information, it is clear that Parker and the conservative group in Massachusetts, Mass Resistance, orchestrated in the entire controversy, even to the point of Mass Resistance members being present when Parker was led away in handcuffs and arraigned (the group has pictures of the arrest and arraignment on its webpage)

Those misled by Dave’s assertions!

Just what assertions did I make that are likely to mislead anyone, Timothy? Do tell.

The only assertions I made were:

I’ve seen FRC video on this very case, and [there] it is claimed that all the parents wanted was the right to exempt their child from the pro-gay lessons.

These assertions are true. I have seen the video, and in it the Parkers do claim they wanted the right to exempt their son from the pro-gay lessons. They mention nothing about the school changing its curriculum. You can see the video for yourself at YouTube.

It is perfectly fair to use the Family Research Council video as a primary source of information on the Parkers themselves as it is an interview of them. (The issue, of course, is just what is learned about them.)

It should be noted, however, that by asking a question about what was said in a video I’ve seen doesn’t mean I’m taking the video as a primary source for anything. It means I’m asking a question about what was said in it. To make the further leap that I place particular trust in the FRC is illogical in the extreme.

The commentary you now link to doesn’t provide any support for the claim that the Parkers wanted the curriculum changed.

The abc story linked there states,

Parker asked teachers and officials at the school to notify him any time the subject of homosexuality was discussed in class.

That’s parental notification (which was also mentioned in the video) not altering curriculum.

The Boston Globe story linked states,

Parker and his wife, Tonia, … said the dispute arose because they asked school officials to notify them about classroom discussions about same-sex marriage and what they called other adult themes. They also wanted the option to exclude their boy, now 6, from those talks.

Again, no changing of the curriculum is mentioned.

Now, if only Jim Burroway would condescend to answer my original question.