Teaching Tolerance, or Gay Propaganda?
Sacramento, CA – Attorneys with Pacific Justice Institute (PJI) are urging parents with children in public schools to contact their schools this week to ensure students are not being targeted with either subtle or overt pro-homosexual messages.
The PJI warning stems from the designation of Jan. 26-30 as "No Name Calling Week" in schools throughout the nation. While the name sounds innocuous, parents are not likely to be told that a key promoter of the event is the Gay, Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The NNCW website discloses that, in fact, the event was sparked by a book called The Misfits, which portrays an openly gay student as a role model.
This week, GLSEN and its allies are encouraging teachers and students to read a number of gay-friendly books such as Geography Club, Holly's Secret, and Pinky and Rex and the Bully. Organizers also suggest that excerpts from the controversial Judy Blume book Blubber, which features a student calling her teacher a b---- and others egging a house, are appropriate for class discussion. Schools are also being encouraged to have students complete surveys about bullying, including questions related to sexual orientation. Federal law requires that parents be notified of such surveys ahead of time, but PJI attorneys have found that parental notification laws are not always followed.
PJI President Brad Dacus commented, "We can all agree that bullying is wrong for any reason. It's unfortunate that groups like GLSEN can't resist turning an otherwise worthy goal into a platform for promoting homosexuality to students as young as first grade. We urge parents to proactively ask teachers and school administrators what they will be teaching this week, oppose efforts to foist sexuality on our youth, and assure their children that respect for others and traditional morality go hand-in-hand."
POST YOUR COMMENTS BELOW
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Sign-Up Now for the Opposing Views Daily Newsletter
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
It's obvious that the Pacific "Justice" League could care less about the bullying and harassment GLBT youth get from their peers in school or anywhere else. Their homophobic paranoia immediately assumes that any positive mention of homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality will somehow recruit or corrupt our children and send them straight down the smooth wide path to Hell. If it's not paranoia then it's dishonesty. Either way, the position is factually and morally bankrupt.
The fact is that gay, lesbian and gender nonconforming kids - be they gay or straight - get harassed more than almost any other category of children in schools. Perhaps the League's members think that it's OK for that to happen. I certainly do not. Speaking out against programs that promote tolerance and nonviolence towards all kids in school because someone doesn't like one of the subgroups is hateful and wrong.
Can someone who is tall, maybe a basketball player, come into my kids' school and say how great it is to be tall so that my kids will grow, please?
Well, there still is debate as to whether or not homosexuality is a choice.
That, and most people aren't made fun of for being tall, hence no need to teach about tolerance (or tallerance, whatever you prefer).
...I really apologize for that last pun, but it was just asking to be included. >.>
So what criteria did you use when you decided to be (I assume, though correct me if I am wrong) straight? When did you decide? Did you produce a check list of pros and cons for gay versus straight, weigh each one accordingly, add them up and Bingo! - "I'll be straight"?
Er... pardon? I'm gay. But my experience might be different than the normal experience.
My point is, you said this: "Can someone who is tall, maybe a basketball player, come into my kids' school and say how great it is to be tall so that my kids will grow, please?"
The way I read it was: "People shouldn't be going to the school to preach about being gay, so that other people become gay, too." And: "People shouldn't be going to school to preach about being gay, because people don't need to be taught about something that's inborn."
I realize now (after I've gotten some sleep) that you could read it as: "People shouldn't care if you preach about being gay, because it'll never happen."
But ... well, your statement was ambiguous, so I'm sorry if I misread it?
My statement relates to how some people think that if others tell kids about homosexuality or if they witness it in any way, through any medium, then this will increase the chances that they "turn gay" as result. My comment was based on the assumption, others would say truth (I am more towards the truth end of things here) that one's sexual orientation is genetic or at the very least determined by the time one is born and cannot be changed later in life.
If the concept of homosexuality is presented to young people in such a way that it gives them permission to be gay i.e. to say to those that are already gay but are too young to engage in sexual activity that being gay is ok, then this can only be a good thing. The anti-bullying week referred to in the article is more about addressing bullying but if it also has the effect of affirming homosexuality then this is good in the same way that gay (and/or female, black, disabled etc) role models are also good for young people who are members of these groups when such groups are discriminated against in a particular community.
Objections to the Gay, Lesbian Straight Education Network as expressed in the article and other assumptions are predicated on the assumption I described above i.e. that kids can "turn gay" when presented with even the idea of homosexuality. My comment was an attempt to ridicule this by comparing it to making someone grow taller after they have been exposed to tall people or the idea of being tall.
Thanks for delineating what you meant, and sorry for making you explain. Explanations do tend to dampen the original effects of rhetorics, don't they? >.>''
School officials are being increasingly pressured by pro-homosexual organizations to integrate homosexual education into school curricula. These organizations recommend promoting homosexuality as a normal, immutable trait that should be validated during childhood, as early as kindergarten. These organizations also condemn all efforts to provide treatment to gender confused students, advocating instead the creation of student groups that affirm homosexual attractions and behaviors.
One of the most coordinated efforts to convince school officials to embrace this position was launched by a coalition of 13 organizations which produced a brochure entitled, Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth. The purpose of the brochure is to:
• Promote the notion that all forms of sexual attraction among students (regardless of age) are equally and entirely normal, including heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality.
• Inform educators that all sexual-reorientation therapy may be harmful and should be prohibited.
• Warn school officials that student clubs advocating the practice of homosexuality must be allowed on campus.
The American College of Pediatricians disagrees with the coalition and presents this scientific response:
• The etiology of homosexual attraction is determined by a combination of familial, environmental, and social influences. For some individuals the inheritance of predisposing personality traits may also play a role.
• While homosexual attraction may not be a conscious choice, it is changeable for many individuals.
• Declaring and validating a student’s same-sex attraction during the adolescent years is premature and may be harmful.
• Many youth with homosexual attractions have experienced a troubled upbringing, including sexual abuse, and are in need of therapy.
• The homosexual lifestyle carries grave health risks.
• Sexual reorientation therapy can be effective. Students and parents should be aware of all therapeutic options.
• There is no evidence that pro-homosexual programs, such as on-campus student clubs, ease the health disorders of homosexual youth.
• The Just the Facts brochure is based upon statements of endorsement of adolescent homosexuality by coalition organizations, and not upon citations of evidence-based research.
Regardless of an individual's sexual orientation, sexual activity is conscious choice. Any sexual activity outside of a monogomous, heterosexual, married relationship is unhealthy and ill-advised.
The above statements are supported by the following documents:
“Homosexual Parenting: Is It Time For Change?” by the American College of Pediatricians
“Empowering Parents of Gender Discordant and Same-Sex Attracted Children” by the American College of Pediatricians
“NARTH Response to “Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth” by National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality
“Getting the Facts Straight on Pro-Gay Pamphlet” by Family Research Council
“A Response to the APA Factsheet” by Oleary, Byrd, Fitzgibbons, & Phelan
The American College of Pediatricians is a national medical association of licensed physicians and healthcare professionals who specialize in the care of infants, children, and adolescents. The mission of the College is to enable all children to reach their optimal, physical and emotional health and well-being.
The so-called "American College of Pediatricians" is a break away group formed in 2002, by a bunch of doctors who think that their personal beliefs somehow trump the scientific method on which they were reared and by the standards of which they are accredited. The American College of Pediatricians' position on homosexuality and it's etiology is literally decades out of date, as anyone with a library card could find. To purport such positions as medical/biological reality is irresponsible, destructive and deeply unscientific. There's a very good reason that your sources are a) all from openly biased sources and b) are not peer reviewed. You couldn't get these arguments past an undergrad thesis committee, not to mention any reputable group of physicians. It saddens me that doctors who not only refuse to respect basic science, but actively spread debunked misinformation, are allowed to practice. Your opinions are your business, when you start fabricating "fact" you've gone much, much too far.
For anyone interested in the actual science of the etiology of homosexuality, in a peer reviewed, scientifically viable form, Bagemihl's Biological Exuberance is an excellent review of existing data and not only deals with human homosexuality, but also homosexuality naturally occurring, not only in the form of homosexual behavior but also in terms of pair bonding, parenting, and mating ritual, throughout the animal kingdom, beyond the environmental influences on which purveyors of outdated and deeply bigoted misinformation like to place the blame. Rams, penguins, dolphins, lions are not learning homosexual behavior from their parents or from television; and surely, the fine conservative voices of the American College of Pediatricians would agree that God does not make mistakes, even among the least significant of animal life.
The PJI and the other poster are completely right. The GLSEN or any other group should not be trying to force any kind of political agenda on anyone. But as I read this article, I find that there is no such agenda being pushed, and if there is one, it pales to other groups that pander to children as young as First Grade.
"While the name sounds innocuous, parents are not likely to be told that a key promoter of the event is the Gay, Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN). The NNCW website discloses that, in fact, the event was sparked by a book called The Misfits, which portrays an openly gay student as a role model."
Exactly what is wrong with this? A LBGT/Straight Alliance Group should not be able to help promote an event meant to stop bullying and name-calling? Just as blacks are often called "niggers", so too are LBGT students often ridiculed as "Fags" or "Homos", so I see no reason why the GLSEN should not have a part in teaching kids that bullying, regardless of your religious beliefs, is wrong.
I also feel that the criticism leveled against "The Misfits" is totally uncalled for. The Misfits is a wonderful story about a band of Misfits (And yes, one of them happens to be gay) that rise up against name-calling and run against their popular peers for the student party. I think it's a wonderful tale for kids to read, it teaches them about the harm caused by name-calling, and the power that we all have to change it.
As for your criticism of other books. The Geography Club contains teen-aged situations, and should not be read to kids below the appropriate age. You provide no evidence that this book is being read to young children, however. Holly's Secret is perfectly alright for young children to read, and deals with the issue of having "two mommies" or "two daddies". More and more these families are emerging in schools, and they deserve the same respect that we give heterosexual families. "Pinky And Rex And The Bully" contains no gay character, from what I know, and simply deals with a boy you likes playing with girls and has a "girly" favorite color. He is bullied for this, but rises up to his bullies and lets them know that everyone is not the same. A great book to break kids out of gender stereotypes! They aren't just harmful to girls, after all.
"Organizers also suggest that excerpts from the controversial Judy Blume book Blubber, which features a student calling her teacher a b---- and others egging a house, are appropriate for class discussion. "
You do not make it clear whether the "bitch" scene is covered in these excerpts, perhaps deliberately so. Egging a house...eh? Big deal? I don't see how that is so offensive, but ok. Anyways, this book is alright, as long as its being dealt with in the appropriate age group.
"Schools are also being encouraged to have students complete surveys about bullying, including questions related to sexual orientation. "
Again, you make it unclear what the exact situation here is, which further makes me believe you are deliberately hiding facts to make this seem like a bad situation.
"Federal law requires that parents be notified of such surveys ahead of time, but PJI attorneys have found that parental notification laws are not always followed."
Once again, unclear statements. Have notifications been sent out or not? You mention that the laws are "not always followed", but make it unclear whether they have or have not been notified in this case.
By the way, Quick made a great point about traditional morality. I would also like to note that in ancient Japan, love between two men was seen as the purest form of love.