Posted on 02/09/2006 5:36:17 PM PST by Coleus
The Governor's School of North Carolina describes itself as "program for intellectually gifted high school students, integrating academic disciplines, the arts, and unique courses." But one North Carolina couple is suffering some after effects of their son's involvement in the program. Jim and Beverly Burrows say after their son attended a Governor's School seminar called "The New Gay Teenager," he began telling them he was unsure of his "sexual orientation."
The parents believe the seminar was intentionally scheduled as the last optional one before classes ended in order to leave a strong, lasting impression on the students and bypass any parental notification about the seminar.
Jim Burrows says he noticed a big difference in his otherwise normal son upon his return from the school.
"He [said he] was thinking now that he perhaps was gay -- and of course I was floored by this [pronouncement] and was, like, 'where did this come from?' This kind of came out of left field," the dad says. After questioning his son for an extended period, Burrows says he discovered the source. "I found out that this was as a result of this seminar."
According to Burrows, his son was instructed by two openly homosexual staff members of the Governor's School to question his sexuality as well as Bible passages that condemn homosexuality. And the students were also encouraged by instructors to start a Gay Straight Alliance club at their schools, he says.
The North Carolina dad explains that his son's subsequent struggle with homosexuality has turned his family upside down. "As far as our family is concerned, the damage has already been done," he laments. "There's no way that we can go back and undo what has been done."
Still, Mr. Burrows feels he needs to warn other parents of the homosexual indoctrination his son encountered at the Governor's School. "[I]f I can keep one other family from having to go through this, then all this trouble has been worthwhile," he says.
If not, was it because you weren't attracted to them, because you found the idea of homosexual sex repulsive, because homosexuality is sinful, or because they didn't offer enough?
If so, did you become a homosexual - i.e., attracted to other men - because of it, or did you just become someone who would perform homosexual acts for money & toys?
Some people are saying that the boy must have felt homosexual tendencies before the seminar, or he wouldn't have been interested in attending in the first place.
I swear, you people keep acting as if this notion that goofy awkward boys cant be led into this sort of thing. You scream like it is not plausible in the least.
When you were a goofy awkward boy, could someone have led you into this sort of thing? Did anyone?
Get an Effin clue!
Do you think using faux profanity gives your point more credibility, or is that the only way you know to express yourself?
It actually wasn't the school, it was a summer enrichment program attended by the student.
If you'll go to the link above, on the Governor's School of North Carolina, then look at the curriculum and at the "enrichment" seminars offered, you'll see that they aren't all "conservative" but many are "thought-provoking".
I don't see "The New Gay Teenager" posted as one of the enrichment seminars currently, but I wouldn't be surprised if they changed from year to year.
I also wouldn't be surprised if it was listed somewhere on the materials this family received before the student attended the Governor's School, but the parents didn't notice it.
I don't disagree with your sentiments. While I think the popularity of fiscal and economic conservatism has grown with social/cultural conservatives, I also think that it is social and cultural issues that has most contributed to the rise of the GOP in the South.
I think that many social/cultural conservatives are receptive to the Dem agenda on economic/role of govt issues. The success of the Dems in winning several Southern governorships, plus its hold on a few Senate seats proves that the Dems can win when they (a) put up someone who genuinely holds moderate-conservative views on social issues, or (b) deceive the electorate by campaigning to the right, then governing/voting to the left.
I agree that the GOP is lucky that the Dems have been so far left and so out-of-the-mainstream on social and cultural issues. Its another reason that makes the Sup Court so vitally important, and its fascinating to wonder how political dynamics might change if we were to ever attain a Sup Court that actually has fealty to the Constitution. Should that ever happen, and should it take as strong a hold as judicial activism has in the past 50 years, then I do think that the GOP might lose some of its appeal with the specter of a hostile court removed (at least temporarily that is). On the other hand, a lack of a national culture war might help Republicans in more liberal areas.
But anyway; I do think that in many Red states that the GOP's hold isn't as strong as it could be, and that it must always be wary of events conspiring to make red-state voters set aside their social and cultural values when casting their vote, because if they do, then the Dems will be in a much better position. This is what Howard Dean spends every waking moment hoping for. Books, such as "What's Wrong with Kansas" (or something like that), have been written about it. Now I'm not saying that the Dem economic/role of govt agenda is better, because in most cases I don't think it is, but its promises of more govt goodies can be alluring. Dems have trouble closing the deal, however, because its quite obvious to anyone who really examines what they are saying that their offer is that in exchange for a more generous govt largess, we must unconditionally surrender in the Culture War. They offer no compromise on reigning in the Courts, and as long it it remains unleashed, it will continue imposing the Left's unwanted social agenda.
Tony Alavarez was protected by the company we worked for and they encouraged me to befriend him. But if I hurt Tony even off hours, I would be fired. So I gave up trying to get a promotion and quit.
Marvin owned his own business that attracted teenage boys. I told everybody and their fathers what Marvin repeatedly tried to do. A friend told me he died of AIDS.
Older homosexual men will do and say just about anything to get new recruits. Many won't take "no" or "not interested" for an answer. They prey on susceptible young men. The Bob Blackford story is one where Bob didn't have a great relationship with his father and became involved in a homosexual relationship. His partner died of AIDS but not before giving it to Bob.
From the Richard Weller story:
When I was 17 years old I was recruited into the gay lifestyle by an older homosexual man. Like so many young people who get drawn into homosexuality, I was lonely, naive and vulnerable. My father was an alcoholic. My self-esteem was very low. I was easy prey for anyone who was willing to exploit my need for a fathers love.
You may find this of interest: How Might Homosexuality Develop? Putting the Pieces Together
I'm not one of them, but perhaps some of the ex-gays on this forum will tell their story.
Good.
File suit....make those asshats feel it.
Which is one reason I'd have severe qualms if my daughter wanted to marry an ex-gay.
AIDS is definitely more prevalent in the homosexual community. With trash similar to Brokeback Mountain and The New Gay Teenager where the author says:
The "New Gay Teenager" will be a person who can be attracted to both girls and boys and have sexual relationships with both sexes without guilt.I fear for the current generation of heterosexuals.
What are you saying?
When you were a goofy awkward boy, could someone have led you into this sort of thing? Did anyone?
The question is moot. First -you ignore the fact that parents and not the state decide what their children are exposed to -especially when it comes to morality -this so that you can posit your so what -what is the problem argument... Do you understand the fact that our laws recognize children as children -not as mature adults able to fend for themselves and enter into contracts etcetera... The fact that you may be willing to sacrifice children of your own in such a manner and further advocate others into making such a sacrifice for the village of liberal utopia you imagine is really not noteworthy nor relevant to this discussion which primarily entails opposing the homosexualization of society...
If you wish to turn a blind eye to this stuff then do it elsewhere...
Maybe a nice morally liberal forum would be best for you to express your liberal thoughts on?
When I was a teenager I was hit on a couple of times by older homosexuals. Even though my background was such that I did not have a close relationship with either parent, was into drugs and alcohol, and had no concept of morality, I was somehow or other saved from falling into homosexuality, although not from other vices.
Funny, each time they tried to hit on me they got me intoxicated first.
Obviously either your reading comprehension isn't very good, you haven't read the entire thread, or both.
First -you ignore the fact that parents and not the state decide what their children are exposed to
The parents allowed their son to attend this voluntary summer program put on by the state. The agenda for this summer - including the optional seminars - is posted on the website, so I'll guess the parents had access to the agenda for last summer as well, before they gave their son permission to attend.
The fact that you may be willing to sacrifice children of your own in such a manner and further advocate others into making such a sacrifice for the village of liberal utopia you imagine is really not noteworthy nor relevant to this discussion which primarily entails opposing the homosexualization of society...
I really don't think any of my children would be interested in attending an optional seminar on "The New Gay Teenager", but the father in this story was surprised that his son went. You'll notice that no one FORCED the boy to attend the OPTIONAL seminar. Wonder why he went?
Maybe a nice morally liberal forum would be best for you to express your liberal thoughts on?
That's right, any thoughts that disagree with yours are liberal and (1) can be safely ignored and (2) should probably be banned.
Well, you certainly write a lot of words for someone who apparently has done little to no reading about the subject. In order to discuss this topic, you need to study up. You can start by clicking on Scripter's profile page or some of the links he has provided.
It's not my job to educate you, the information Scripter has compiled has taken him years, and many of the sources are from "gay" websites; no on can claim it's biased. I educated myself about the reality and danger of the "gay" agenda, and you can too.
You can play pretend that homosexuals are not targeting kids even in middle school and grammar school; but no one here is fooled by your seemingly naivete.
Thanks for playing.
They search out kids who don't have close relationships with their parents. They get to know you, befriend you, etc.
Funny, each time they tried to hit on me they got me intoxicated first.
Same here. It started with them buying it for us and we thought they were cool. Then they started giving us alcohol... and just about every other drug available at the time.
That would be "seeming" naivete.
And I should have added you in the "to" box since I mentioned your name!
My favorite GOP President was Theodore Roosevelt. He recognized that the Industrial Revolution unleashed two major forces, the industrialist and the workers. He felt government cannot just sit by and let the two forces tear the country apart with unregulated capitalism and violent worker strikes. The government must use its power to balance the two conflicting forces to the benefit of the nation. Today we face unbridled globalism and social dislocation. I think the government has a role in balancing the two forces for the benefit of our nation and society. Otherwise taken to its logical conclusion, everything in the US will be outsourced or handled by low cost guest workers at the expense of our workers and self sufficiency. Example, during the war politicians complained that our forces did not have adequate armor for its supply trucks. DoD could not deliver the kits fast enough because 90 percent of the steel needed for the armor were produced in China. We are in this predicament because in the 1980's we decided to move most of our steel mills overseas to reduce the cost of manufacturing steel. Workers lost good paying jobs, and twenty years later our military could not field critically needed armor to our troops in the middle of a war. Thank God we faced Iraqi and Jihadist irregulars and not well trained fanatical North Koreans in a pitched conventional battle.
Scroll down and read what some men will do to have sex with minors (some boys and some girls).
Excellent, excellent comments. BTTT. Everyone should read the above comments.
okay, I'll click it.
But do you have an anti-dote for afterwards?
(Don't worry, I always finish up the day with some inspirational reading and prayer.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.