Replies

In rereading the article what he does is insinuates early on that homeschoolers have a special concern.

He doesn't insinuate that - he comes right out and says it: "To begin, I would say that I think home-schooled children have a particular vulnerability for a number of reasons. The primary reason, especially for the boy (and I'll be focusing primarily on boys), is that it isolates him from his peers."

To me, that isn't an attack. It's an observation and an inherently true statement.

But it has the feel of an attack on homeschoolers. You read it and you get the impression he is linking the two. Otherwise, why even bring homeschooling up.

I think that he explains the reason that he brings up homeschooling when he says, "In fact, I'm working right now with a number of parents who are concerned about symptoms what we call pre-homosexual symptoms or gender-identity confusion and a number of these parents are homeschooling these children. The problem that they all complain about is that their son does not have access to boys his age and cannot participate in the kinds of ordinary activities of boys, like sports and sleepovers and just getting together and playing. I think that's a critical factor."

To me, that isn't an attack. It's an observation and an inherently true statement.

Show some data. This article and you are full of crap. This is another stealthy hit piece on homeschooling and socialization. Boys need their mothers and they need a strong father that will show them where the boundaries are in the life. It is very black and white. It starts with a firm belief in God. The family unit is the first government that a child is exposed to...they will either respect authority or they will be lost to anarchy. Look at the men that are in jail or living as sodomites...I will find the link for you that their fathers were not present in their lives. This article takes a huge leap, by lumping homeschoolers in with this group.