High School Same-Sex Marriage Curriculum Anything But Balanced
A new same-sex marriage curriculum for high schools is running into scholarly opposition from three authors led by noted sexual orientation researcher Warren Throckmorton, Ph.D.
Throckmorton, Gary Welton, Ph.D. and student Mike Ingram wrote a white paper that examines the curriculum produced by The Gay Lesbian Straight Educational Network (GLSEN) entitled “At Issue: Marriage. Exploring the Debate Over Rights for Same Sex Marriage.”
The Gay Lesbian Straight Educational Network released its curriculum in 2003 designed to be used over a two to three week instructional period by high school teachers. The GLSEN web site urges high schools to be involved in same sex marriage education stating, “Along with parents and care takers, schools must take a leading role in providing accurate information about same-sex relationships …”
"Our curriculum is designed to give them (students) a fair and balanced set of resources concerning gay marriage..." said GLSEN Director Kevin Jennings on FOXNEWs' “O’Reilly Factor.” Host Bill O'Reilly then asked, "So you give them both sides in this?" Mr. Jennings, replied, "Absolutely."
The white paper, “Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ and Schools: Critical Review of the GLSEN Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Curriculum,” found the opposite to be true stating, “The curriculum would more aptly be titled ‘How to Advocate for Gay Marriage: A Teachers Guide.’ The curriculum clearly points students to one conclusion: A truly fair and educated person will support same sex marriage.”
Throckmorton adds that of the 18 references offered in the GLSEN curriculum, 14 are pro-same sex marriage, three are somewhat neutral on the subject and only one reference to a Vatican pronouncement is in favor of traditional marriage.
The white paper recommends that schools pass on adopting the GLSEN curriculum.
“The GLSEN authors may have meant well, but the curriculum is anything but fair and balanced. We document multiple instances where the curriculum is slanted, misleading and even coercive,” Throckmorton said.
Warren Throckmorton is an associate professor of psychology and director of counseling at Grove City College, Gary Welton, professor of psychology at Grove City College and Mike Ingram is a student at Grove City College and a research assistant for the Truth Comes Out Project.
Documentation - see GLSEN's "At Issue: Marriage - Exploring the Debate Over Marriage Rights for Same-Sex Couples" and judge for yourself. Here's an excerpt:
"As the nation awaits the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court on the right of same-sex couples to civil marriage, educators are the presented with an opportunity to teach students about one of the most significant civil and human rights issues of our time...
Lesson 1: What Is Marriage For? In her book What is Marriage For? E.J. Graff describes marriage as "a kind of Jerusalem, an archaeological site on which the present is constantly building over the past, letting history’s many layers twist and tilt into today’s walls and floors." Indeed the institution of marriage has changed dramatically over the centuries to reflect evolving understandings of family, money, sex, love, and power. In this lesson, students are challenged to discern some of those understandings from specific laws and customs of different eras. Students are then asked to examine current practices and to determine the extent to which they reflect modern understandings of marriage...
It should be noted that E.J. Graff is a lesbian author. This "curriculum" is more GLSEN propaganda.
On February 11, 2004, Kevin Jennings, the president of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, appeared on the Fox News program “The O’Reilly Factor” to discuss what he called GLSEN’s “new” marriage curriculum for schools. He claimed it was developed in response to recent events for schools to utilize in lessons exploring the issue of same sex marriage. When asked by Bill O’Reilly if it presented both sides of the issue, Jennings answered, “Absolutely.”
The reality is that Jennings is ‘absolutely’ full of baloney. Once more, Jennings and GLSEN are not being honest. The curriculum is not at all objective but radically biased toward a pro-homosexual viewpoint. It distorts the information it provides, withholds vital additional information, and slickly manipulates student sympathies. The curriculum is also not new. We first reviewed this curriculum in 2001. It has been updated but is largely the same material.
The limitations of the GLSEN curriculum are numerous, and this material is not at all appropriate to fashion into a teaching unit for students. Titled “At Issue: Marriage,” the curriculum is problematic for these reasons:...
6. The influence on youth of legalizing same sex marriage is minimized, and opposition depicted as needlessly fearful and backward.
Lesson 4 is called “The Notion of Influence” (emphasis in original). Students are presented the text of the children’s book Daddy’s Roommate along with news accounts of a pro-family group’s attempts to remove it from a library. The news account is predictably slanted against the traditional view. Students also read a letter to a newspaper advice column in which a woman asks whether to allow her nine-year-old daughter to be the flower girl at her uncle’s same sex “wedding.” Among the questions for discussion, is the following loaded query:
“Encourage students to think carefully about the consequences of sheltering children from different people and experiences. No matter what our moral stance is on any particular issue, we all have to cohabitate in a world with others who look, think and behave differently. Are we really doing young people a service when we shield them from this inevitable diversity?”(Emphasis added)...
7. The United Nations “Declaration of Human Rights” is presented to students and falsely depicted as justifying same sex marriage because it calls for ‘dignity,’ marriage and family rights and decries ‘discrimination.’
In a brazen twisting of the intent of this 1948 document, GLSEN again tries to construct a civil right for sodomy and same sex marriage when the document never intended for such interpretations. In fact, homosexual activists have tried (so far unsuccessfully) to amend the UN Declaration to re-cast the definition of key words to cover acceptance of homosexuality.
Students are told to evaluate the actions of the Vermont legislature in light of this document in an attempt to bring the U.S. to “justice” by international standards outside our country. Yet, as indicated above, this document has not been revised to support homosexual unions. Again, students are given a meaningless exercise based on false information and even asked to violate U.S. sovereignty, yet they are shielded from very important truth about how far anal sex is from “dignity...”
10. The curriculum resource list is dominated by homosexual activist group web sites and contains no sources which support traditional values.
Among the resources provided are National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders..."