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.
It might have. I've gone to events I wasn't interested in with the promise of meeting someone with whom to suggest hobbies, etc. Never got particularly burned by it (aside from being "stood up" by non-existent people) but I could easily imagine such an approach working to get me to such an event. And based upon what I've read of Delphi techniques they can be effective even on people who aren't particularly interested in the subject.
I would expect that genetic differences contribute to different people experiencing different degrees of attraction to males and females, but experience and environment also play a significant role.
There may well be some males who are genetically predisposed to be attracted to other men but not women, and nothing in their environment could change that. There are probably many more, however, where the genetic predisposition is weak enough that experience and environment could cause them to go "either way".
If two grown men whose sexuality is already firmly established want to engage in sexual relations with each other, provided they do so discretely and don't spread disease, I don't care. But for them to target people whose sexuality is not firmly established is IMHO abhorrent.
If sexual predisposition falls on a bell curve, as I would expect it probably does, that would suggest that there are many more people who are weakly predisposed one way or the other than there are people who are strongly predisposed to be homosexual. So it would be clear why such people would be of interest to the homosexual community.
Like I said multiple times on this forum, if you are saturated with something long enough you become desensitized to it. (See violence on TV, what would have made my mother cringe when she was a teenager is far surpassed by what is seen daily on broadcast television)
As I have followed this thread I'm not sure if it was mentioned but did any of you "he was gay to begin with, why would a straight kid go there if.. blah blah.. no speech can turn you gay" people, did you ever stop to think that this event at the end of the summer was a culmination of the assault on the children's mindsets? You think for a minute that this program that encourages "diversity of thought" (codewords for moral relativism) didn't plant the seeds in this and many other kids heads for the duration of their stay with the program?? You have to be complete dolt if you believe that these teachers, especially the 2 speaking at the lecture, hadn't at least hinted about homosexuality and its "bad rap" its been given. These places are beacons of "free thinkers" who would tear a kid apart for saying anything that didn't agree with there "If it makes you happy" attitude.
This thread has really been an eye opener as to the lengths someone will go to fight something that has been utterly destroyed by logic and proof. Its sad, really. I know that I will continue to call a spade a spade. These sponsored gay events have no business in the public school arena. To see what happens to those that dissent, look up the guy in New England who opposed his elementary school kid getting a book about having 2 mommies. Its time to open peoples eyes,
Almost every single web server on the internet logs that information. Free Republic certainly does as well.
First of all, there are many destructive behaviors that people engage in that meet your description; culture can play a very big role.
But more significantly, I don't know that homosexuality would necessarily have "no evolutionary basis". I can certainly hypothesize ways in which it could have.
For example, imagine that there exist is a gene, "Unusual attraction to males" which when present in a male, will predispose him to homosexuality, but which when present in a female will cause her to be even more strongly attracted to males than usual. If the gene's effect on reproductive success happens to be more significant in females than males, the gene will be on the whole evolutionarily beneficial. Even if the direct effects of the gene on the female aren't that advantageous, a woman might receive some benefits from having a brother who's not involved with his own family (e.g. someone to protect her until she finds a mate, etc.)
Given that reproductive success is to some degree a competitive matter, it would seem that the more widespread an "unusual attraction to males" gene is among a population, the smaller its benefit to female carriers and the greater its detriment to male carriers. Thus, even if the gene was on the whole beneficial to its carriers when it appears rarely, evolution would probably tend to limit its density.
I'm hardly a geneticist, but it would seem more logical to expect that a particular gene would shift the attractions of males and females in the same direction than that it would simultaneously cause men to be attracted to men and women to be attracted to women. And if such a hypothesis is correct, it would suggest some evolutionary basis for the gene's continued existence.
Were U.S. citizens in 1941-1945 "Naziphobes"?
did you ever stop to think that this event at the end of the summer was a culmination of the assault on the children's mindsets?
Some of the pro-gay folks on this forum apparently can't think in that way. I say that because they may know homosexuals who aren't radical so they dismiss all evidence of the growing homosexual agenda.
This thread has really been an eye opener as to the lengths someone will go to fight something that has been utterly destroyed by logic and proof.
Indeed. Some here will apparently stoop extremely low in an attempt to justify their own worldview.
Obviously you didn't read my post #226.
If you'll read back, you'll see that I am not "promoting the gay lifestyle" as some here have claimed, but I do believe the student in question must have had some interest in it BEFORE he attended the OPTIONAL seminar on "The New Gay Teenager".
You'll also see that I felt including that seminar and a few others were a bit questionable, but since the offered courses for next summer are available on the internet, I felt it very possible that the parents could and should have known what their child might be exposed to before they gave him permission to attend this voluntary summer program.
What part of that exactly do you disagree with?
It's crystal clear that Amelia is here to promote the homosexual agenda; all the classic talking points and faux debate style are being trotted out one after another.
They need to issue a new version of "Gay Agenda Promoting for Dummies" handbook, the old one is so predictable.
I certainly didn't mean the post as an insult. My expectation was that scripter would say that he had absolutely no interest in those propositions and rejected them outright (and maybe punched those who propositioned him) because he was purely 200% heterosexual.
You'll notice that he's the one who brought the propositions into the forum, not me.
Scripter, I apologize, because I know I said I wouldn't post to you again, but since lentulusgracchus brought your name into this, I hate to post about you without pinging you. If your name comes up again, I'll try to ignore the post entirely.
I don't support or promote the homosexual agenda. I do try to use logical thought processes, and I don't see bogeymen behind everything that I disagree with.
Anyway, who died and left you in charge? If you'll notice, I've been here longer than you have.
Please show me where I've asked if you were gay or mentioned anything about your children.
If you don't like reading my posts, and feel they are a waste of your time, by all means skip them and read someone else's.
That's an interesting hypothesis, and on the face of it appears logical, although I'm not a geneticist either.
Several years back I read that some scientists had also proposed a viral cause. They had found at that point that several cancers were caused by virii (perhaps in conjunction with genetic predispositions) and were proposing possible viral triggers for diabetes and homosexuality, among other things. I don't know if they've done further study or what they might have found.
"Maybe he should spread a rumor that these gay instructors were interpreting Koran passages. That would bring the program to a screeching halt."
- No... they'd get more funding!
Ad hominem, and pretty close to a sanity slur.
How many homosexuals on the other side of this issue have you accused, directly or indirectly, of being slightly unhinged by their homosexual "demons"?
Got post? Got a link?
LOL! I went to NC Governor's School West (GS '89) and was there when they were just breaking through the homo taboo.
My Area 3 instructor was an AIDS activist and total out of the closet homosexual (big deal back then), and there was even a student who "came out" in a complete non-sequitor in the middle of an article he wrote for the school newsletter.
Weird stuff all around...sounds like it's gone even more lefty since then.
Is there anyone on FR who admits to being homosexual?
Can one be an admitted homosexual and still be a FReeper, or is it against the rules?
"I was just refuting the notion that the simple exposure to a distasteful idea is going to turn someone to the dark side ala Annakin Skywalker."
These programs aren't 'simple exposure'. They are indoctrination at a time when kids are weak and confused. Just like drug addicts, Homos need and desire to convert new young recruits. Misery loves company and all that. Several tried to 'recruit' me when I was under age and if I let them have their way it would have been child molestation. Is attempted child molestation OK with you???
It's against US code, which makes it a federal offense.
We should definitely be wiretapping them, then.
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.