Dad Says His Son 'Damaged' by Homosexual Indoctrination at State-Sponsored Program

Two Christian parents say their son was a victim of homosexual indoctrination at the prestigious "Governor's School of North Carolina."

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.

But by saying people are born gay you ARE supporting the Gay Agenda. That is the very heart and soul of the Gay Agenda. The concept that homosexual desire is intrinsic to the psychology of a class of people now called "Gays" and cannot be altered.

Liberals like to blur the lines between genetics and culture. This is quite visible when looking at African Americans and "Black" culture. It's unfair to discriminate against someone because he acts like a gangsta, because the person has no control over the fact that he's Black. Never mind the fact that someone who's Black but refuses to subscribe to the gangsta culture will be accused of "acting white".

Ultimately, adults are responsible for their own actions; children often are too, but to a lesser extent. If someone is genetically predisposed to be attracted to prepubescent children but never acts upon such attraction, the person should be free to live in society. If such a person acts upon such attraction and becomes a child molester, the person should be locked up whether or not they were "born that way".

If you tell people that they are genetically-predisposed to molesting children or genetically predisposed to failure in heterosexual relationships, you are damming them with no hope.

Suppose, hypothetically, it were discovered that a particular person possessed a gene that would cause him to be attracted to prepubescent children.

Liberals would use such a discovery to eliminate laws against child molesting since they "can't help it".

Conservatives should use such a discovery to suggest that such people work extra hard to avoid yielding to their desires.

Further, I would think it likely that genetics play a major role in sexual attraction. After all, some people are attracted to women and others to men. While it's true that most of the former are male and most of the latter, female, there's no reason I can see to believe that genetically that must be the case 100% of the time (there are many sex-related traits that usually, but not always, go together; I see no reason to believe attraction wouldn't be among them).

Supercat

Suppose a gene were discovered that suggested certain people have an inborn tendency to post e-mails on political web sites with a right-wing slant late at night?

Suppose cows grew wings and stared to fly?

It ain't going to happen. There is no gene which predisposes people to attraction to little kids or to exclusive attraction to members of the same sex.

The relationship between genetics and sexual attraction is complex but to say that a particular gene causes pedophilia or homosexuality is reductionist thinking and a vast oversimplification.

Consider this: identical twins share the same exact genes, but just because one identical twin becomes homosexual it doesn't mean his sibling will.

I do believe that we inherit a certain, more basic nature. Some boys are more sensitive. Given a certain environment (absent or weak father, poor relationships with peers, child hood trauma such as being molested) such a boy may develop homosexual attractions.

It's a complex topic, one that I've read a lot about and that I have first hand experience with. Will discuss some other time. In the meantime, remember the words to an old song: For every man there's a woman, That says it a lot simpler and more directly.

Wow... ok. First, I know they are not your actual friends. How well does anyone know a pseudo name on a screen? Yes, because you agree I said they were your friends knowing full well that they probably aren't. Didnt know it would upset you so much... of all the things to respond to?

Look, you accused me of making certain comments.

I said I didn't, then you said I didn't, but "my friends" did, and implied that I was complicit in the statements that we now agree I didn't make.

I didn't make the comments you accused me of, I had nothing to do with it, and attacking me based on comments I didn't make is disingenuous AT BEST.

I didnt comment on the actual numbers but rather on the likelihood of audience numbers being higher because of the teachings. Maybe I should have said "could have been more heavily attended" but I doubt the semantics of the question change the answer.

In other words, more misrepresentation, if not making things up out of whole cloth.

You don't know what the attendence was, and the article doesn't say.So dad thought that this questioning of his sons sexuality was a result of the seminar, which would be in tune with what the actual goals of the seminar were.

Dad thought so, and perhaps it's possible. Or perhaps Dad & Son were looking for a scapegoat, and the seminar was certainly handy.

The question is whether attending the seminar was a cause or an effect, and I'm not sure we know.

It's pretty much against the rules, as I understand them.

FR, as I understand it, is a website for conservative thought and discussion and for furthering the conservative agenda.

As I understand it, this basically involves returning our country to a more constitutional basis; i.e. basing government on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - in other words, reducing the size, scope, and reach of the Federal Government. That is why I'm a conservative.

There's also the group who feel the purpose of conservatism is to return this country to moral-Biblical principles.

Sometimes there is conflict between the two groups, because sometimes attempting to legislate morality results in a larger, more intrusive government.

Of course, that's probably all a debate for a different thread.

My personal beliefs about homosexuality, insofar as they might be pertinent to this thread and whether or not I might be "furthering the homosexual agenda", are thus:

1. Although some people may experiment with homosexuality during the teenaged or early adult years, most people are essentially born with their basic sexual orientation or develop it at a very young age.

2. While homosexuals shouldn't be oppressed, neither should they be granted exceptional rights. For instance, marriage is protected because it's been found to be the best method of perpetuating the society by raising children. Since homosexual marriage by definition doesn't perpetuate society, society has no interest in protecting it.

3. As long as only consenting adults are involved I don't think government has any business in anyone's bedroom. As a corollary, I don't really want to know what other people do in their bedrooms, and I'd just as soon they not tell me.

Amelia, You are entitled to your beliefs about homosexuality, but if you think you are not furthering the "Gay" agenda (and the harm it does society) you are fooling yourself.

One doesn't have to be a Christian Fundamentalist who seeks to return our country to moral-biblical principles to see homosexuality as harmful. I saw my best friend from college die from AIDs. When they lowered the coffin into the ground, I got the impression homosexual behavior was not a good thing

There is no evidence that homosexuality is inborn, that is genetically programmed from birth. Going way back, even Freud observed that infants are capable of showing affection to both men and women.

Homosexuality results from a complex of interaction of factors, too complicated to get into here. And of course, it's different for every individual to some degree, But a child with a inherently sensitive nature who has a distant relationship with his father, an overly close relationship with his mother, poor relationship with peers of the same sex (not one of the guys) is at risk for becoming homosexual (I am talking about male homosexuality here). It is too be noted that a disproportionately high percentage of people who become homosexual were molested as children.

A key part of the Gay Agenda (and it is an agenda) is to emphasize the inherent, inborn aspects of homosexuality and to dismiss the environmental and learned factors. Why? In order to secure their rights such as anti-discrimination laws and "Gay Marriage," they have to prove that homosexuality is innate and immutable.

Homosexuality is not an innate, immutable condition. Sexuality can and does evolve over time. Sensitive adolescents who find themselves developing early homosexual feelings should be taught that IF THEY WANT they can grow past their homosexual feelings into mature heterosexuality. They have a choice. This is significant. Of course, adolescents need also to be told that sex is not the most important aspect in life and that our society over emphasizes it. This is where courses like "The New Gay Teenager" are doing the greatest harm.

You say the government has no interest in what consenting adults do in the bedroom. A question: Should a grown adult male be legally allowed to have sex with his grown adult sister? If the answer is no, please explain the government's interest in preventing this relationship, if it consensual by both parties. Don't say it's to prevent the birth of children with genetic defects. In this day and age of birth control and abortion, that problem is easily taken care of.

Amelia, You are entitled to your beliefs about homosexuality, but if you think you are not furthering the "Gay" agenda (and the harm it does society) you are fooling yourself.

As a former liberal, I think many conservatives fail to realize a few important things in their arguments. One is that people who want to be compassionate--at that includes many liberals--have a tendency to side with those they see as oppressed. Many conservatives make the mistake of appearing to want to oppress people who happen to be "born a certain way". By staking out a ground which is better than the status quo, Amelia is avoiding that particular trap.

Rather than trying to argue whether tendencies are inborn or not, it's far more important to make clear that people are responsible for their own behavior regardless of any inborn tendencies they may have. If someone has a genetic trait that predisposes them toward obesity (and there almost certainly are some genetic factors there), should such a person decide they shouldn't worry about their weight, or should such a person expend extra effort to control it?

One of the fundamental liberal messages is that if the deck is stacked against you, no matter how feebly you play you won't really "lose" because the game wasn't fair anyway. Conservatives need to make clearer that if the stack is stacked against you, that implies a need to play harder. Only if they play well can any claim about a stacked deck be taken seriously (though if they win, the point may be moot).

Conservatives need to make clear that not all inborn predispositions are good; that someone has a predisposition toward a certain behavior does not mean that they should simply succomb to it. Rather than arguing the liberals' premise regarding natent homosexuality, conservatives should more agressively point out that if such premise is accepted the proper response is the opposite of what liberals propose.

Supercat,

I hear you but I think there are factors you are overlooking. This is not just a liberal conservative thing, it also about one's overall compassion and humanity. I agree that personal responsibility is important but it's not the only thing that matters.

Let me give another example, I've known a couple hardened. sociopathic criminals in my time. Man these dudes are something else. They will literally sell their mothers to advance themselves. They also have tremendous confidence in themselves. You can't believe what they are like until you know them (it's not like TV or the movies). Now these men had traumatic abusive childhoods. But I suppose there is something in there genes that predisposes them to react to their environment aggressively, to fight rather than run, to not feel guilt etc.

Now we can't just say to these men, "well, it's all in your genes, go out and rob banks and kill and maim people, because you can't help yourselves."

Homosexuality is different because it's basically a consenting adult issue. Of course, that is why, in a secular, hyper-sexed society, much of the debate around homosexuality focuses on what we teach children about it. Even if thousands of men will die from AIDs as a consequence of homosexual behavior, society no longer makes any attempt to help these men leave homosexuality.

That's the way it is. But we must not forget that people are influenced by the messages they receive from the media, educators and society in general. If we constantly tell people that they have no choice in their behavior, we are damming them, giving up on them.

The outlook that people don't have free will is doing incredible harm to people. We are telling people to give up on themselves.

Yes Supercat personal responsibility is important but it's not the only thing. People need to be told that there is always hope, that one can always make changes for the better. To deny free will, choice, new possibilities is to damn humanity. This is another important fact that society is forgetting.

One doesn't have to be a Christian Fundamentalist who seeks to return our country to moral-biblical principles to see homosexuality as harmful.

I never said it was a good thing. Obviously there are health risks, especially for those who don't maintain monogamy, and there are also the societal aspects - most societies & cultures find homosexuality to be at least less preferable than heterosexuality, and sometimes socially unacceptable, if not downright illegal.

It's not in society's best interest to promote homosexuality as a choice, if nothing else because it does nothing to perpetuate the society, since homosexual sex does not result in children.

If it's a choice, it doesn't seem logical that it would be the first choice of very many people (and as a matter of fact, the percentage of the total population that is homosexual is thought to be quite low).

There is no evidence that homosexuality is inborn, that is genetically programmed from birth.

Actually, there is some evidence that genetics do play a factor, although there are thought to be environmental influences as well. This site mentions studies that support Supercat's hypothesis of a genetic factor carried on the X chromosome.

Here and here are other sites which discuss the scientific evidence in regards to nature & nurture. All agree that we're not yet sure of the cause, but that genetic and environmental factors are probably involved.

Please note there are plenty of other sites discussing this. I just grabbed 3 of the first ten in a Google search.

You say the government has no interest in what consenting adults do in the bedroom. A question: Should a grown adult male be legally allowed to have sex with his grown adult sister? If the answer is no, please explain the government's interest in preventing this relationship, if it consensual by both parties. Don't say it's to prevent the birth of children with genetic defects. In this day and age of birth control and abortion, that problem is easily taken care of.

I suspect that many of our legal and moral prohibitions have biological bases. As you've pointed out, there is an obvious reason for the prohibition on incest.

I have a question for you: if the government is interested in preventing this relationship, how would you suggest they go about (1) detecting the relationship and (2) punishing it?

Amelia,

This is from an article entitled "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science"

Take it from the words of the scientists who did that did the research you are referring to (many of these scientists are Gay themselves and openly admit that they seek to advance the Gay agenda):

Researcher Dean Hamer (1993), attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located a the tip of the X chromosome, the chromosome that some men inherit from their mothers. Referring to that research, Hamer offered some conclusions regarding genetics and homosexuality.

"We knew that genes were only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors..."(Hamer and Copeland, 1994, p. 82).

"Homosexuality is not purely genetic...environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay...I don't think we will ever predict who will be gay" (Mitchell, 1995).

Citing the failure of their research, Hamer & Copeland further write,

"The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants" (1994, p. 104).

What's more interesting is that when Hamer's study was duplicated by Rice et al with research that was more robust, the genetic markers were found to be nonsignificant. Rice et al concluded:

"It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer's original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position XQ 28" (Rice et al, 1999, p.667).

Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research:

"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.

"The INAH 3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior....Since I looked at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later." (Nimmons, 1994, p. 64).

Indeed, in commenting on the brain and sexual behavior, Dr. Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that sexual behavior can actually change brain structure. Referring to his research, Breedlove states:

"These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case-that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. [I]t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain" (Breedlove, 1997, p. 801).

Our Perception of Science Alters Politics

LeVay made an interesting observation about the emphasis on the biology of homosexuality. He noted, "...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights" (1996, p. 282)

The third study, which was conducted by Bailey and Pillard, focused on twins. They found a concordance (both twins homosexual) rate of 52% among identical twins, 22% among non-identical twins and a 9.2 % among non-twins. This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual (1991).

Prominent research teams Byne and Parsons, and also Friedman and Downey, each concluded that there was no evidence to support a biologic theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where "temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges" (Byne and Parsons, 1993; Friedman and Downey, 1993).

I said I didn't, then you said I didn't, but "my friends" did, and implied that I was complicit in the statements that we now agree I didn't make. I didn't make the comments you accused me of, I had nothing to do with it, and attacking me based on comments I didn't make is disingenuous AT BEST.

This is what I said to clarify...I didnt say you specifically. YOU prefer to look away from facts and evidence. While your friends ask me if I'm gay or my kids are....Seems clear to me that I am not implying that you said anything, I said you prefer to look away, while your "friends" call me and mine gay. So it is hardly disingenuous considering that I went back and clarified things specifically for you.

In other words, more misrepresentation, if not making things up out of whole cloth. In other completely false words, maybe. What I was saying, what you are accusing me of fabricating, is that the seminar was (PAY CLOSE ATTENTION) likelyto have been attended more heavily because the content of the summer was designed to encourage the sort of "open mindedness" that is inherent in homosexual apologists and those who would attend such a seminar.

You don't know what the attendance was, and the article doesn't say I never claimed to, all I did was comment on the likelihood based on the facts presented. Again, the school said it promotes "unique thinking" and a few other buzz words, so it seems logical that, because the seminar was at the end of the year, students who would not have originally attended did then attend based on the BS theories of open-mindedness and acceptance that were taught. This is not some far-fetched conspiracy, it is very likely?

The question is whether attending the seminar was a cause or an effect, and I'm not sure we know. We dont know for sure, but we do now a few things.
1- The kid showed no signs before he left for the school.
2- The school lists its goals (see post 154). specifically... In a world of rapid change, the study of recent theories creates an increased open-mindedness to that which is new, engendering an acceptance of the process of change itself.
3- The goal of the seminar is to make teenagers question their sexuality.
4- The seminar was at the end of the term.
5- The writer of The New Gay Teenager acknowledges that the growth of homosexuality among kids is due in part to the saturation of homosexuality through entertainment/culture.

So you can continue to dissect my posts line by line and find a way to attack them or be offended by them or you can look at the facts. Specifically the goal of the seminar (modeled after the book) and tell me how the planners of the seminar did exactly what they were hoping to, cast doubt in this young boys mind about himself and his sexuality, the the curriculum of the school and the seminar itself did not have anything to do with this kids current state of confusion.

To be quite honest, I'm getting pretty sick of typing to you on account of your blatant disregard for evidence consideration and your propensity to argue the way in which points are made rather than the points themselves. I'm considering making this my last post to you, because it is painfully obvious that you will find something else to talk about when your house of cards argument is toppled.

This is from an article entitled "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science"

You'll notice that the article is published by NARTH, which also has an agenda here. Although it is an agenda you agree with, they can't be said to be totally disinterested & unbiased either.

However, the article you quote states (as I said above) that both biological and environmental factors are involved, in the second paragraph:

First of all-although the issue is enormously complex and simply cannot be reduced to a matter of nature vs. nature-the answer to that debate is probably "yes" - it is likely that homosexual attraction, like many other strong attractions, includes both biological and environmental influences.

The third study, which was conducted by Bailey and Pillard, focused on twins. They found a concordance (both twins homosexual) rate of 52% among identical twins, 22% among non-identical twins and a 9.2 % among non-twins. This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual (1991).

Most researchers interpret those results to mean that genetic factors are involved (or else identical twins and fraternal twins would have more similar incidences, which would be closer to the incidences among non-twins), but that environmental factors also play a role.

Amelia,

Think about this. As you write, the same study shows that concordance rates for homosexuality were 22% among non-identical twins and a 9.2 % among non-twins. Now non-identical wins have no more genes in common than non-twin siblings, so if genetic factors were predominant these rates would be equal. What accounts for the difference? Why would a non-identical twin be more likely to share homosexuality than a non-twin sibling?

Logic suggests that non-identical twins share more environmental factors than non-twin siblings (because they are same age and may look similar, for example, parents may be more likely to treat them alike). This suggests a strong role for environmental factors for the development of homosexuality.

More recently, there was an Australian study which showed only a 21% concordance rate for homosexuality among identical twins, which is low as far as twin studies go.

Listen, we could go on and on about this. Human beings are physiological creatures. All aspects of behavior have a physical component. But we are also shaped by our experiences, by learning. Recent studies in neuroscience show that experience and learning have an actual physical effect on the neurological structure of the brain.

Those aspects of our behavior that are purely biological are something we can't change. More productive, more hopeful, and more positive to focus on the things we can change, which believe me is a lot, plenty of work for this lifetime.

Which brings us back to the original article. It is cruel and untrue to tell a sensitive adolescent who is experiencing homosexual feelings that they have no choice, that they are condemned to a "Gay" lifestyle. That may have been what the father in the article was reacting to. It is cruel and also a lie.

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.