Posted on 02/08/2010 9:57:05 AM PST by ethical
Press Release February 7, 2010 Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings Favorite Book for Teens Too Lewd for Seattle Times
Newspaper says they can’t print quotes from the book because they are a family newspaper.
GLSEN founder Kevin Jennings has been “queering” public schools for years. Supposedly to help kids struggling with homosexual desires feel “safe”. But Jennings didn’t limit his target group to homosexual teens. He wanted to include what he calls “questioning youth”. GLSEN’s “ Try it. You just might like it.” Target group.
One of the books Jennings wants placed in every middle & high school is “Two Teenagers in Twenty”. In 1999 the Seattle chapter of GLSEN helped get that book in to Seattle Public Schools. Parents objected. At the time School Superintendent Joseph Olchefske disagreed with us. He found the book to “be absolutely consistent with an educational theme”. (Seattle Gay News February 1999)
The book is a collection of essays, purportedly written by homosexual teens. Under the guise of offering advice and encouragement several of them detail sexual encounters they enjoyed as children and teens, sometimes with adults! They are presented as fond memories, not as risky behavior or molestation. One writer tells the reader, “I often wonder how people can say it’s [homosexuality’s] wrong if they have never tried it.” (pg 61) Any “questioning youth” out there?
A concerned parent wrote an opinion piece for the Seattle Times challenging the wisdom of Olchefske’s decision. The best way to make her case was to simply repeat what was in the book. An editor at the Times said he’d print what she wrote but only if she removed the verbatim quotes she’d included from the book. Why? The Seattle Times was a family newspaper. The quotes were too lewd.
Attached are some of the verbatim quotes the Seattle Times found so offensive. Read them. Kevin Jennings is after your children. And it has nothing to do with safety.
Prepared by Parents and Teachers for Responsible Schools Press contact: Linda Jordan Seattle Washington
Quotes from ‘Two Teenagers in Twenty’ Kevin Jennings Wants This Book In Your Kids School (PTRS comments after each quote)
“We went to my place and went in, and this time Fred [an adult] was home. I asked him if Ray could stay the night; he said yes and then went into the bedroom. He came back with sheets and a small tube of KY stuck inside a towel. He also handed me the keys to a vacant apartment…Ray slipped his hand over onto my lap and gave me a look of genuine surprise. He then apologized for not being “well hung”. My lord, when I finally got his clothes off, I discovered he was hung like a Greek god.” (pg36) A 17 year old boy remembers the “support” he got from an adult as a younger teen. Why does Kevin Jennings want your teenager to get this kind of encouragement?
“I first became sexually active with my playmates…We were human beings who had no social inhibitions and were willing to explore our sexuality to it’s fullest extent. I managed to avoid contracting venereal disease through all my toddler and pre-teen years. From early childhood, my sex life continued fervently for years without disruption.” (pg138) Who did Jennings think this child was having sex with? Children don’t pass on venereal diseases, adults do. The message: Start having sex, the younger the better.
“…His name was Claude. I had met him once before and could tell he was gay. As he was cutting my hair, his crotch kept pushing itself into my shoulder. It was definitely a turn-on, and at that moment I came to the conclusion that I could be nothing but gay. Claude, where ever you are, thank you for that meaningful shove that helped me make up my mind who I am.” (pg30) Sounds like a grade B porno writer on loan from Hustler magazine, not a teenager. GLSEN has lots of connections to pornography.
“I had gone to a youth group, but the one I went to was full of hustlers and queens. So I began to go out to bars, porno houses for gays etc.” (pg89) Gay bars & porno houses are much “safer” than youth groups. Sounds like Jennings wants to make sure that older men have access to young boys.
‘I was thirteen and a freshman when I met my first lover, Carla…After a few months, the relationship began to get physical.” (pg58) Jennings thinks it’s great for this girl to fondly recall sex she had at 13 and offers it as encouragement to your teenager. Could heterosexuals get away with that in middle school?
“I had been having sex with a man since I was fourteen, but I thought it was just a phase…” (pg17) Later this boy determines (at 17) that he is homosexual. Hey Kevin, do you think the fact that a grown man had been molesting him since he was fourteen had anything to do with this conclusion? Naaaa. He was just mentoring him, right?
“The easiest thing to do is to get discouraged…Try to recapture how happy your gay feelings make you…or remember how it feels to be with your lover. If you haven’t had a lover yet, well then, you have something to look forward to.” (pg77) We assume that you’ve been getting it on but if you haven’t, well then, you’re missing out. And if this lifestyle makes you depressed have some sex to take your mind off it.
“But my first real affair was with a much older man…he shared his experience with me, and his love, and I grew.” (pg23) Right Kevin, what grew was the older man’s penis. This is another boy, 17, recalling the “guidance” he got from a “much older man” when he was a young teenager.
Prepared by: Parents and Teachers for Responsible Schools, Seattle WA Contact: Linda Jordan
By your standard, then, child porn, child abuse, public indecency are just opinions rooted in some ancient societal hang up. If we are not to judge homosexuality as wrong, then who are we to judge sex with a child as wrong? Or child porn?
And what exactly constitutes *child abuse*? Religious teaching like the likes of Dawkins states? Spanking? Yelling? Where do you draw the line?
And why should public indecency be considered *indecent* if not for some Victorian era hang ups about the human body? Who's to say that is wrong?
We need to be open minded and accepting of those who like child porn and walking around naked. After all, it's all about freedom and liberty and being able to express oneself, isn't it?
So why are you so narrow minded as to want to take a dull knife to those who practice child porn, child abuse, public indecency? Aren't you the great advocate of protecting and defending the free exchange of ideas?
Not trying to be sarky (this time, really), but isn't this a *bit* of a stretch? I mean, equating wearing a uniform to the act of looking for sex is a little demeaning to millions of heterosexuals who go bar hopping in uniform and every woman who ever uttered the phrase "I think men in uniform are SO handsome!".
kAcknor, what is it like having your beliefs held to your own standards? Have you the intestinal fortitude to answer?
Last I heard beastiality is illegal. Homosexual sex is not.
I’m sure your just taking your time to formulate your answers to all those other posts.
We’re waiting.
No, because the men and women do not share sleeping and shower facilities, as in men or women only housing.
That keeps the sexes apart and reduces the interaction between the sexes. That barrier is removed by allowing men who are sexually attracted to other men in close quarters.
They keep men and women apart for that basic reason and with the gays serving openly in the military, it allows sex to be the distraction they are trying to prevent it from being by separating men and women.
THAT’s what contributes to being bad for morale, again, aside from the fact that not too many straight guys I’ve ever met would be very comfortable, or complimented, by being hit on by a gay.
It used to be.
But with this free exchange of ideas that we are supposed to have, it's time to make bestiality legal so those who like to practice it can serve openly in the military as well.
It used to be illegal and listed as a sexual deviance. Homosexuals threw tantrums until it was removed from the list. If you are so pro freedom then why aren’t you advocating for people to have the freedom to have sex with animals?
Great minds and all!
Nice try. Homosexual behavior is illegal and will result in discharge.
Specifically, the regulations state that homosexual behavior is not compatible with military service. Homosexual behavior is a specific reason for discharge from military service (see AFI 36-3206). Therefore, both bestiality and homosexual behavior (aka homosexual sex) are illegal.
In the Armed forces, the regulations ARE the law. Every Air Force retiree knows this. When you said you're an Air Force retiree. You weren't fibbing, right?
Are you going to try again?
Good grief! Do you harbor a belief in you own importance? My opinions are mine. I've stated them many different ways over two days. But I think I'm talking to rocks.
This is a discussion to express and learn, to hear opposing views and use them to bolster your own thoughts or modify them as one recognizes inconsistencies. Our own beliefs are tossed up into our faces every day of our lives if we have the smarts to notice.
As for these: child porn, child abuse, public indecency the first two are an assault on a child, the last is admittedly open to more interpretation. Look at any picture of the beach from 100 years ago with the certain knowledge that if a male or female wearing beach attire that is perfectly acceptable today ere to step out onto that sand, they would have been immediately arrested for... Public Indecently.
If I'm not mistaken, buggering livestock is legal in Sweden. They're so much more enlightened then us Americans with our antiquated Victorian attitudes towards sex. They accepted homosexuality much earlier than us. That just goes to show how much more progressive they are.
You're progressive kAcknor, aren't you?
So, if homosexual behavior is grounds for discharge from the military and that means that homosexuals should not practice it but need to remain celibate (for lack of a better term), then what exactly is the point in them serving *openly* in the military in the first place?
If they can’t practice it, nobody needs to know.
Then what exactly are they trying to prove or push or accomplish?
I’ve noticed that about us....
Nice try?!?! LOL, now you've got me for sure I guess.
The original question was: It is illegal for gays to serve openly in the military, should we allow it?
So now you state flatly that we can not, because it's... Illegal!
Brilliant. Were to have known I was arguing against such intelligence I would have given up after my first post and just saved the time.
You need to work more on the *recognizing inconsistencies*, as in *yours*.
Far from it, and there is no call to get nasty.
On the contrary. The argument is over here. Since Grizzled Bear called me into a completely different thread with the slander of "Here’s your chance to promote perversion!" the conversation has mainly been about me, my past postings and a wondering of how I could have survived for more than a decade on FR. The issue of gays in the Military that started it has been secondary at best.
I'm tired people. It's time for bed here. If we ever get a chance to meet face to face the first round is on me, and we can talk.
Well, jeepers, you’re way ahead of us narrow minded, Victorian era thinkers in open minded thinking, just like they are in Europe.
That doesn’t count as “progressive”?
Goodnight everyone.
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.