Clovis Unified board OKs students' gay-straight club

Fresno Bee ^ | February 14, 2002 | Jennifer Fitzenberger

[FresnoDA]

The Clovis Unified School Board voted 5-2 to approve the club, with members Richard Lake and Susan Walker dissenting.

Supporters say the club promotes tolerance and equality among students of varying sexual orientation; people against the club say it promotes homosexuality and has no place in the schools.

[Deep_6]

Let me add two more comments:

1. Regardless of one's choice of religious beliefs, or of
their commitment to their religion's doctrines; regardless
of any scripture's denouncing any form of lifestyle, we
are a Nation of law. We all are protected by the Liberty
and Freedom guaranteed by our Constitution and it's
amendments. And we all are created equal in the eyes
of our system of jurisprudence.

2. If one cannot consider another's lifestyle without imagining
sexual activity, then perhaps that person has a prurient interest
in that type of lifestyle.

In an ever-changing world, where people of all religions, races
creeds and lifestyles merge together, there should be little room
provided for ridiculous prejudices and hypocritical actions.

It's time to guarantee Freedom and Liberty for all,
before we lose it all.

 

[EdReform]

From Tolerance to Affirmation: One School's Experience with a Gay-Affirmative Program

"...From its quiet beginnings as a non-sanctioned gathering concerned with "safety," the group has now become a fully sanctioned, gay-pride organization..."

(Additional information in the thread Assemblyman MOUNTJOY opposes promotion of homosexuality in public schools)

[philetus]

. Why not teach animal sex, masocistic sex, sex with students in lower grades?

Give them time.

[FresnoDA]

FWIW, the title was changed. Are you suggesting that the moderators at FR are communists?

Lighten up, it was Valentines Day for goodness sake!!  Good to know there are Title Reviewer like you surfing the waves of the Republic! /sarcasm off

[Bigg Red]

Gee, I wonder when the Necrophiliacs United club or the Bestiality Association will be formed in this school district. What a bunch of lowlifes!

[FresnoDA]

One may conclude that this Gay Club is in fact repeating and fulfilling History.  If one knows their history, the Greek and Roman empires both experienced rampant immorality and public acceptance of militant homosexual agendas just before the fell from dominance.

I guess the moniker, "It will get you in the end" is strangely poetic in this instance.

Again, shame on the CUSD board for following the "dirty state/federal money trail"!!!

And thanks to the many Freeper reports for alternative school options and home schooling sources.

FresnoDA

---

"Those who fail to learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it"- George Santayana

---

Homosexuality in History

@copyright2000 by

Reverend Robert J. Buchanan

 

Homosexuality in Ancient Greece

     Greek culture is often promoted as the most accepting of homosexuality.  To some extent, this may be true.  The Greeks developed a hedonistic attitude toward the human body and sexuality.  Although we may think of hedonism as lustful today, Greek philosophers wrote of hedonism in much more glowing terms.  They believed that the naked human body, both male and female, was worthy of respect and admiration.  They took great pride in the physical form.  Public nudity was both tolerated and often encouraged.  

    The art and statuary of the ancient Greeks reflects this love for the body, particularly the male body.  A major negative of this attitude is that those who were handicapped or unattractive children were often left to die, killed, or used in sacrifice to a god.   It was not unusual for men to comment on the attractiveness of other men, or for them to express affection for one another.  At least part of the reason for this fascination with physical attractiveness and sex is that the Greeks had developed into a culture that had a great deal of leisure time.  They were not required to work constantly in order to survive.  Blumenfeld and Raymond wrote:  “Similarly, the Greek attitude toward sex was, for the most part, value-neutral. …And, though exclusive homosexuality was probably discouraged as a threat to the family, it was widely tolerated both for older men who had children and for younger men prior to marriage.”  (Blumenfeld and Raymond 1988, 155)

    The Greek military attitude toward homosexuality was that it brought a sense of comradeship.  It was often believed that a person would fight harder to protect his unit if that unit included a lover or lovers.  This unique form of male bonding is attributed by some to the greatness of the Greek military might.  In spite of this encouragement of homosexual practices, the picture is different for those who were exclusively passive at anal sex.  They were believed to be polluted, and to have become like women. Therefore, they were expelled from military service as untrustworthy.

    The issue of being exclusively homosexual was extremely difficult.  Although the Greeks recognized passion and erotic attraction to both and either sex, they were not tolerant of those who were not also attracted to women.  This could very well be due to the recognition that society must be able to reproduce in order to survive.  The union of a man and a woman is required to reproduce.  “After the age of nineteen or so, the young man was expected to marry and establish a family.  Those who did not, or who continued to engage in homosexual relations exclusively, were subject to ridicule, or worse.  In addition, exclusive sexual passivity in men was met with criticism and, at times, treated severely. ... rape of a free boy/young man (no such sanctions existed for conduct with slaves) was harshly punished, and male prostitution (again, by citizens) was condemned severely.”  (Ibid. 157-158)

    Greek society only negatively defined homosexual activity when it was exclusive or related to prostitution by a citizen.  In nearly every other instance, homosexual conduct was considered acceptable and practical.  It was simply a way of enjoying the beauty and awesomeness of the male bodies that they revered so highly.

    The attitude toward the family and education could have also played a role in the attitude toward homosexuality.  The family was considered the basis for reproduction. Women were restricted in their sexual activity because they were needed in order to bear children.  Men could have sex with either women or men, so long as they met their societal obligation to reproduce.  This is probably why exclusive anal sex was prohibited.  Catamites could not bear children for their partners.    

    Fathers were not seen as the primary agent of socialization, and the mothers were often only useful for nursing and caring for children.  The state took the greatest amount of responsibility for the child.  Education was the responsibility of the teachers and philosophers.  Girls were excluded from the education system that was designed to teach boys how to be men.  The student was expected to respect and admire his teacher.  The teacher was expected to gain the devotion and affection of his student.  Therefore, homosexual conduct between a teacher and student was considered a valuable part of the education process.  The family, on the other hand, was simply needed for procreation.

Homosexuality in Ancient Rome

    Another great civilization was that of the Romans.  This empire was influenced heavily by the Greeks.  Hellenistic influence included attitudes toward sexuality.  Roman gods are virtually the same as Greek gods except that their names are Latin.  It is said that fourteen of the first fifteen emperors were homosexual.  During the republic period, Cicero declared without challenge that there is nothing illegal about a man taking another to the country in order to enjoy his erotic sensual pleasures.   Although one could easily have sex with his wife at home, a man in the baths, a prostitute in the brothel, and a slave in a dark corner, he would have only been criticized if he were not able to keep everything in its place.  

    The moral issue toward sexuality in general, and homosexuality in particular, revolved around the idea of control for the Romans.  One could enjoy any kind of sex, so long as he did not allow himself to be controlled by his partner.  If the wife made demands in response for sex, it would have been disgraceful for a Roman male to give in to her desires.  Similarly, if a man was having sex with another man, he could not give that man privileges in return.  

    A major point of difference between the Greeks and early Romans was in their attitude toward education.  While the Greeks dismissed the father's responsibility for educating the child, the Romans considered this a primary responsibility of fathers.  The teacher was seen as an extension of the paternal responsibility to train the child.  A teacher, therefore, was prohibited from sexual relations with a student, since one would not have sex with his own child, nor would the child have sex with his father.  The teacher was viewed as vicariously fulfilling the role of the father.

    In the sixth century AD the Roman Empire outlawed homosexuality.  This was partly due to the influence of other cultures upon the Capitol City, but mostly due to the spread and influence of Christianity.  Christianity became the popular religion of the day, and at the same time frequently compromised biblical principles for the purpose of expediency.  Those religions that encouraged both female and male prostitution were also banned from the empire.  

    Although Christian influence brought about this change in legal behavior, not all of the early church adhered to the same kinds of attitudes.  According to Boswell, “Despite his violent rhetoric against homosexual practices, Saint John Chrysostom himself obviously considered homosexual attraction perfectly normal and constantly juxtaposed homosexual and heterosexual desires as two faces of the same coin.  In complaining, for instance, about sinful motivations for entering the temple of the Lord, he mentions in terms of equal likelihood a man's desire to see the beauty of women or of young men who frequent the sanctuaries.” (Boswell 1980, 160)

    Motives for condemning homosexuality were also generally mixed with condemnations of any kind of eroticism in general.  According to this sexual theology the only valid reason for sex was in order to procreate.  Sensuality and sexual desire of any kind was viewed as an evil "desire of the flesh."

    The duality of humanity, the doctrine that human beings consist of two parts; physical and spiritual, has led many theologians to argue against any kind of sexuality at all, and laid the foundation for a supposed celibate priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church.  The biblical view of humanity's duality does not condemn the body as evil, but as something that can be used for either evil or good. In spite of this the latter idea seemed to prevail.

    Western Europe gradually changed its attitude toward homosexuality.  The Catholic Church gained influence and officially stood opposed to homosexuality.  However, this was certainly not what was always practiced.  “Charlemagne, who considered himself personally responsible for the creation of a Christian Europe, appears to have been quite shocked upon hearing that some of the monks in his kingdom were "sodomites." …He besought the monks "to strive to preserve themselves from such evils"...but no civil legislation against homosexuality was enacted.” (ibid 177)

Post-Roman Homosexuality

    The break up of the Roman Empire is attributed with a time of changing attitudes toward homosexuality once again.  Although some attribute homosexuality with at least a part of the reason for the collapse of the Empire, there is little, if any, evidence to support this view.  However, it could be possible that one of the reasons for the increasing decline of Latin influence and rise of Germans and other Europeans is due to the fact that the Latin's did not continue to have children at a growing rate.  It could be that the restrictions on being exclusively homosexual found in Greece would have helped preserve Latin influence.  

    The rise of anti-homosexual attitudes toward the end of the empire and the rise of the middle ages seems to have changed when the various states of the empire emerged.  While Roman Christianity officially held that homosexual practices were sinful, little was done to enforce this code, even among the priests and monks.  Some evidence suggests that monks were often placed in logistical positions where homosexual contact would have been difficult if not impossible to control.

    Tolerance of homosexuality seemed to rise until about the thirteenth century.  There was a time when monarch and commoner could be openly homosexual.  One particular relationship brought the king of England and the king of France into the same bed, professing their love for one another.  During this time there was an active homosexual subculture with influence in many areas of life including the arts and the church.  

    The period of conformity began with a desire to bring many subcultures together.  The Inquisition followed, with many people condemned to death because of suspected or actual acts of sodomy and homosexuality.  By this time, sodomy had come to be identified as nearly any kind of deviant, other than the norm, sexual behavior.

    The rise of intellectualism and the Protestant Reformation did little to change attitudes toward homosexuality.    The Spanish Visigoths punished homosexuals by castration. The Reformation brought stronger condemnations of those who commit homosexual acts.  France punished homosexual behavior with loss of the testicles for the first offense, loss of the penis for the second offense, and death by burning at the stake for a third offense.  Henry VIII outlawed homosexuality in England in 1533 with penalties including loss of property and death.  Police monitored Molly Houses, or brothels for male prostitutes, and those who visited were put to death.  This practice continued until the early 1700s.

    The earliest record of someone receiving the death penalty for homosexual acts in what would become a part of the United States was in St. Augustine, Florida in 1566 when a man was executed by the military.  The United States maintained the death penalty for convicted "sodomites" until about 1779 when Thomas Jefferson proposed that Virginia drop the death penalty for the crime and replace it with castration.  Some states have revised the punishment for sodomy over the years, and some states and localities have passed laws protecting those who commit homosexual acts.  

    The Revolution in France brought an end to criminal laws regarding sexual activities in 1810 under the Napoleonic Code.  England abolished the death penalty for acts of homosexuality in 1861.  Homosexual history is one of abuse, prejudice, pain, and death.

Homosexuality in Flux

    There is a tremendous dichotomy in modern culture concerning homosexuality.  On the one hand, most liberal politicians support gay rights laws, if not in practice, at least in theory.  

There is a growing acceptance of homosexuality and a great deal of education taking place to teach homosexuality as a valid alternative lifestyle.  

Although, most homosexual activists would deny that homosexuality is an alternative, since they believe they have no choice in their sexual preference.  In response to this growing official acceptance, and due to hysteria over AIDS, there is an increasing number of hate crimes against homosexuals.  The government or the church does not officially sanction physical abuse, but individuals and groups have taken it upon themselves to persecute homosexuals.  Men are often found beaten because of the perception that they are gay.  This cruelty includes torture and death.

    Bible-believing Christians have responded to the apparent growth in acceptance of homosexuality in various ways.  The belief that homosexuality is sin appears to dominate the church community.  Evangelical Christians may see acceptance of homosexuality as a threat to their beliefs.  Often issues such as allowing homosexuals in positions of influence, the spread of AIDS and other diseases, and passing legislation insuring homosexuals equal rights are issues which raise concern, rhetoric, and grass-roots political action.

    David A. Noebel wrote in his book, The Homosexual Revolution;  “Certainly the time has come to turn back such an ungodly tide for decency's sake, for morality's sake, for our children's sake, for our nation' sake and, most importantly, because the Lord would have us to love the good but hate the evil.  Dante said something like this: The hottest spots in hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis do nothing.”  (Noebel 1977, 47)

    Fear and prejudice exists on both sides of the homosexual issue.  There can be no doubt that many have been mistreated and persecuted because of homosexual practice.   It is also true that not all Bible-believing Christians are bigoted and homophobic.  Disagreement is not tantamount to persecution.  Calling a behavior sinful is certainly not the same as condemning someone to death.  Without a doubt we need to examine a need for dialogue, communication, and understanding between those who are homosexual and those who interpret the Bible in a way that condemns homosexual practices.

[Dimensio]

Don't lie about things like that! You can't possibly telling the truth about your alleged "homosexual" friends. Everyone here knows that homosexuals never have stable relationships -- there's usually abuse going on -- and they are never monogamous and they have upwards of 100 sex partners a year (and those are the ones who don't go out much). If the "homosexuals" you know don't fit that category, then they obviously aren't "real" homosexuals.

Don't look to homosexuals to know how homosexuals live their lives, look to FreeRepublic. People here clearly know more about homosexuals and their private lives because they're more obsessed about it than the homosexuals!

(Note: while I do believe that there are some posters on FR who are clearly negatively *obsessed* with homosexuality, I am not trying to imply in any way that they might have homosexual tendencies themselves. I don't believe that negative excess obsession is necessarily an indicator that a person is "hiding" something).

[Deep_6]

This is well worth repeating; in all it's glory; for all it's worth:

 

To: Deep_6

Don't lie about things like that!

You can't possibly telling the truth about your alleged "homosexual" friends.

Everyone here knows that homosexuals never have stable relationships -- there's usually abuse going on -- and they are never monogamous and they have upwards of 100 sex partners a year (and those are the ones who don't go out much).

If the "homosexuals" you know don't fit that category, then they obviously aren't "real" homosexuals.

Don't look to homosexuals to know how homosexuals live their lives, look to FreeRepublic.

People here clearly know more about homosexuals and their private lives because they're more obsessed about it than the homosexuals!

127 posted on 2/15/02 9:44 AM by Dimensio

 

People of your mindset always amaze me.

What should amaze you about me, is the fact I have not become
polarized against those of your mindset.

You have your right to feel as you please.

I wish you luck, although I pity your children.

 

Thanks

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the post. Good read.

[Dimensio]

Er...uh...sorry...but...

THAT WAS SARCASM!

[Illbay]

You might want to read back over some of my replies in the thread.

[FresnoDA]

You have freep mail

[Deep_6]

After reading over your previous comments to this thread,
I see that you were more likely than not, being very sarcastic
with your post =  127 posted on 2/15/02 9:44 AM by Dimensio

I'm afraid you've been hit with what we've always titled:
"friendly fire".

Try using one of these the next time?   </sarcasm>
( it looks like this in html code:   &lt;/sarcasm&gt; )

It would be of great help to folks like myself, that are busy
at work and do not always have time to read all of a poster's
previous comments to access what agenda they subscribe to.
We only have time to take at face value, what we have at our
immediate disposal.

I apologize to you for being so quick to fire a shot.

(are you bleeding; do you need a doctor?) (a lawyer?)

And I would also like to thank you for contributing to threads
like this. It's been one hell of a thorn in the Republican party's
side, to be cast as old prejudiced bastards of far right wing
philosophy. It's tough enough to shed that cloak without reading
overwhelming amount of script at "conservative" web sites
that continue to cast the same degenerative light upon us.

Freedom is for all Americans; when we attempt to limit it for one,
we will limit it for all. It's time the Republican party (and Conservatives
in general), promote the image of solidarity and a quest to promote
our Constitutional Liberties and Freedom.

Otherwise, we simply fall to shame at the liberal democrat's feet.

Thanks again.

[Greg Weston]

"Public schools should be places of essential learning--not atheist-insipired humanist indoctrination".

Probably not. But comparing consentual sex between adults to sex with animals, child molesting etc, only makes you look like a foolish wacko. It doesn't help your cause in the least.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Well, the only Greek in the middle of this is the Superintendent of Schools, Mr. Mehas! (just kidding, so no flames from Greeks, please) I have some other thoughts on how we got to the place, and it doesn't look pretty for the California culture. Is it too late to take it back? Probably so, unfortunately.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Do you derive your knowledge of an area from a novel, rather than from a native born, 3rd generation Fresnan?

1)Yes, during the depression people from Oklahoma and Arkansas moved to the entire State of California -- not just Fresno -- but they certainly weren't the majority.

2)I don't know who the Congressman for Fresno is (Cal Dooley, perhaps?) or his party, but the area is heavily Republican and voted for Bush.

3)The most clearly identifiable ethnic group in Fresno has always been the Armenians, and they wield far more influence than so-called 'Okies' and 'Arkies' -- names only attached to those who had fled the dustbowl, not the new residents from Oklahoma and Arkansas who came with money.

4)Steinbeck wrote more about Monterey, on the coast. [Cannery Row] His scenes of the Central Valley had more to do with areas far outlying Fresno City. The 'Central Valley' is a huge area, extending from Sacramento in the north to Bakersfield in the south, bigger than some Eastern States. Only the northern area is in Condit's district. Central Central Valley (around Fresno) is a different district. Even Fresno Democrats are more conservative than Democrats in the rest of the country, and when an issue is explained thorughly they will always vote the more conservative side. Fresno Democrats that I spoke to when I was out there over the holidays expressed deep disgust for Gary Condit. They all said they would never vote for him (but they can't, so that's easy.)

When I was in school at UC Berkeley, we used to say that Fresno Democrats were like Berkeley Repbulicans (on a scale of conservatism) and Berkeley Democrats were like Communists. (Actually, some of them WERE Communists, but that is another story.)

Clovis adjoins Fresno in the geographical center of the State, as well as the Valley, and was a tiny [hick] town when I lived in Fresno. It is now very large, supports 3 high schools, and has become a very desireable area to live. I note that Buchanan High School (Clovis' newest high school) ranks third on the chart posted by Fresno DA. My nieces were valedictorians at Buchanan a few years ago.

I blame this school club development, not solely on a population of Democrats, Okies and Arkies, as you would, but directly on the very liberal court system in CA and the Teachers' Union which has promoted every cockamamie scheme to come down the pike for years. The teachers have been so eagar to have the kids adopt 'diversity' and refrain from any type of discrimination that they have lost their common sense. Why should any club in high school be based on sexual orientation? The whole topic defies reason!

[afraidfortherepublic]

Pete was the principal of Clovis High during the early 70's..........Pete is a good man....

Yes. Thanks for clarifying that. I remember when he was appointed principal of Clovis High -- when my sister in law was going there. I had forgotten about the Fresno County School District -- Fresno City has done such a 'good' job of gobbling them up!

Pete is a good guy. He was a year behind my husband and me at FHS. Glad he's not involved in this. My husband told me to send him an angry email today! I'm off the hook. LOL

[Stone Mountain]

I see them as mutants. Something went wrong. They're not male or female. They're "somethings."

Were they created by God?

[Stone Mountain]

But Athena Cruz, 16-year-old sophomore, said after the vote that she plans to leave Clovis High and be home-schooled by her parents: "I don't want to be anywhere in their influence." Good for you, Athena. Homeschooling will be better for you in the long run anyway.

Homeschooling may be better for her, but if she is that worried about an after-school club that she isn't even a member of affecting her that severely, she is going to have a lot of trouble once she gets out into the real world.

[xm177e2]

Seriously, back when I was in high school, we would have welcomed a club at school for homosexuals. That way, we would know who the homosexuals were, to make it easier to whip the hell out of them!

Ha ha ha! Beating up gay kids is funny! Hey, let's see how many of them we can drive to suicide! Ooh, this is a fun game!

JEEEEEESUS told me to whip you, fairyboy! JEEEEEEEEEEEESUS is gonna send me to heaven, as long as I keep whipping abominations like you! Thank you JEEEEEEEEEESUS, for sharing my prejudices and hating the same people I do!