Posted on 03/15/2003 1:37:36 PM PST by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
If your child was attending a private, religious school would it concern you if the child´s teacher/counselor suddenly admitted that he was gay?
Lutheran High School of Greater Minneapolis found itself in such a situation with Roger Franzen, a gay pastor/teacher who taught religion at the school. Discussions ensued following this discovery and Franzen agreed to resign at the end of the 2000 school year while remaining “closeted and celibate.”
Less than two years later, attorneys came out of the woodwork to help Franzen sue the school and denomination for discrimination and invasion of privacy.
Minnesota‘s Human Rights Act, particularly as amended by the infamous 1994 gay rights amendment, seems to specifically afford religious institutions these discretions. The Franzen case should get nowhere fast.
But the issue of gays and public schools was recently highlighted in a U.S. District Court decision involving the New York City public school system. There the court ruled that the school system did not interfere with a teacher´s First Amendment rights when it fired him after discovering his active participation in the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). NAMBLA supports repealing the age of consent and child pornography laws as well as openly endorsing men and boys involved in underage sexual relationships.
But should such a ruling extend to homosexuals without such obvious connections to NAMBLA? The answer lies in whether there is a significant correlation between homosexuals and pedophile activity.
Gay activists have strenuously argued that there is no connection between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children. They point out that the majority of child molestation cases are by heterosexuals. But they neglect a pivotal fact: Homosexuals comprise only a small percentage of the population, yet account for an extraordinarily high percentage of offenses against children.
A recent study in Demography estimated the number of exclusive male homosexuals in the general population at 2.5 percent, and the number of exclusive lesbians at 1.4 percent. The study took into account three large data sets, including the all-encompassing U.S. Census.
Now consider a report from the Journal of Sex Research which noted that homosexual pedophiles commit about one-third of the total number of child sex offenses, even though they are outnumbered by heterosexuals 20 to one. Less than four percent of the population commits one-third of the offenses against children!
In The Gay Report, homosexual researchers report data showing that better than 7 out of 10 homosexuals surveyed had at some time had sex with boys 16 to 19.
Or consider a study in Archives of Sexual Behavior, which found that of 229 convicted child molesters surveyed, “85 percent of offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”
The evidence is clear. Homosexuals have an overwhelming propensity towards child molestation. This is not to say that all homosexuals act out with pedophile tendencies. But the percentage of those who do is so disproportionately high it would be irresponsible and costly to ignore. Just ask the Roman Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church´s coffers are being drained by the millions to defend and settle an array of alleged child sex offenses by a number of priests. But the Catholic Church appears to have left itself open to further lawsuits when the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops adopted a Charter for the protection of children and young people. Included is the declaration that “for even a single act of sexual abuse of a minor — past, present, or future — the offending priest will be permanently removed from the ministry.” This “one strike, you´re out” policy for priests is a common sense start — but not enough.
The Bishops´ Charter is silent on the likeliest cause of the abuse problem — the existence of a large number of homosexuals in the priesthood. The Conference would benefit by heeding the words of Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Vall, who declared that “people with these inclinations just cannot be ordained. That does not imply a final judgment of people with homosexuality. But you cannot be in this field.” Instead the Conference, in apparent kowtowing to the gay lobby and political correctness, adopted a Charter that mandates the implementation of “adequate screening and evaluative techniques in deciding the fitness of candidates for ordination, as well as a “focus on the question of human formation for celibate and chastity.”
No matter the screening, even if there is no history of prior child molestation, placing homosexuals in settings with children — such as schools — is akin to putting heterosexual male sex offenders in a sorority house instead of a halfway house.
With the abnormally high percentage of homosexuals accounting for pedophile activity, children in all school settings — private or public — need protection. To neglect this is to continue to place our children knowingly in harm´s way.
It makes him a victim of a homoseuxal assault with normal biological responses to stimuli. I would NEVER define that as "enjoyment." Try the word ABUSE! It often leads to confusion.
That's a SICK question, Josh, and it makes me lose all respect for you. It also displays perfectly the warped thinking of the average homosexual and why both nature and culture have long kept gays and children separated. It also makes me rethink whether society should have ANY tolerance of homosexuals.
I'm finished with this conversation.
I disagree.
Actually, it is the hate-filled, anti-heterosexual, pro-anal-sex Leftists, some of which inhabit FR (GASP!), that are the propagandists! Read this:
Sophistry.
The question wasn't about you; it was about the boy. A poorly-educated boy may very well consider it enjoyable, and may very well be led to believe that enjoyment makes him gay.
Do you see how the behavior definition can lead to that?
since this Minnesota article does not seem to be up anymore on the link that is given for it, can one surmise that this family group had a change of heart or was pressured to remove it? what happened?
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.