Click The Logo
Posted on 11/21/2003 9:50:23 AM PST by scripter
On February 11, 2004, Kevin Jennings, the president of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, appeared on the Fox News program “The O’Reilly Factor” to discuss what he called GLSEN’s “new” marriage curriculum for schools. He claimed it was developed in response to recent events for schools to utilize in lessons exploring the issue of same sex marriage. When asked by Bill O’Reilly if it presented both sides of the issue, Jennings answered, “Absolutely.”
The reality is that Jennings is ‘absolutely’ full of baloney. Once more, Jennings and GLSEN are not being honest. The curriculum is not at all objective but radically biased toward a pro-homosexual viewpoint. It distorts the information it provides, withholds vital additional information, and slickly manipulates student sympathies. The curriculum is also not new. We first reviewed this curriculum in 2001. It has been updated but is largely the same material.
The limitations of the GLSEN curriculum are numerous, and this material is not at all appropriate to fashion into a teaching unit for students. Titled “At Issue: Marriage,” the curriculum is problematic for these reasons:...
6. The influence on youth of legalizing same sex marriage is minimized, and opposition depicted as needlessly fearful and backward.
Lesson 4 is called “The Notion of Influence” (emphasis in original). Students are presented the text of the children’s book Daddy’s Roommate along with news accounts of a pro-family group’s attempts to remove it from a library. The news account is predictably slanted against the traditional view. Students also read a letter to a newspaper advice column in which a woman asks whether to allow her nine-year-old daughter to be the flower girl at her uncle’s same sex “wedding.” Among the questions for discussion, is the following loaded query:
“Encourage students to think carefully about the consequences of sheltering children from different people and experiences. No matter what our moral stance is on any particular issue, we all have to cohabitate in a world with others who look, think and behave differently. Are we really doing young people a service when we shield them from this inevitable diversity?”(Emphasis added)...
7. The United Nations “Declaration of Human Rights” is presented to students and falsely depicted as justifying same sex marriage because it calls for ‘dignity,’ marriage and family rights and decries ‘discrimination.’
In a brazen twisting of the intent of this 1948 document, GLSEN again tries to construct a civil right for sodomy and same sex marriage when the document never intended for such interpretations. In fact, homosexual activists have tried (so far unsuccessfully) to amend the UN Declaration to re-cast the definition of key words to cover acceptance of homosexuality.
Students are told to evaluate the actions of the Vermont legislature in light of this document in an attempt to bring the U.S. to “justice” by international standards outside our country. Yet, as indicated above, this document has not been revised to support homosexual unions. Again, students are given a meaningless exercise based on false information and even asked to violate U.S. sovereignty, yet they are shielded from very important truth about how far anal sex is from “dignity...”
10. The curriculum resource list is dominated by homosexual activist group web sites and contains no sources which support traditional values.
Among the resources provided are National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders..."
GLSEN and PFLAG - Why We Must Stop These Groups from Influencing Youth
Your Help is Needed on the Mission America STUDENT SURVEY You may have heard statements like the following: " 92% of high school students say they have heard homophobic remarks on their campus in the past month." Such statements come out of student surveys conducted by GLSEN, PFLAG and others, and are picked up by reporters sympathetic to their cause. They are used to persuade school boards that programs must be adopted to stop "homophobia" (defined primarily as attitudes or speech unaccepting of homosexuality).
We need a survey that tells the truth! The climate in some schools actually prevents students and teachers from speaking out to warn others about the grave risks of homosexuality, and to provide the information that it can change.
Our goal is to have at least 1000 students in U.S. public middle and high schools take the survey above.To do this, we need your help.
Simply identify students you know who attend a public middle school or high school. They may be your children or grandchildren, nieces or nephews, neighbors, or kids from church. Make copies of the survey...as many as you need--and give them to these students. Ask them to return them to you by a certain day. If you feel it's appropriate, ask them to have one or two friends complete the survey as well. If you can, have them fill out the questionnaire while you are present or nearby.
They should give their own opinions when completing the survey, and not "consult" with others as a group activity. When you have all the surveys, simply fill out the bottom of at least one of the group of surveys with your name and address, paper clip them together and mail them back to us. Our address is at the end of the survey.
You are our survey administrators...we are counting on you! The results will be published in a future issue of Mission America! Thank you in advance for this important effort.
Problem #1: Small Percentage of Suicides Found Gay
Problem #2: Gibson Cites Gay Studies With Unrepresentative Samples
An excerpt from "The Gay Youth Suicide Myth"
"... The genesis of the homosexual teen suicide myth lies in a deeply flawed and pro-homosexual report by San Francisco homosexual activist Paul Gibson. The paper, "Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide," was included, as a supporting document, in a 1989 report by a special federal task force on youth suicide reporting to Dr. Louis Sullivan, former Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). However, Secretary Sullivan repudiated and distanced his department from the Gibson paper:
...the views expressed in the paper entitled 'Gay Male and Lesbian Youth Suicide' do not in any way represent my personal beliefs or the policy of this Department.[2] Sullivan went on to say:
Indeed, I am strongly committed to advancing traditional family values. Federal policies must be crafted with great care so as to strengthen rather than undermine the institution of the family. In my opinion, the views expressed in the paper run contrary to that aim.[3] Dr. David Shaffer, one of the country's leading authorities on suicide among youth, notes that Gibson's paper "was never subjected to the rigorous peer review that is required for publication in a scientific journal and contained no new research findings."[4]...
Although Gibson's report was denounced by Secretary Sullivan, homosexual activists have skillfully used it to claim that "government statistics" support their suicide assertions. Pro-gay articles routinely (and mistakenly) cite Gibson's unproven statistics as part of the HHS task force's official conclusions on youth suicide.[6] Gibson himself has declined an interview with the author to discuss his controversial assertions.[7]...
The myth of a gay teen suicide epidemic is built upon a flimsy statistical foundation. Gibson, a homosexual social worker in San Francisco, uses statistics from mainly homosexual sources and then extrapolates them to the general youth population using the discredited Kinsey estimate of a 10 percent gay population.
A perusal of Gibson's report turns up numerous contradictions and statistical impossibilities. For example, he refers to one author who speculated in 1985 (in the gay newspaper, The Washington Blade) that as many as 3,000 gay youths kill themselves a year-a number that exceeds the total number of annual teen suicides by more than a thousand.[13]
To reach his core conclusions on the high rate of homosexual suicides, Gibson points to assorted gay survey studies that claim homosexual youth are far more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to have considered or to have attempted suicide. These studies rely on surveys of troubled and often runaway youth. Generally, they have found a much higher rate (two to four times higher) of suicidal tendencies in their "gay" respondents compared with their "straight" respondents. Gibson then multiplies this higher rate by the disputed Kinsey figure of a 10 percent homosexual population to produce his figure that 30 percent of all youth suicides involve homosexual youth.
David Shaffer, a Columbia University psychiatrist and specialist on adolescent suicide, has said, "I struggled for a long time over [Gibson's] mathematics, but, in the end, it seemed more hocus-pocus than math."[14] Nevertheless, Gibson's claims have been repeated over and over as homosexual activists have made them part of their lore..."
Also see:
From Tolerance to Affirmation: One School's Experience with a Gay-Affirmative Program
( Posted on 04/19/2004 10:24:30 PM PDT by victoryatallcosts )
Dear friends,
Last night, Saturday April 17, 2004, a fundraising dinner was held on my behalf at the Coast Plaza Hotel in Calgary, Alberta. This dinner was organized and hosted by the Concerned Christian Coalition. Author of the book, Christophia, Rev. Tristan Emmanuel and myself, were the guest speakers at this event.
When I arrived at the hotel, there were a few dozen protesters, picketing in front of the hotel brandishing signs and chanting their pro-homosexual mantras.
Half way through the event a dozen or more self-proclaiming "gay activists", calling themselves the "gay militia", stormed into our meeting room at the Coast Plaza Hotel and surrounded the podium in the middle of an amazing presentation by Rev. Tristan Emmanuel. Rev. Emmanuel's informative and passionate presentation just happened to be about "Christophobia" and the persecution of Christians in today's society.
While banging on the walls and pounding drumsticks together, these protestors cursed and yelled things like, "haters and gay power" etc etc. Many were even dressed in camouflaged military apparel with masks over their faces. On and on they went and marched around the room, swearing and yelling, making complete fools out of themselves. One of them approached a lady that attended our dinner and got right in her face. I stood there ready to defend my sister in Christ concerned that the protestor would become physically violent. Hotel management had to bring in additional staff and ask them to leave and when they would not, the police had to attend and remove them. From what I hear the hotel has pursued charges against this group. Praise God!!!
It was absolutely amazing to see our group pause and join hands in the midst of this criminal outburst and pray for those that were there persecuting us. Some of us would have loved to talk with these protestors but they were far too aggressive and immature to attempt such. Coincidentally, or most likely by divine providence, I happened to be sitting with a young man who I invited as my guest, who just happens to be a homosexual. He was shocked and angered by the actions of these people.
Please pray that our Lord would move the authorities to take legal action against this group as they would certainly do to us, if we acted out in such a manner and most importantly, pray that Canadian Christians would rise up against this threat.
Sincerely,
Rev. Stephen Boissoin
Here's some video of the event: www.justicenetworkcanada.com/justicenetworkcanada.com.rmvb
"Some members of a Nebraska high school band won't be going to Disney World because their parents say they don't want them exposed to homosexuals...
Band instructors say only a few students have pulled out of the trip to Orlando because of Gay Days, but gay rights advocates say it is a big deal."
This has happened before, and you can bet the homosexual community will squeal about being denied access to children:
( Excerpts of the following articles were originally posted in reply 27 of the thread Assemblyman MOUNTJOY opposes promotion of homosexuality in public schools. Note that the link for the first article no longer works since GLSEN redesigned its website ).
(an excerpt from an article printed in the Des Moines Register posted on the GLSEN web site)
"... School Principal Todd Wolverton said school officials realized one month ago that the Orlando trip for 70 Creston band students would coincide with the annual Gay Days celebration scheduled for May 28 through June 3. The district's travel agent assured school officials the festival was fairly small, Wolverton said...
It was only last week, he said, that school officials realized Gay Days is expected to attract 100,000 or more adults for what organizers call "America's biggest gay and lesbian vacation experience." At that point, school administrators decided to postpone the band's three-day trip to Orlando so that it would begin June 3, the last day of the festival.
"From the school's standpoint, this has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the group of people who will be there," Wolverton said. "It didn't make one bit of difference what the nature of the group was. We did not move this trip because of the fact that it's Gay Days 2002. We moved this trip because of the fact that there would be 100,000-plus adults partying down there in some of the same areas where we were going to have our kids."
Wolverton said he would have made the same decision had there been any other sort of large festival planned for that many adults..."
An excerpt of GLSEN's response posted on their web site:
GLSEN Expresses Concern as Iowa School Postpones Disney Trip Due to "Gay Days"
"The leading national organization working to end anti-gay discrimination and harassment in America’s schools today expressed concern over the decision of Creston High School officials in Creston, Iowa, to postpone a band trip to Orlando that was to coincide with the city’s Gay Days festival. The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, or GLSEN, said the decision and resulting controversy may further isolate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students in local schools.
"This decision reinforces harmful stereotypes, and sends a devastating message to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students and their supporters involved in the band program, school and community," stated GLSEN Executive Director Kevin Jennings. "Regardless of motive, the school has sent a message that may lead some to conclude that ‘gay is bad’ - a message with dangerous and unacceptable consequences in school."...."
Regardless of motive?!. Stop and think about that. The homosexual community couldn't care less about your motives regarding the parenting of your children or their safety during school field trips. I think the principal made it clear that safety of the children was his motive for cancelling the trip.
( This was from GLSEN, the 5th largest "gay rights" (so they say) organization with 2,000 "gay-straight alliances" ( GSA's ) in public schools. This is same organization whose Day of Silence program is being held today in schools across the nation ).
Gay Day colors Disney World with signature red T-shirts (Hold Muh Martini Alert!)
"... Sullivan disagrees with my contention that gay marriage is not really a civil rights issue by referring to the famous Loving v Virginia miscegenation case in which Earl Warren says, "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man." Sullivan then adds an addendum of his own: "The right to marry whomever you wish is a fundamental civil right." This, of course, is simply not true and in no way reflects Warren's meaning. You may not marry your sister or your pet even if you wish to, and this bar to your wishes is not considered a denial of civil rights. Because marriage is defined as a heterosexual institution, its exclusion of gay unions doesn't really qualify as a denial of rights. Gays have the same right to marry as heterosexuals as long as they marry the opposite gender--as many do. If the gay marriage movement succeeds in expanding the definition of marriage to include gay unions, and if gays are then still prohibited from marrying, then we would have a clear civil rights issue. As things stand there really is no precedent or "jurisprudence" on the side of gay marriage, only on the right of all citizens to heterosexual marriage. The Loving case only made the point that interracial marriage is no bar to this right.
Sullivan then compares the old arguments against interracial marriage to my argument against gay marriage. And this points to an important theme of my argument: Racial difference is an innocuous human difference that in no way redefines the heterosexual nature of marriage or effects its procreative function. Interracial marriage has no effect on the institution of marriage. But when marriage is redefined to include homosexuality, it ends the heterosexual definition of marriage and moves marriage farther away from its grounding in procreation. It effectively makes marriage an institution more purely devoted to romantic love and adult fulfillment than to the heavier and more selfless responsibilities surrounding procreation. Of course, adult love and the responsibilities surrounding procreation are not mutually exclusive, but the gravity of marriage as an institution comes from its demand that love be negotiated through these larger responsibilities.
To be sure, there are childless heterosexual couples and homosexual couples with children. But to define an institution as important to society as marriage by exceptions to the norms of both sexual orientations--rather than by the norms themselves--makes little sense. It could be argued that marriage is quite literally an outgrowth of heterosexuality itself, an institution that follows from nature's requirement that men and women sexually merge to perpetuate the human species...
Marriage will always be heterosexual because it exists to manage the explosive natural force of male-female sex. It socializes that inherently creative force into that most fundamental of human institutions, the family. Heterosexuality is not imposed on marriage as an exclusionary ideology; it is the same thing as marriage. Homosexuality, on its own, would never generate all the complex social and cultural apparatus of family. It is impotent precisely where heterosexuality is potent; and marriage evolved out of a struggle with this potency. Without this potency, homosexuality is naturally skewed more toward adult love and fulfillment. There is nothing wrong with this. But marriage today is already declining from too much emphasis on love and too little on its role as a civilizing institution..."
An excerpt from "The Annals of Homosexuality":
The Sexual Deviations and the Diagnostic Manual," by Charles W. Socarides, M.D., American Journal of Psychotherapy, Volume XXXII, Number 3, July 1978
"... This 1978 article by NARTH past-president Charles Socarides describes the intellectual confusion and diagnostic inconsistency which led to the removal of homosexuality from the diagnostic manual. Those changes rendered chaotic, Dr. Charles Socarides notes, some very fundamental truths about unconscious dynamics...
Those words from Dr. Socarides have indeed proven to be predictive: today, there is a growing movement which conceptualizes gender as a personal choice--one which need not be correspondent with the person's biological sex. Gay activists have been mobilizing in order to rid the diagnostic manual of the category of Gender-Identity Disorder, and they are working to prevent clinicians from treating childhood gender-identity disorder as a problem--instead calling for an acceptance of a child's cross-gender behavior as expressive of "who that child really is."
Dr. Socarides provides a step-by-step account of the historical events leading to the normalization of homosexuality, the rationale presented by those who favored removal of homosexuality as a disorder, and the objections to this position held by other psychiatrists who were versed in the therapy of homosexuality...
This paper presents an historical account and a critical analysis of the diagnostic problems surrounding our understanding of the sexual deviations and their position in our classification system.
Appropriate therapy can only be based on accurate diagnosis. Exceptions of this principle of psychiatric care cannot be made for social/political reasons without incurring formidable difficulties both for the diagnostician and the patient as well...
If such changes are due to social and/or political activism, neither the goal of individual liberties nor the best interests of society are served. These changes would remove from psychoanalysis and psychiatry entire areas of scientific progress, rendering chaotic fundamental truths about unconscious psychodynamics, as well as the interrelationship between anatomy and psychosexual identity.
The tragic consequences of the politicizing of the sexual area of diagnosis have already occurred, as homosexuality has been deleted as a psychiatric disorder from the latest printing (July 1974) of the DSM II, even from its bracketed position beside "sexual orientation disorder." This position misinforms psychiatry, the medical profession, individual homosexuals, their families and governmental agencies which are responsible for mental health policies and third party payments...
Some behavioral sciences insist that there are no sexual deviations, only alternative or different lifestyles, and that these conditions are merely a matter of social definition, some made permissible by society, and others socially condemned. This is in keeping with the behavioristic point of view that all one could see, test, and modify was conscious behavior; and if human beings were allowed to express their sexuality freely, culture would change to reflect and accept all individuals as healthy. The conclusion drawn, as in the case of homosexuality, is: homosexuals are healthy; society is "sick"; consequently in order to remedy society's ills, fundamental changes in psychiatric diagnosis must be undertaken...
Some statisticians, beginning with Kinsey, behavioral psychologists, and psychiatrists (in contrast to most psychoanalysts) supply incidence rates of certain phenomena as if behavior had no connection with motivation. Since neither conscious nor unconscious motivation is even acknowledged, these studies arrive at a disastrous conclusion that the resultant composite of sexual behavior is the norm of sexual behavior. The next step is to demand that the public, the law, medicine, psychiatry, religion, and other social institutions unquestioningly accept this proposition...
On December 14, 1973 the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association, meeting in Washington, D.C., eliminated homosexuality from the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual without presenting substantive evidence for such a drastic revision of basic concepts of healthy vs. unhealthy sexual development. It should be noted that the World Health Organization's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual has not as yet followed suit.
One of the two reasons for the removal was an official position paper (12) prepared by Dr. Robert Spitzer (Chairman, Nomenclature Task Force on Homosexuality, A.P.A.) for the Board prior to its decision. According to an article in Psychiatric News, "It was essentially upon the rationale of Dr. Spitzer's presentation that the Board made its decision."(13) This paper in essence repeated Kinsey's earlier assertion that homosexuality did not meet the requirements of a psychiatric disorder since it "does not either regularly cause subjective distress or [is] regularly associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning"...
The removal of homosexuality from the DSM II was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved the out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also of a number of other serious studies by groups of psychologists, psychiatrists, and educators over the past seventy years (the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry Report, 1955; the New York Academy of Medicine Report, 1964; the Task Force Report of the New York County District Branch A.P.A. 1970-72). It was a disheartening attack upon psychiatric research and a blow to many homosexuals who looked to psychiatry for more help, not less...
Summary
Prior to 1973, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual had made valuable contributions our comprehension of the sexual deviations so that clinical research was beginning to fathom their ineluctable secrets. The "normalizing" of homosexuality and the consequent revision of the DSM reflecting this position cannot help but slow scientific progress, produce despair in those with a sexual deviation, and diminish efforts at prophylaxis based on sound principles of causation and treatment.
This author provides a step-by-step account of events leading to the "normalization" of one of the major sexual disorders, the rationale presented by those who favor removal of homosexuality as a disorder, and the objections to this position held by other psychiatrists versed in the therapy of these conditions..."
An excerpt from "Tammy Bruce: Protect New York's Children from the Gay Elite"
"In my book The Death of Right and Wrong I warn about the sexualization and targeting of children by the radical gay fringe. The announcement that a school in New York will open in September and be the first publicly run “gay high school” is a testament to that vile and loathsome agenda.
Do not be cowed with arguments that if you’re against this you’re a “homophobe.” In fact, the unforgivable crime is if we remain silent allowing children to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness, as we sit and watch gay malignant narcissists make a wild grab for children. Well, it won’t be done in my name, and I contend that every decent hetero- and homosexual person out there should be equally outraged by this hideous action.
Not all of this, however, is inexplicable. As I outline in detail in DRW, there is a sick movement among the homosexual academics and the radical gay fringe to change the age of sexual consent in this nation to 12-years-old. As sexually transmitted diseases for both hetero- and homosexuals increases and HIV/AIDS runs rampant, the goal by some to have access to children (untouched virgins, free of disease) has increased...
Think about it: we’re talking about children who are not psychologically mature enough to decide what to have for dinner, let along comprehend the intricacies of sexuality and all its physical and psychological repercussions. But the Gay Elite want us to believe that somehow these children know they prefer to have anal sex or need their breasts removed to find their “true” selves. Yeah, and I’m Anna Nicole Smith.
I cannot even begin to express my rage at a radical gay fringe and leftists who now are openly and willingly sacrificing children in a vain and self-obsessed drive to quench their own appetites for the young. That’s all this amounts to—adults indulging themselves, and others made too mute by political correctness to step up and say "No..."
... We’ll throw that kid on the garbage heap so gay malignant narcissists can feel more “normal” by making kids be just like them. While the gay establishment refuses to address the impact our histories have on our sexual identity, I refuse to let that cowardice take children as its next victims..."
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.