27 February 2008
“Just the Facts”? No Way
Posted by Terrie Soberg under: Judaeo-Christian Values Under Attack .
This is an email I received yesterday from Family Leader:
Just because a group of organizations create a publication that says they are giving you “Just the facts,” doesn’t mean that’s so. Here’s a case in point. A 24-page booklet called “Just the Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth” is going to be mailed to every superintendent in America’s 16,000 school districts. It is a joint project of the National Education Association (NEA), the American Psychological Association (APA) and several other significant national organizations, so it comes with clout. Unfortunately, it also comes with an agenda-to create the idea in our youth that homosexuality is normal and on a par with heterosexuality. Both the NEA and the APA have become agents for forwarding the homosexual agenda at schools and are using their respectability to become movers in the public square of undermining traditional moral values.
It is intellectually dishonest to issue documents claiming objectivity that are, in fact, designed to further their political viewpoint and ignore important evidence.
They say that their aim is to make schools safe and to discourage scapegoating, but in reality, according to NARTH (the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) they promote a particular worldview, complete with truth claims that students are expected to adopt–lest they become the scapegoats, as victims of these programs’ insistence on conformity.”
Due to the programs insistence on conformity and the muzzling of any free speech in opposition, the new scapegoats at school become students who have any moral objections to homosexuality.
The booklet advises schools against any discussion of sexual reorientation therapy because, it says that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality. It warns educators that on-campus gay clubs must be accepted, and it cautions schools against any literature that would suggest that heterosexuality is the norm.
Thus, schools become agents of indoctrination and woe to the student or teacher who might have a different point of view.
The booklet also suggests that to adopt anything but its view is for a school to possibly put itself in legal hot water. Assuming that to promote heterosexuality is a religious view, the booklet advises that the First Amendment includes the separation of church and state and that the Fourteenth Amendment includes the guarantee of equal treatment under the law for all people. The implication for schools is that the rules of this booklet must be followed.
Here’s the Facts
NARTH says, “‘Just the Facts’ implies that there is a distinct population of gay, lesbian and bisexual students who were ‘born that way’ and cannot change. But there is no evidence that s hows that homosexuality is simply ‘genetic.’”‘Gay gene’ researcher Dr. Dean Hamer (himself a gay man) was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:
“‘Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited.
“Brain researcher and gay activist Dr. Simon LeVay–whose study of the hypothalamus in homosexuals made international headlines–now admits:
“‘At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role.’”
Concludes psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover:
“There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is genetic–and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.”
NARTH says that the idea that a homosexual cannot choose to have therapy to change his orientation flies in the face of the very diversity that the homosexual movement supposedly embraces. They write, “One would assume the gay community’s attitude would be, “If another man wants to change, that’s his business,” because of the community’s promotion of the ideals of tolerance, diversity and respect. But within the gay community there is actually great animosity against the ex-gay movement and the right of other homosexually oriented people to receive therapy of either a secular or a religious type which is directed toward change.”
NARTH adds, “It is not the domain of schools to teach its students what sexuality to value. Teaching respect for homosexually oriented individuals is appropriate and right. However, demanding affirmation of a homosexual orientation and behavior goes beyond the ethic of tolerance, and in fact violates the value systems of man y families.”
Mail this post
13 Comments so far...
E.E. Says:
27 February 2008 at 10:15 am.
This problem is going to get a whole lot worse and I’m afraid it is going to effect freedom of religion.
Cavetrollhead Says:
27 February 2008 at 11:40 am.
Wow. I think I will be taking my kids out of public schools. I just don’t know how to give them the social experience they will need.
Cavetrollhead Says:
27 February 2008 at 11:42 am.
I agree about the freedom of religion thing. We need to consolidate our political base and not be divided on specific religions. The religious are dividing and conquering themselves!!
T. Fan Says:
27 February 2008 at 12:02 pm.
Very astute observation about religions dividing and conquering themselves. That’s part of the reason I come here. Protestants have to stop hating Mormons. You guys are a lot more normal and intelligent than some of my friends would believe.
Jan W. Says:
27 February 2008 at 2:03 pm.
This scares me so much. Is this insane or what? Doesn’t freedom of speech mean freedom of thought to? I mean aren’t we allowed to have opinions?
Anon88 Says:
27 February 2008 at 2:10 pm.
Sometimes I am very torn when I don’t open my mouth when I hear talk about this. I listen to my friends joke about using the homosexual agenda as a bludgeon to force everyone to come into the twenty-first century and I don’t say a word. I actually think I would find myself looking for a job outside of academia if I said anything. Does that make it right? I tell myself I can do some good from inside the system. It’s a dilemma I can’t seem to get around.
Cameron Says:
27 February 2008 at 2:19 pm.
Anon88, I think you need to stay. If we give up campuses to only the liberals where will that leave us? Good people sometimes have to be quiet. It’s just great that you haven’t been brainwashed by liberalism in your position. Hang in there.
Pickles Says:
27 February 2008 at 3:01 pm.
It’s really hard being young and not agreeing with the homosexual lifestyle. Anon88 I hope you stay because we can tell when someone isn’t liberal and it gives us strength.
Chuck C Says:
27 February 2008 at 8:43 pm.
George Washington said, during his Farewell Address: “Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in the courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principals.”
We should not be surprised by the attacks on morality that are coming our way:
2 Tim. 3: 1-7
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Elder Dallin H. Oaks, LDS Apostle:
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=27f71f1dd189f010VgnVCM100000176f620aRCRD&vgnextchannel=726511154963d010VgnVCM1000004e94610aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab1
This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.” In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach.
QUESTION: If somebody has a very powerful heterosexual drive, there is the opportunity for marriage. If a young man thinks he’s gay, what we’re really saying to him is that there is simply no other way to go but to be celibate for the rest of his life if he doesn’t feel any attraction to women?
ELDER OAKS: That is exactly the same thing we say to the many members who don’t have the opportunity to marry. We expect celibacy of any person that is not married.
…Through the power and mercy of Jesus Christ we will have the strength to do all things. That includes resisting temptation. That includes dealing with things that we’re born with, including disfigurements, or mental or physical incapacities. None of these stand in the way of our attaining our eternal destiny…
… We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives, but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.
IF THE PROCEEDING THOUGHTS ARE CONSIDERED INTOLERANT, THEN WE MUST ASK WHAT IS TOLERANCE, AND HOW SHOULD IT BE APPLIED? WHAT SHOULD BE OUR GUIDE? MUST WE REALLY TOLERATE IMMORALITY AND SIN OR STAND TO BE PUNISHED? WHAT AN UPSIDE DOWN WORLD!
Cavetrollhead Says:
27 February 2008 at 8:52 pm.
Anon88, do you have tenure? If not STAY IN, be quiet, GET TENURE AND THEN OPEN YOUR MOUTH! Sorry for shouting I can’t HELP IT SOMETIMES!
We need you to be brave and stomach it till your voice can’t be stifled so easily.
Ghost Says:
27 February 2008 at 9:08 pm.
Washington said morality can’t be maintained without religion. If Romney had quoted that in his speech they would have blasted him even more.
Chuck C Says:
27 February 2008 at 9:27 pm.
Sorry I wrote so much up there, but some of this gets my blood going. I do have a proposition. It seems that we too often quote LDS doctrine, and this may be a bit overwhelming for some. So, for every such quote, let us quote ten men or women of good character who do not share that belief. So, again I ask your pardon.
Ghost Says:
27 February 2008 at 10:41 pm.
I was worrying about that too, Chuck. I’m LDS but I don’t want to drive off those who aren’t. A lot of them have to work at being patient with us.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
