Excerpted from The Wide Spectrum Of Sex-Ed Courses, by Daniel de Vise, published Mar 18, 2007, by Washington Post:

In Seattle public schools, sexual orientation is taught in ninth-grade health class, a one-day session that uses vignettes about fictitious teens to illustrate same-sex and opposite-sex attraction. But the topic can arise as early as grade 5, in discussions on the many changes that accompany puberty…

“This is probably the last big issue around sexuality education,” said Martha Kempner, spokeswoman for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) in New York, a group that advocates comprehensive sex education. “And I think we are seeing that many of the controversies today revolve in some way around sexual orientation.”

…Homosexuality is one of many topics covered under the umbrella of “comprehensive” sex education, which teaches students how to be comfortable with their sexuality and safe in sexual practice.

Seattle teachers tell ninth-grade health classes, “There are probably some people here who are gay, lesbian and bisexual… Some people here may believe that homosexual behavior is wrong.” Students take a sexual-orientation quiz: When do people first realize they are gay? (Answer: usually by their teens.) If one of your parents is gay or lesbian, are the chances greater that you will be, too? (Answer: no.)…

Chiasson said “countless” schools and school systems include homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality in their curricula. Although few mainstream textbooks devote space to the topic, she said in an e-mail, “good teachers utilize supplemental materials to complement textbooks’ limitations.”

[Note from AFTAH: Pay close attention to this author’s conclusion which reveals the attitude toward tax-paying parents who don’t want their children exposed to homosexuality in public school:]

Many states, including Virginia and Maryland, explicitly permit parents to opt out if they don’t like the lessons. Or, they can simply withdraw from the school.

Continue reading in Washington Post…

Highland Park High School is in District 113, as is Deerfield High School whose “Freshman Advisory” class has recently been the subject of much controversy. We commend the administrators at HPHS for this decision. Perhaps HPHS teachers and parents can explain to Mr. Hurwitz why standards for what is taught in Illinois public school classrooms ought not be equivalent to those of what might be seen on Saturday Night Live.

——————————

Excerpted from School Disinvites Comedy Troupe, by Lisa Black, published Mar 19, 2007, by Chicago Tribune:

Highland Park High School officials who fear that a sketch comedy troupe’s material is not appropriate for students have rescinded an invitation for the group to perform during a three-day arts festival in April…

The chairwoman of Highland Park’s Fine Arts Department “was concerned at the point she received a description of their presentation,” said Suzan Hebson, assistant superintendent for human resources. She said the discussions occurred at least a month before the Deerfield controversy erupted.

“I understand they had concerns recognizing this is an educational classroom environment and not a nightclub entertainment sort of function,” Hebson said.

Last week, DeGrazia shared some sketches with administrators, agreeing to cancel a skit that was deemed offensive. The skit portrayed a militaristic high school drum major who is gay but overly defensive in insisting he’s not gay, while none of the other band members care.

Comic Thread performed at the 2005 Focus event, and school officials objected to a skit called “Great Moments in Amish Pornography.” The theme song from “2001: A Space Odyssey” blared as an Amish woman revealed her ankles and an Amish man lowered his suspender straps, DeGrazia said...

Two years ago, school board member Joel Hurwitz took issue with administrators sharing complaints about Comic Thread with the group.

“The material is not new to our students or beyond their maturity level,” wrote Hurwitz, a lawyer, who could not be reached Friday for further comment. “Our Fine Arts Department has not achieved excellence by censoring performances to satisfy the sensitivities of fringe elements within our community who are uncomfortable with mainstream culture.”

Continue reading in Chicago Tribune…

By Peter LaBarbera

Flee from sexual immorality.
Every other sin a person commits is outside the body,
but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.
— I Corinthians 6:18

Warning: Honest yet offensive descriptions of supposedly “moral” homosexual sex acts follow.

I am fascinated by the media debate launched by Gen. Pace’s simple and true statement that homosexual acts are immoral. Post-modern (read: post-Christian) liberals — who think they’re smarter than the rest of us — are apoplectic, but my heart is lifted. Isn’t moral clarity wonderful? The alternative to Pace’s honest agreement with God’s morality (no polls here) is Sen. John Warner’s and other pandering politicians’ — and the media’s — moral confusion.

If homosexual acts are not immoral, then are they moral? I know it’s disgusting, but think for a moment about what homosexual sodomy is: Dr. John Diggs says it’s almost as if anal sex “was created to spread disease.” “Gay” writer Jack Hart states that “some practices common among gays — especially rimming [“orally stimulating the anus,” according to another “gay” enthusiast] and anal intercourse — are highly efficient ways of transmitting disease.”

Highly efficient at transmitting disease… makes sense. What is immoral and unnatural is also often very dangerous. Turns out that deviant sex and normal sex are not “equal.”

Yet our schools are telling kids that “being gay” is fine — come join our “Gay/Straight Alliance” school club! Now that’s immoral.

We should demand answers from the equivocating politicians and agnostic media: is it moral for men to engage in anal sodomy with one another? Is it moral for a man to stick his sex organ in the anus or mouth of another man? What about licking another man’s anus, as an act of pleasure? (Again, “rimming” … yuck…. no wonder “gay” advocates call this the “ick factor” and avoid publicly discussing actual homosexual behaviors like the plague.)

Is “sex” between women — sadly, a popular feature in straight male pornography — moral? Is it moral when lesbians use “sex toys” to mimic normal sex or anal sex?

Are you starting to see why the other side would rather be talking in euphemisms — equality, discrimination, “sexual orientation,” “same-sex love” and “gay” — rather than the morality of homosexual acts?

And do you see why they are desperate to block messages about healthy and happy ex-“gays,” like my friend Stephen Bennett or ex-lesbian Charlene Cothran, from reaching the public?

Of course, typical of situational ethics, the same “gay” activists who scold us for “inequality” and “discrimination” have no problem — at least for now — discriminating against the “polyamory” activists who yearn for multiple-partner marriages.

Upon what authority?

Another question for the “gays” and their allies: on what basis do you declare sex acts between persons of the same sex moral (not immoral)? Please tell us so we can instruct our children and appropriately re-configure our Bibles — like “gay” actor Ian McKellen, who rips out the parts of the Bible condemning homosexuality from the Gideon Bible when he stays at hotels.

“The body is not meant for sexual immorality,
but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.”
— I Corinthians 6:13

The liberals’ and libertarians’ folly is that they pretend to have greater authority than God to decide these issues. (Sadly, a large chunk of America has also lost its fear of God: a new Culture & Media Institute survey found that only 52 percent of U.S. respondents “say they believe the Bible is God’s authoritative word” on how to live.) But the secularists have nothing to substitute for Biblical truth but lies and ideologies that hurt people. (Another “gay” activist, Bob Hattoy, who made a famous anti-Reagan, anti-Bush speak at the Democrats’ ’92 convention, died prematurely of AIDS — at 56 — last week.)

We spend so much time crafting palatable “public policy” positions that we almost forget that homosexuality is first and foremost a moral issue. Clear messages like Gen. Pace’s, backed by reason, will turn idealistic young people’s minds back toward the truth. Let’s make our policy arguments, to be sure, but shed our defensiveness and be clearly moral, yet humble, like Gen. Pace.

Moral-minded people owe the good general a debt of gratitude for having the courage in this cowardly and confused age to speak the Truth and publicly agree with God about immoral homosexual acts.

Excerpted from The Myth of Moral Neutrality, by Gregory Koukl, published Mar 16, 2007, by Townhall:

Gen. Peter Pace was vehemently denounced and condemned earlier this week for expressing a personal moral judgment that homosexuality is immoral. The criticisms excoriated Pace for making a value judgment, while implying that the denunciations themselves were morally neutral. In reality, Pace’s critics expressed a moral judgment, too. They declared his comments wrong, not just factually but morally – and their moral outrage was palpable.

…This reflects one of the most entrenched assumptions of moral relativism in our society today: that there is such a thing as morally neutral ground, a place of complete impartiality where no judgments nor any forcing of personal views are allowed. Each of us takes a neutral posture towards the moral convictions of others. This is the essence of tolerance, or so the argument goes.

One of the alleged virtues of relativism is its emphasis on tolerance. An extremely articulate example of this point of view was written by Faye Wattleton, the former President of Planned Parenthood. The piece is called, “Self-Definition: Morality.”…

Faye Wattleton’s assessment is based on the notion of neutral ground, a place that implies no moral judgment. Wattleton is not neutral, however, as her own comments demonstrate.

In her article, Wattleton in effect argues that each of us should respect another’s point of view. She then implies, however, that any point of view other than this one is immoral, un-American, and tyrannous. If you disagree with Wattleton’s position that all points of view are equally valid, then your point of view is not valid. Her argument commits suicide; it self-destructs…

It’s important to have an informed and civil public dialogue about public policy, and homosexual rights is a delicate subject made more difficult when one side is accused of moral judgment. Both sides are making moral judgments; it’s the nature of the issue. The question we should be discussing is which moral judgment makes the best public policy? It’s not possible to be morally neutral so it would be much more productive if everyone owned up to their moral values.

Continue reading at Townhall…

By Peter LaBarbera

More homosexual activist lies: On Saturday on MSNBC, I debated Jason Cianciotto of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force. Cianciotto repeated the company line that groups like Americans For Truth contribute to “harassment and violence” against homosexual youth:

Watch the MSNBC segment HERE

Cianciotto alleged that:

“…Organizations like Mr. LaBarbera’s only contribute to this harassment and violence by pitting students against each other and that’s a tragedy. It’s also gravely immoral.”

We were debating the controversy over a pro-homosexual “Freshman Advisory” class at Deerfield High School in Illinois. Deerfield’s principal has now apologized for requiring students who attended the freshman class to sign a “confidentiality agreement” stipulating that they would not discuss what transpired in the class. (Congrats to my friend, parent Lora Sue Hauser for exposing the liberal shenanigans at Deerfield High.)

On MSNBC, taken aback by Jason’s reckless accusation, I said it was a “terrible thing to say.” Homosexual activists routinely conflate disagreement over their destructive lifestyle with violence and hate against homosexuals. It’s a dirty tactic, and totally irrelevant to the Deerfield story, which is about parents having the full right to know exactly what is being taught about homosexuality in their child’s classroom.

MSNBC aired a debate on Sat, Mar 10, 2007, between Matt Foreman of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (Task Force) and Peter Sprigg, Vice President for Policy at Family Research Council (FRC) — and the topic was Deerfield High School’s “Freshman Advisory” which includes presentations by students who identify as homosexual, bisexual, or “transgendered.”

Watch the MSNBC debate HERE.

Matt Foreman suggested the “gay” panel was simply part of broader program that includes blacks, Latinos, etc. (We’re not sure how he knows that since District 113 officials have refused to release the curriculum to local parents.) He claimed that “gay” students are disproportionately the victim of bullying & violence.

Peter Sprigg said that FRC would prefer that the school do away with whole program, in part because they’re presenting only one side (which is viewpoint discrimination) which may encourage kids to prematurely label themselves as homosexual or bisexual. He pointed to studies that demonstrate younger kids are often unsure/confused but later heterosexual.

Matt Foreman asserted that only a small minority of parents object and claimed that opponents are spreading “lies & myths” about the panel — “this is part of gay agenda,” homosexual students are recruiting, etc.

Peter Sprigg suggested that anyone interested in learning about the homosexual agenda might go to www.frc.org.

Matt Foreman said to Peter Sprigg: “Your propaganda creates bullying and violence against gays — Why are you so obsessed with gays?”

Peter Sprigg said, and we agree: “We believe all kids should be protected against bullying & violence.” He went on to say that most bullying occurs because of appearance & body size and asked “Are we going to have a panel of obese students telling kids it’s good to be overweight?”

From Illinois Family Institute, where Lora Sue Hauser serves as School Issues Advisor:

Click HERE to read the confidentiality agreement
that Deerfield High School freshmen were asked to sign prior to being confronted with
a panel of students who identify as homosexual, bisexual, and “transgendered.”

WARNING: The pdf includes…

• The confidentiality agreement (2 pages), plus
• “Terminology Game Cards” used in Deerfield’s Freshman Advisory,”
• Excerpts from Alex Sanchez’s book Rainbow Boys which is replete with vulgar language and sexual content (Alex Sanchez was invited to speak at DHS in 2005),
• A list of “gay” bars linked (via the GLBT National Health Center) on Alex Sanchez’s website (which he promoted to students), and
• Objectionable excerpts from The Heidi Chronicles, which was perfomed for freshmen — without parental notice or consent — at DHS in 2001.

We’ll be posting more on this story, so stay tuned…

——————————

Excerpted from Parents Fume Over Salacious Sex Lesson, by Tracy Dell’Angela, published Mar 10, 2007, by Chicago Tribune:

8th graders forced to read graphic material aloud in the classroom