| Home | About | Issues | Resources | Join Our Email List | Savage Hate | Donate | Contact |
The Wide Spectrum Of Sex-Ed Courses
March 19th, 2007Excerpted 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.
Why Are So Many Mid-Life “Gay” Men Getting HIV?
March 19th, 2007More on that “healthy” “gay” lifestyle…the one that our schools are promoting to our children…
Excerpted from Why Are So Many Mid-Life Gay Men Getting HIV?, by Spencer Cox and Bruce Kellerhouse, PhD, published Mar 15, 2007, by the pro-homosexuality Gay City News:
New data released by the city’s department of health show that the highest rates of new HIV infections are among gay men 35 to 49 years old. These findings are alarming and, to some, perplexing.
Why are so many mid-life gay men who were able to avoid HIV infection for so long now taking risks that are exposing them to the disease?
We believe that one common thread runs through most of these men’s life histories – they came out and/or lived during the death-saturated culture of the 1980s and early to mid-1990s.
Mid-life gay men have lived most of their adult lives during the worst of the HIV/AIDS epidemic, experiencing the loss of partners, friends, and people in their community…
By 1988, gay men had already on average lost six lovers, friends, and/or family members…
Many health problems that are now common among gay men are made worse by loneliness and lack of social opportunities…
Furthermore, gay men have high levels of depression and anxiety disorders, another characteristic of people who have survived trauma. Studies estimate that gay men have about twice the levels of depression than are found in Americans generally. Depression is strongly linked to high-risk behavior, including drug use, alcoholism, and risky sex.
The methamphetamine epidemic that has swept through urban gay communities also contributes to high levels of new HIV infections. A recent study from the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, which offers HIV testing, found that one in three new HIV-positive tests was associated with meth use. About one in 10 gay men in New York City report recent meth use.
In some ways, gay men in mid-life are at the center of a “perfect storm,” in which multiple problems converge to create a very high-risk environment…
School Officials Make Prudent Decision to Protect and Educate Students
March 19th, 2007Highland 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.”
Isn’t Moral Clarity Wonderful? Thank You, Gen. Pace!
March 17th, 2007By 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.
Gregory Koukl: The Myth of Moral Neutrality
March 17th, 2007Excerpted 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.
Moral neutrality, though, is a myth…
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.
Dr. Albert Mohler: Was It Something I Said?
March 17th, 2007From Was It Something I Said?, by Dr. Albert Mohler, published Mar 16, 2007:
Well, never doubt the power of the media. My recent article on homosexuality ignited a firestorm in the public square. Why? We may never know — but the controversy represents both a challenge and an opportunity.Several thoughts:
I must admit much frustration about the way many in the media have handled the issue. Headlines proclaimed “Seminary President Says Babies Born Gay” — something I neither believe nor said. Other articles and reports claimed that I suggested that homosexuality may be genetic in origin and that genetic therapies should be used to create customized and corrected babies. I never even mentioned genetic therapies or germ-line experiments, and I am adamantly opposed to genetic therapies of such a sort — real or hypothetical. Reading these reports and headlines was a painful and exasperating experience. If I believed those things attributed to me, I would not agree with myself and would condemn myself…
God’s condemnation of sin is not determined by science, but by God’s Word. The Bible could not be more clear — all forms of homosexual behavior are expressly condemned as sin. In so doing the Bible uses its strongest vocabulary and places this condemnation in the larger context of the Creator’s rightful expectation of our stewardship of the sexual gift. All manifestations of homosexuality are thus representations of human sinfulness and rebellion against God’s express will. Nothing can alter this fact, and no discovery in science or any other human endeavor can change God’s verdict…
In 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 the Apostle Paul condemns an entire list of sins, including explicit references to homosexuality. Then he reminds the church, “such were some of you.” The complete text reads: “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” [1 Corinthians 6:11]. God brings glory to himself through the salvation of sinners — and Paul includes homosexuality in that list…
Mark Your Calendars! Dr. Albert Mohler Is Coming to Chicago
March 17th, 2007Culture Campaign’s series God, Sex, and the Culture War continues with Dr. Albert Mohler addressing the question:
Why Are Christians Obsessed With Sex?
Sunday, April 22, 2007 at 7:15
College Church
332 E. Seminary Ave.
Wheaton, IL 60187
Robert Knight: The View from the Bottom
March 16th, 2007From The View from the Bottom, by Robert Knight, published Mar 16, 2007, by WorldNet Daily:
The girls on “The View” are unanimous: Homosexuality is not only morally right but probably ought to be encouraged if we want to keep our military strong.OK, maybe mandating homosexuality in the military won’t fly just yet. For now, the ABC morning show’s talkers will have to be content fighting amongst themselves as to who is more outraged by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace, who told the Chicago Tribune that homosexuality, like adultery, is immoral.
The gals were in good media company. Not one of Tuesday’s morning or evening news shows on ABC, NBC or CBS featured a single person defending the general’s remarks. The tone was overtly hostile, with stories moving smartly through a laundry list of talking points found on homosexual activist groups’ websites. The Washington Post managed a March 13 trifecta: an editorial, “The Right to Serve,” an op-ed by Republican homosexuality booster and former Wyoming Sen. Alan K. Simpson, “Bigotry That Hurts Our Military,” and a news article by Ann Scott Tyson, “Sharp Drop in Gays Discharged From Military Tied to War Need.”
It’s not as if the American people are clamoring for the military to welcome open homosexuality. Despite some profoundly distorted polls like the recent Zogby survey of military personnel, a large segment of the American people believe, as Gen. Pace does, that homosexual behavior is immoral. According to the Cultural and Media Institute’s National Cultural Values Survey released on March 7, which polled 2,000 demographically representative Americans, 49 percent say flatly that homosexuality is “wrong.” Only 14 percent of Americans say homosexuality is “right.” The stampede to end the ban isn’t coming from the public, but from the media and some liberal politicians backed by the homosexual lobby.
On “The View,” the ladies opened the March 13 program by trashing the general, who wasn’t there to defend his honor.
Nor was anyone else inclined to do so, even designated “conservative” Elizabeth Hasselbeck. She openly wondered whether Pace harbors vices of his own that drove him to say what he did. This is a standard homosexual propaganda technique: Attribute dark motives to anyone who won’t salute the rainbow flag. You can look it up in their strategy manual, a book entitled “After the Ball.”
Rosie O’Donnell, a famous out lesbian, predictably came unglued. Over the past few years, she has defined herself primarily by her sexual behavior, and then claimed that people with moral qualms about homosexuality are bigots who are assailing her identity.
Here are portions of the five-minute discussion:
Joely Fisher: “We need to open General Pace’s closet and see what’s in there.”
Joy Behar: “Do you think people who are homophobic are gay closeted cases themselves?”
Fisher: “Or sexually repressed or uncomfortable with their own sexuality in any way?”
O’Donnell: “So if you are a gay person you are immoral. You are innately bad. You are less than, because you are gay. It’s like saying all lefties are witches.”
Hasselbeck: “He likened it to adultery, an adulterous person in the armed services would face some sort of punishment or some sort of slap on the wrist. …”
Fisher: “But it’s OK to kill people.”
Behar: “If you’re saying it’s immoral the way adultery is, then let gay people get married. Then it won’t be immoral.”
O’Donnell: “Can you be a straight person who is a horrible person, who is adulterous and has no morals?”
Fisher: “And have a leg up”
O’Donnell: “But it’s impossible for a gay person ever to be treated equal, which is the premise of this country, that all men and women are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, all people, even the gay ones. (Bares her teeth, shouts) General Pace, wake up! It’s 2007. There’s a war on! Leave the gays alone!” (applause)
After Rosie’s outburst, Hasselbeck explained why everyone doesn’t just go ahead and cheerfully accept homosexuality as moral:
“What happens is there’s this group of, you know, religious believers, be it Christian or whoever, who believe certain sins are worse than others. They do believe homosexuality is a sin, because they are not guilty, guilty of it, then they say, ‘It’s not my sin so I will focus on that,’ then pretty much hide the fact that I’m guilty of some other things as well.”
Later, she opined that, “We should not judge one another. I feel that’s the root of Christianity. You shall not judge.”
Does that mean we’re not to judge adultery? Promiscuous sex? Polygamy? Prostitution?
Inquiring Viewers want to know.
Center For Morality
2783 Martin Rd.
#327
Dublin, OH 43017
