Safe Schools Czar: Manhood is Making Our Schools Unsafe
Morgen on October 11, 2009 at 1:06 pm
[Okay, I hate to do it but I've changed the headline. Originally it read: "Killing Someone Who Calls You a Faggot is not Aberrant Behavior..." Unfortunately, this led to some confusion about what we were claiming. As you can see if you read the post below, we were not suggesting that Jennings condones murder for gay slurs. It was always about his understanding of the teaching of gender roles in schools, something over which he now has some actual say as the safe schools czar.]
Here’s the full quote from Kevin Jennings in 1998:
We need to own up to the fact that our culture teaches boys that being “a man” is the most important thing in life, even if you have to kill someone to prove it. Killing someone who calls you a faggot is not aberrant behavior but merely the most extreme expression of a belief that is beaten (sometimes literally) into boys at an early age in this country: Be a man – don’t be a faggot.
As Suzanne Pharr so eloquently explained in her landmark work Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism, antigay bigotry is inextricably intertwined with the maintenance of “proper” gender roles by which little girls are supposed to be “sugar and spice and everything nice” and boys are supposed to be, well, quite the opposite. When boys take up guns to kill those who torment them with words like “faggot,” we shouldn’t be surprised. They’re just doing what we have taught them to do.
You can read the entire article here - it was originally published in the Advocate in 1998. Jennings wrote this in response to a series of school shootings where, he claims, homophobic harassment was a prime motivator for the violence. But don’t be confused by this – the three “victims” of this harassment were actually the perpetrators of the crimes, which included the murder of seven students and teachers.
And so what’s even more outrageous than the statements above is that Jennings’ sympathies seem to be with the young men who shot and murdered their fellow students. Because they were “just doing what we have taught them to do” in response to being called a “faggot”.
Now look, I think harassment and bullying is a real problem, and schools should aggressively enforce a no tolerance policy with this sort of thing. And cases like these cited by Jennings are real tragedies.
But to suggest that this sort of violence is a direct consequence of the teaching of traditional gender roles in society is just completely outrageous. Even assuming Jennings has the facts right in these cases, how many kids around the country are taunted every year with terms such as “faggot”, or worse, without responding with this level of violence? Whatever that number is, I’d wager that there is an even greater number of children who have been taught traditional gender roles and yet have never directed a gay slur at someone in their life.
I honestly can think of no reasonable explanation for statements such as these from Jennings. And I don’t think he should be given a pass because they were from 10 years ago. Comments like these suggest the existence of beliefs on his part that are just way, way outside the norm of mainstream America.
As a nation, there is still much to be done to reduce the incidence of harassment and violence in our schools. And this includes the teaching of greater sensitivity and tolerance towards minorities of all types. But given his radical views on education, and his intolerance for traditional American values, Kevin Jennings is not the right person to lead this effort.
John Adds: Jennings seems fixated on school shootings (something I could be accused of as well), but his analysis in this piece for the Huffington Post, written in the wake of the Tech massacre, is subtly different:
Obviously young men like Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, and Cho Seung-Hui who perpetrate tragedies like Columbine and Virginia Tech are deeply troubled individuals. Most students who get bullied don’t go berserk and gun down their classmates.
Jennings is right that bullying was a factor in Cho’s case (though it’s not as clear in the Columbine case); however, he stops his analysis there. Bullying is explanation enough. If we stop bullying we stop school shootings. That’s his argument circa 2007.
Yet in the earlier piece, the one quoted in Morgen’s post above, Jennings goes a step beyond mere bullying and identifies a specific cultural message which — having been “beaten” into the shooters — is at fault, i.e. be a man. Bullying is a trigger, but be a man is the real locus of control.
If one believes this, and I’ve no reason to doubt that Jennings does, then safer schools necessarily means schools in which boys are inculcated with alternative understandings of what it means to be a man. And that, it seems to me, goes beyond lessons on tolerance to something more fundamental. At the least, it seems like something the nation as a whole might want to discuss in light of Jenning’s current position.
Obama’s embattled safe-schools czar isn’t about to announce in public that eliminating or redefining traditional notions of manhood is the key to safer schools, but based on his earlier writings it seems reasonable to conclude that’s what he believes.
Update (John): Gay Patriot has an excellent post on this chock full of Greek myth (yes really). You should really go over and read all of it, but I’ll excerpt this one bit:
To become a man and realize his destiny, a hero must learn to restrain his battle fury, channeling it into just causes. And that is the essence of Western masculinity. A frenzied reaction (like that of Achilles before Athena’s intervention is the antithesis of the Western ideal.)
I only wish I’d said it.
Category: Health & Education, Politics |
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Verum Serum. Verum Serum said: New Post: Safe Schools Czar: "Killing Someone Who Calls You a Faggot is not Aberrant Behavior" – http://tinyurl.com/yf93x93 #TCOT [...]
October 11, 2009 @ 1:24 pmMorgen,
bearing in mind the part immediately before your emphasised passage “We need to own up to the fact that our culture teaches boys that being “a man” is the most important thing in life, even if you have to kill someone to prove it….” he is saying that “we have to own up to the fact that our culture teaches boys that….Killing someone who calls you a faggot is not aberrant behavior..” That’s a long way from simply saying that “Killing someone who calls you a faggot is not aberrant behavior”
He was stating an opinion that American culture teaches boys a wrong value, rather than stating that wrong value as one he holds himself. The complete obverse of what you were trying to say, in other words.
I know you go on to take issue with that point, but your headline here is very misleading.
October 11, 2009 @ 1:42 pmKeith, I respectfully disagree. Your “…” implies that I cut off the beginning of Jennings statement, when I did not.
And the last statement in the paragraphs that I quoted clearly reaffirms that this is what Jennings believes:
Granted, the headline does not provide the full context of his statement – but when does a headline ever do this? And in reading the full context, Jennings was clearly saying that he does not believe this is aberrant behavior because he believes children are indoctrinated to kill those who question their gender identity.
The entire thing is just outrageous and if my headline draws more attention to this, all the better.
October 11, 2009 @ 1:50 pmKeith, on further reflection I’ll grant you at least half a point on this. I do think Jennings was stating a belief that this is “not aberrant behavior”. But you are right in the sense that he probably believes that killing someone who calls you a “faggot” is wrong. And as I made clear, he ultimately holds our cultural/educational traditions responsible for this.
But I also have to say that the fact that he is clearly expressing some sympathy with the perpetrators here makes me wonder whether in some (unexpressed) way he felt the victims deserved this.
And I stand by all my comments regarding the outrageousness of all of this. To claim that the teaching of traditional gender roles is responsible for this sort of violence is ridiculousness. Update: to address your point – although probably not to your satisfaction – I’ve added three .’s to the end of the headline.
October 11, 2009 @ 2:16 pmAlso, I wonder how Jennings would have responded to the same type of argument if the victims and perpetrators were reversed?
“Killing someone you think is a faggot is not aberrant behavior because…our culture teaches boys that being ‘a man’ is the most important thing in life.”
You could make the same baseless and morally reprehensible argument, but something tells me that Jennings would not have been so forgiving in this case.
October 11, 2009 @ 2:39 pmGrowing up in an area where we had over twenty young males in a one block span, calling someone a “faggot” or far worse was a common day occurrence. It just never dawned on us that our retaliation should include murder. A punch in the face – maybe, murder – never. These days everyone seems to be raising kids with thin skin.
October 11, 2009 @ 5:20 pmJim,
Yes I remember that word being thrown around on the playground, but don’t ever recall violence as a result.
I do think Jenning’s definition of “be a man” is probably not one that I would agree with. Being a man means taking responsibility, showing grace under pressure, caring for those in your family and in your life, etc.
If there is any force teaching kids that being “dissed” justifies or even requires a violent response, I’d point to ganster rap. Again, I don’t see this message coming from society at large or being popular among most parents. I see it coming from Time Warner records and anyone else making a buck off this dreck.
October 11, 2009 @ 7:21 pm[...] Gateway Pundit: Verum Serum discovered this article by Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings in 1998: We need to own [...]
October 11, 2009 @ 7:43 pm“But to suggest that this sort of violence is a direct consequence of the teaching of traditional gender roles in society is just completely outrageous.”
No, it’s a fact. Stating that fact may make people uncomfortable, but it is a fact nevertheless.
October 11, 2009 @ 9:26 pmlibhomo, do you hold anyone personally responsible for their crimes? Actually, I suspect you do quite frequently – when doing so validates your view of the world.
Considering that most children dating back to the beginning of mankind have been taught based on traditional gender identity, what explains the relatively low incidence of these sorts of crimes?
Seems to me they are no more common than crimes committed by other types of sociopaths.
October 11, 2009 @ 9:40 pm[...] site Verum Serum uncovered a 1998 article penned by Jennings in which Jennings claims it’s not “aberrant” for a boy to kill someone who calls [...]
October 11, 2009 @ 11:32 pm[...] old according to Jennings) having sex with an adult male over 10 years older than him. According to Verum Serum, a 1998 article by Jennings, published in the Advocate in response to s number of school shoots at [...]
October 11, 2009 @ 11:43 pm[...] References: BGLAD – April 2001 – Dupont link BGLAD – April 2001 – backup link Verum Serum [...]
October 12, 2009 @ 12:50 amI would like to suggest that automobile accident fatalities are a direct consequence of drivers ed and driver licensing.
Think about it, it’s true. Almost every accident involves these two contributing factors, and if no one had licenses there wouldn’t be accidents. It’s a fact.
October 12, 2009 @ 1:27 amWith the likes of Jery Falwell and Pat Robertson demonizing gays, is it any wonder that their followers have developed such fears and loathing of gay men. The term faggot is so much more demeaning than gay or homosexual.
Interestingly, as a former public school teacher, teaching Aids Education as part of the Human Growth and Development unit (commonly referred to as SEX EDUCATION), I only encountered resistence from Christian Prayer Groups. They so loathed Gays that they resisted having their children being taught that Aids was just one of many communicable diseases. They wanted the subject taught as a moral failing, and tolerance of Gays and Lesbians was, to them, acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable life style. Most of these parents were given the option of removing their children from the class and home schooling their children in Aids Education. They were given a suggested study guide, which, for the most part, they didn’t follow. Unfortunately the demonizing and faggot name calling in these families probably still continues today.
Keith, in comment #2, more than adequately pointed out Morgan’s misreading of Jennings statement. With the teaching of tolerance for gays and less demonizing, hopefully, the term faggot will become less incendiary. Until then, let’s acknowledge the role that the religious fundamentalists have played in the intolerance and violence associated with this issue.
October 12, 2009 @ 5:41 am#15,
Stereotyping Christian fundamentalists as having played a significant role in the intolerance and violence associated with this issue is ‘painting with a rather broad brush’. Why do you engage in tactics that you object to in others when the situation is reversed?
Certainly most Christians condemn the behavior as morally repugnant. Violence is not preached in Christian sermons on Sunday however. Just the reverse in fact. Christians are taught to reject the sin but love the sinner, as they are one of God’s children. Hardly an incitement to violence.
“tolerance of Gays and Lesbians was, to them, acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable life style.”
Isn’t acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable life style the ultimate goal of the LGBT agenda?
Can we at least be honest about that? For to do otherwise is to use deceit in pursuit of a goal, revealing a willingness to impose upon the majority one’s personal beliefs.
“Christian Prayer Groups…resisted having their children being taught that Aids was just one of many communicable diseases.”
“Just one of many”? The implied message is that AIDS is much like catching the mumps. Doesn’t that arguably deceptive characterization advance acceptance?
But it’s a life threatening disease and easily the most serious of STD’s. So teaching it as just one of many is quite revealing…of an agenda.
All of this reveals a willingness to stereotype and,at least to some degree falsely accuse, to mislead and mischaracterize. All in a semi-covert and deceitful pursuit of an agenda; acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable life style, one no different than heterosexuality.
If that is what you support or your personal belief and goal, fine, just don’t lie about it in an attempt to covertly achieve an agenda that otherwise might be rejected by society.
October 12, 2009 @ 8:46 amAmen
October 12, 2009 @ 8:48 amMorgen,
I might say something like “Churches in Britain today have to face the reality that for most of society, unmarried couples living together is normal and perfectly acceptable behaviour”. I would probably say it with the a British accent, so it would have the u in behaviour.
If you, or anyone else, then published an artice under the headline “British church youth worker: unmarried couples living together is normal and perfectly acceptable behaviour” I would feel grossly misrepresented.
I think that’s what you’ve done here. I can see what you’ve amended, and I do appreciate your compromise, but I’m not sure you completely got my point.
October 12, 2009 @ 8:56 amBy the way, team VS – I appreciate the revamp with larger list of recent comments down the right hand side.
October 12, 2009 @ 8:58 amKeith, I agree that the headline is misleading in the sense that it may suggest that Jennings is somehow advocating that it’s OK to kill someone who calls you this name. Part of the problem is the word “aberrant”. Many people would take this to mean that Jennings is saying that it’s not “wrong”. When he is really saying that it is not unexpected given his view of what society has taught children.
So I still believe the headline is fair in that 1) it’s a direct quote and 2) it accurately characterizes a belief/opinion expressed by him in the article. In other words, he is condoning the behavior to a degree by not holding the perpetrators of the crimes fully responsible for their actions.
However, I will now fully concede that it may have been a mistake for me to use it. Because many other blogs who have picked up on this article are mischaracterizing Jennings’ statements based on this one quote.
Unlike Jennings, I hold people personally responsible for their mistakes – they should have read the article more carefully. But I am concerned that they are missing the most damning part of all of this which is that Jennings blames traditional gender education for this violence. And in doing so, they are going to make it easier for others to just dismiss the whole thing.
October 12, 2009 @ 9:25 amKeith,
I’m glad you’re here to note things like that.
You’re right that Jennings wasn’t endorsing murder. However, I think what he was doing is still plenty noteworthy.
Equating manhood with murder seems controversial to me, especially for someone given the job of creating “safer” schools. It suggests to me that less manly schools are the preferred thing. But, frankly, I don’t want Kevin Jennings helping to determine my son’s (or anyone else’s sons) view of manhood. That goes way beyond school safety.
The quote is explosive. I do hope that people linking the story read beyond the surface and have a look at our analysis of what it means.
Thanks for the kudos on the site tweaks. Been meaning to fix that for a while but it required writing some minor PHP code, which I generally dread doing.
October 12, 2009 @ 9:45 amSo if I look at this as a strictly secular, moral issue, then I wonder why homosexuals as a group have any more right to judge christians as a group. Homosexuals far too often respond to christians in the exact same way the homos feel they’ve been offended: by incriminating the entire group and what they stand for in society and the very fundamentals of their opponents identity and the overall ramifications they have on society as a whole. Yet there is nothing objective that can conclusively decide whether the homo’s view of gender is correct; if anything science says it’s just useless.
Is it just because homos are a minority they get to push their agenda, and just because Christianity is a tradition that people need to attack it? Can’t we just teach our kids to tolerate but disagree with people without resorting to violence? Do we have to single out homos as a victim group; don’t we neglect a victim group when we favor another?
October 12, 2009 @ 10:40 amFYI – “faggot” is not an appropriate term. The better term would be sexual deviant or pervert. After all, the desire to have a penis inserted into ones rectum is hardly a normal behavior.
By the way, kudos to Mr. Britain’s response in post #16 to the silly arguments promoted by a former school teacher.
I’ve notice that the sexual perverts preach tolerance and being open-minded as a proper way to respond to sexual deviant behavior. However, they have no tolerance for people who disagree with their lifestyle. Whatever happened to being low-key and using discretion. In other words, keep your deviant ways to yourself and stop preaching to others for acceptance. I’m tired of the proselytising.
October 12, 2009 @ 11:01 amJohn – thanks. I’m glad, too. As you know, I really value VS. Morgen – thanks, too. I agree with the gist of your article, and that it was noteworthy, it was just the headline that bothered me.
Jim – not that I’m endorsing the term faggot, but wouldn’t one problem with your two suggestions be that they’re non-specific? A person can be a sexual deviant or pervert without being homosexual.
October 12, 2009 @ 11:14 amMorgen – that’s mighty quick work, and a rare thing these days for someone on the internet to take someone else’s point and change what they had done. I admire anyone who is (sterotype coming right up) man enough to do that.
thanks
Keith
October 12, 2009 @ 11:18 amFaggot is kind of a derogatory term, homosexual is acceptable, but sexual pervert is a superior term. The reason I say this is because it captures part of my philosophy on the issue: that homosexuality is sin, just like many other types of sin, and that something God-given and sacred is often perverted by the minds of men. While it’s important to be accurate and specific, it is also important to note that we are all sinners and all have struggled with sexual perversion in many different ways.
As pastor Ron Vietti amusingly remarked: (I’m paraphrasing) my congregation saw the homosexuals comming into the church and asked me, “what are we going to do about this?” to which he said: we’ll sit them right next to all the perverts the liars adulterers pornographers etc.
(Also amusing to see Jim arguing for the limitations of deragatory terms. Must have been a really good sermon yesterday, Jim?)
October 12, 2009 @ 12:50 pmThis sort of violence is most extreme and most common in prison where there are no traditional gender roles to be found.
Is murder a traditional male gender role? Since when?
Exactly. “Such were some of you…”
October 12, 2009 @ 1:53 pmApparently Geoffrey Britain has forgotten that Falwell and Robertson placed much of the blame for 9/11 on a number of groups; from pagans, to feminists to gays and lesbians. Rod Parsley, Benny Hinn and the rest of the TBN crowd agreed, as well. And sure enough, didn’t fundamentalist Jim Bob come through in his usually way with reference to perverts and sexual deviants.
Having gay and lesbian friends I have never had any interest in what they are doing in private. Jim Bob, why are you so concerned about other men’s rectums and what they do with it in private? One of my gay friends, at this time of the year, is more concerned with who makes it to the world series. He doesn’t care what you or I do in private. Shouldn’t we grant him the same courtesy, or do you some how feel that your God needs your self rightious judgement to help him do his job.
I know full well that many Christians are loving and tolerant of their fellow man, no matter what differences may exist between them. I don’t paint all Christians broadly with the same brush, and I know that Keith, and the other open minded moderates who post on VS, don’t paint all atheists with the same broad brush, either.
October 12, 2009 @ 4:37 pmKeith,
When you’re right, your right.
I’ve been busy going around to sites that linked us and asking them to clarify and, in one case, change a headline that didn’t reflect the story.
October 12, 2009 @ 5:02 pmI should add that some of the others sites that posted or linked this did get the analysis right. So the headline didn’t mislead everyone, especially those that read our post and/or the Jennings article.
But at the same time my fear that the misinterpretation of the story by some would make it easier for defenders of Jennings to dismiss the whole thing has been realized as well.
October 12, 2009 @ 5:11 pm#28,
As I recall, Falwell and Robertson retracted their statements after ‘further thought’. Additionally, all the ‘preachers’ you mentioned do not represent anywhere near a majority of Christian fundamentalists.
You appear to differentiate between ‘Christians’ and Christian fundamentalists. Stereotyping by any other name is still stereotyping, however.
“He (the gay friend) doesn’t care what you or I do in private. Shouldn’t we grant him the same courtesy,”
Many don’t care, some do. It’s the broad brush you wield regarding Christian fundamentalists wherein the problem lies.
Most Christian fundamentalists, while condemning the behavior, do not really desire to invade the bedroom, that’s not their issue. Their issue is the promotion of “acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable life style, as an ultimate goal of the LGBT agenda.”
It’s your right of course but it’s as interesting to note what you’ve failed to respond to as that which you do.
October 12, 2009 @ 5:20 pmAmen Geoffrey. As usual Roger, you missed my point completley. By the way, I’m Reformed and not a fundamentalist. You wouldn’t understand the distinction so there’s no need to go there. As I reiterate, I’m sick of sexual perverts proselytising their agenda to me. I’ve asked that they act in a discreet manner and keep their perversion to themselves. A repentant homosexual should be allowed the sacraments and full membership into any church. It’s the loudmouths on television that scream at me that I need to accept their deviant behavior as normal that I was referring to in my previous post.
October 12, 2009 @ 7:23 pmMorgen, et al:
Please e-mail me. I really, really need to apologize to you personally for misrepresenting your message on my site. It has been bothering the you-know-what out of me all day long.
Thank you, and I’m so, so sorry.
Jeff Schreiber
October 12, 2009 @ 9:12 pmAmerica’s Right
j.m.schreiber@gmail.com
[...] that define much of gay discourse today, then his advocacy would indeed be radical. And now a blogger has unearthed a 1998 essay Jennings wrote that strongly suggests he does indeed subscribe to such nostrums, [...]
October 12, 2009 @ 10:46 pm[...] Verum Serum discovered this article by Obama’s Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings in 1998: We need to own up to the fact that our culture teaches boys that being “a man” is the most important thing in life, even if you have to kill someone to prove it. Killing someone who calls you a faggot is not aberrant behavior but merely the most extreme expression of a belief that is beaten (sometimes literally) into boys at an early age in this country: Be a man – don’t be a faggot. [...]
October 13, 2009 @ 12:32 amJim and Geoffrey Britain,
Full disclosure: I’m gay, liberal, and used to be an evangelical fundamentalist Christian. Now I just consider myself Christian. If you can accept the labels without projecting too much baggage onto them, read on.
We gays do not think of ourselves as perverts, so it generally does you no good to refer to us as such. I’m not sure why that continually comes as a surprise to the Christian Right, but there it is. So when you append the label of perverts to a group of people who think of themselves by-and-large as normal, you immediately turn most of them off to whatever else you might have to say.
Believe it or not, I understand why you believe we’re “sexual deviants” and “perverts.” Leviticus has some strong things to say about gay sex. In fact, the Bible as a whole, as it’s traditionally been interpreted talks about gay sex acts a few times. So I understand why when you see gay people or read about us, all you can think about is sex. You’ve been taught to identify us by sexual acts.
It may or may not surprise you to know that we are people, and that like most people we have altogether mundane desires and goals. We want to lead happy lives, find love, be comfortable, and enjoy the same freedoms as the rest of our great nation’s citizens.
That is what we are asking you to accept and respect. Not what we do in our bedrooms, but the dignity of our lives as people. If you continue to identify us by what you perceive as our sins, you will continue to alienate more and more people and continue to marginalize your beliefs.
We don’t want you to accept gay sex. We could care less if you did or not. We do want you to recognize us, respect our dignity as persons, and our equality as tax-paying citizens of this nation.
October 13, 2009 @ 10:29 amThat’s all. No hidden agenda. Just a reasonable request.
Johan, just wanted to chime in and point out that I’m pretty sure Geoffrey never referred to homosexuals as “perverts”. I was in agreement with his earlier posts which is why I went back and checked.
We are all horrible sinners in God’s eyes…and I generally try to avoid judging anyone else’s behavior.
But like Geoffrey, I have a problem with others trying to implement an agenda that is contrary to my personal values through dishonest or subversive means. And so I think many LGBT activists have done a disservice to the cause you champion through the strategies they employ.
October 13, 2009 @ 10:56 amJohan, it’s not the Christian right that’s referring to you as a pervert, it’s the Bible. But you are “liberal” so I guess you can take a little liberty when you “interpret” the bible? The bible addresses much more than just the sexual act; it gives a complete overview of lust in it’s many forms, and of the perversion of God’s gifts, and of his design for you.
You’re living in known unrepentant sin, if you believe in such a thing. You are not by and large normal, you are a sinner deserving the wrath of God, like the rest of us. You will never be normal, you should be obedient, repentant, and humble. Forget by and large normal. Baseball can go to hell.
I thank you for being a tax payer and I respect your dignity. It is out of this respect and love that I try to hold you accountable, brother.
October 13, 2009 @ 11:59 amMorgen,
I have a real problem with your statement that “many LGBT activists” employ bad faith strategies, including deception, to coerce our society into acceptance.
1) Where’s your proof? “Many” implies a great number, and thus far your only real example is Jennings. A reasonable individual would take all of Jennings’ statements into account when formulating an opinion of his motives. Having recently read very much about him, I find it hard to believe your assertions from above that he is either deceitful or advocating that the victims are responsible for the Columbine/Tech shootings. From his past statements and actions, it’s clear that while he has some empathy for the murderers, he still recognizes and accepts their criminality. I think his point in regards to them is that we as a society failed them before they became murderers. That is a debatable point, but not really a deceptive one, nor one that abdicates their responsibility for their crimes.
2) Pot, meet kettle. Having witnessed on several occasions the Religious Right fund and direct ads that misrepresent or just plain lie about legal reality, I find the idea that LGBT activists are the lying liars from Liarton to be just a trite disingenuous.
For example, I cite two ads. One was used against same-sex marriage in California and one is being used against same-sex marriage in Maine. They essentially are the same ad. I’ll link you to a page with both ads, for your convenience.
The ads claim that schools will have to teach gay marriage and parents will have no choice. As “proof” the ads bring in a Massachusetts couple (the Wirthlins) who sued their school district, were offered a settlement that would have respected their claims, but rejected it so that they could go on to lose their case in court.
The real reason that they didn’t settle? The Wirthlins were looking for a fight. Paul Ash, the Lexington superintendent said that after several attempts to appease the Wirthlins and accommodate their religious convictions he “came to the conclusion that they had no intent on settling.” It seems Robb and Robin weren’t just any couple. Having recently moved to this specific Massachusetts community, they were already members of a political organization pressing for a ban on same-sex marriage. Before they sued. Before their son was read the book King and King in class. But these parents didn’t react to the other diverse heterosexual families portrayed by the other books read to their child. Just the one about the gay couple. A gay couple much like the same-sex parents of a few of their son’s classmates.
Why do I bring this up? Well because these ads were targeted at voters in CA and ME to strike fear into them that they would have no control over their child’s education on this topic. In both states, the Departments of Education and the Attorneys General refuted these claims soundly. Why? Because of two provisions in state education law in both ME and CA that did not exist in MA state codes. First, both ME and CA strongly protect a parent’s right to opt their child out of this sort of lesson. Second, neither state mandates teaching about marriage in any way whatsoever, and both states require parental & community involvement in the development of any health curriculum that does cover that topic. But don’t take my word for it. Search the CA code for yourself. And ME code can be searched here. (Education is Title 20.)
Yes on 8(CA)/Yes on 1(ME) lied. The proof is in the legal pudding, and this would only be one of several clear examples of the tactics of deception employed to deny LGBTs equal protection under the law. In Washington State, the Approve Ref. 71 campaign is waging a political battle to ensure equal rights are provided to WA LGBTs via domestic partnerships. Yet their opposition is telling voters that Ref. 71 is all about legalizing same-sex marriage. Deceptive much?
I fully recognize that you may not endorse these tactics, but at the same time recognize that I’m not the one making blanket statements about the other side’s activists. I’m also not the one who’s failed to provide concrete evidence for my assertions about the bad-faith actors on the other side of the issue.
3. You wanna talk about promoting acceptance? It has been my perspective for some time now that anti-lgbt ballot initiatives are often motivated by a desire for universal social acceptance of religious teachings and values. It’s not enough that the Religious Right call us sinners, but the law must reflect that belief and punish us by denying us the protection and dignity granted to straights.
Let’s start with the No On 1 campaign in Maine then, shall we? The legislature of Maine and the governor of Maine decided it was past time to change Maine’s laws to recognize the equality of all couples, straight or gay. Almost overnight, a group sprang up to oppose the will of the duly elected representatives of the people. Which, admittedly, is allowed under Maine’s “people’s veto” provision.
Maine’s Constitution, however, has some strong things to say in regards to religiously-motivated law. Article I, Section 3:
Contrast that statement with this one:
That gem from a 1990 essay was written by Orson Scott Card, a member of the LDS who currently serves on the board of the National Organization for Marriage–one of the primary funding sources for the Yes On 1 campaign.
For your added edification I’ll throw in this Washington State ad aimed at shooting down Referendum 71.
These are again just a few of the ads and statements against recognizing equal rights for LGBT citizens. Care to show me where in our public ads and statements we’ve lied or deceived?
October 13, 2009 @ 12:39 pmJohan, I appreciate your passion on this issue. I really do. As exhibit 1 in terms of my assertion that many LGBT activists seek to advance their agenda using deceptive means I submit this earlier post of mine:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=9097
This is about more than just Jennings. Yes, as the founder of GLSEN he no doubt had a lot to say about the strategies employed by their organization. But they had (and have) a substantial staff, and more significantly a very large network of activists including thousands of student GSA groups.
When they hold an annual conference for educators from around the country and teach them how to work in LGBT-themed subject matter across disciplines…while telling the outside world that they are only trying to promote tolerance and safety for all children…I think many parents would have a problem with this.
I think there is an acceptable middle ground of teaching all elementary age children the need to respect everyone, no matter what their differences – ethnic, cultural, whatever. And that harassment and bullying for any reason will not be tolerated. And when children are older (i.e. middle school) I think variations in gender identity can be taught in a very neutral way as part of health education. (And with parents having the right to opt in or out.)
As to your assertion that the religious right has a hidden agenda to promote religious teaching in school…I can’t speak for everyone but I am a parent and this idea seems ludicrous to me. I think most religious parents would just be happy if schools by and large stuck to core education. And they haven’t been doing a very good job of that for a long time as evidenced by how our students compare in math and reading standards to the rest of the modern world.
October 13, 2009 @ 1:06 pmJohan #38′
Full disclosure: I’m straight, Independent/conservative/libertarian, and am NOT an evangelical fundamentalist Christian. As I have a fundamental disagreement with the traditional literal interpretation of the Bible. I do consider myself Christian. I have attended numerous services at fundamentalist churches, (for reasons not germane to this discussion), so I am intimately familiar with their beliefs.
If you can accept my labels without projecting too much baggage onto them, read on.
Calling gays, etc. ‘perverts’ is something I avoid. Not because of any technical inaccuracy in the use of the term, (see below) but because of its emotional component.
deviant:
–noun
2. a person or thing that deviates or departs markedly from the accepted norm. (90-95% are heterosexual)
perversion:
–noun
1. the act of perverting.
2. the state of being perverted.
3. a perverted form of something.
4. any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal (outside the norm).
5. Pathology. a change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure.
Some relevant personal info:
My step brother is a 62 yr old gay man. I could care less what he does in the privacy of the bedroom and I love him very much. One of my sisters-in-law is a lesbian. I feel similarly about her.
So I am quite accepting of and, familiar with their complexities and beyond their sexuality, their personal identity. I have no reason to think other gays, whom I do not know, to be otherwise in their humanity.
In the larger context, your implied charge as to other Christians being unaware of gay’s normal human aspirations is specious, as a fundamental tenant of all Christians is that we are all God’s children, thus the identity and normal aspirations of basically everyone are included within that tenant.
It’s not gay’s humanity which some Christians question but their behavior. Most who object to that behavior do so upon Biblical grounds, accepting the premise that sexual identity is a choice, as if it is not, Leviticus, St Paul’s relevant expressed beliefs and the literal interpretation of the Bible are called into question.
I do not share that view, as I believe sexual identity to not be a choice. I suspect it’s a consequence; most probably of a combination of genetic susceptibility and hormonal imbalance in the mother during gestation.
If true, that does place those of the gay, lesbian and trans-gender persuasion outside the norm, which is the classic qualifier for deviancy. However it also simultaneously absolves them of any personal moral responsibility for their ‘condition’.
Obviously that hypothesis does imply that gays, lesbians, etc. are, at least compared to the norm, ‘sick’ or ‘unhealthy’.
Equally obvious is that characterization is and, will be anathema to those so inclined. Regardless of their choice to react, as offended, IF that is in fact the case, then it is a scientifically accurate description of their situation, as it is, or would indeed be, their psychological condition.
No psychologist will dispute that human beings are hard-wired to seek to pair-bond and that the natural consequence of that pair-bonding is the perpetuation of the species. Unassisted, gay’s and lesbians cannot do that. Evolutionarily, their ‘path’ is a dead end.
So, I do NOT base my perceptions about gays, etc. upon Leviticus, St. Paul’s or any other’s views within the Bible.
“We don’t want you to accept gay sex. We could care less if you did or not. We do want you to recognize us, respect our dignity as persons, and our equality as tax-paying citizens of this nation.
That’s all. No hidden agenda. Just a reasonable request.
That may personally be true of you and is certainly true of some gays, lesbians, etc.
It is NOT true of the LGBT movement in general.
I use the qualifier ‘may’ because your request is not quite so simple as you imply. That is because when you say, “recognize us, respect our dignity as persons, and our equality as tax-paying citizens of this nation.” you in all probability do not define it in a way that we would agree with…
‘Recognition’ implies respect and acceptance. Tell us, in your view, is it possible to be respected but not accepted?
I rather doubt it, so inevitably the logical consequence is that for our society, ‘recognition’ means acceptance and inclusion within the norm as promulgated by society.
‘Equality’ as I suspect you mean it, means all the ‘rights’ of heterosexuals, including absolute equivalence in marriage.
The problem with same-sex marriage is that society’s involvement in the institution of marriage is predicated upon society’s interest in the promotion of those conditions which, optimize child rearing so as to maximize two resultant conditions: psychologically healthy, ‘well-adjusted’ adults and societal cohesion.
The primary psychological role model that heterosexual parents provide is the modeling of appropriate adult gender role models for their children to emulate; how to behave and what to seek in a future partner, so as to grow up into psychologically healthy, well-adjusted adults.
Again, 90-95% of children are heterosexual, so what do two gay men actually know, about how to role-model as a heterosexual woman… for an adopted daughter?
Conversely, what do two lesbian women know, about how to role-model as a heterosexual male… for an adopted son?
The answer is, of course, nothing.
If you posit that there is no difference between men and woman beyond the physical differences, you deny the psychological research revealing gender differences.
If you posit that neither fathers nor mothers are actually needed, then you obviate the overwhelmingly reported issues that the loss of a father or mother entails.
If you posit that it is rather the dual parental role model that is the issue, then what do you say to single parents?
It is all of the above that prevents many straight people from agreeing with the LGBT agenda; acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable life style, one no different from a heterosexual lifestyle, just another choice among many, wherein the ‘problem’ lies.
October 13, 2009 @ 2:04 pmWe all know that not every parent has the time or inclination to teach their kids not to beat up on their classmates. It is the job of a school to provide a safe, non-hostile learning environment. What exactly would you have schools include into the curriculum in order to achieve this end?
Vague statements that different is ok? Or concrete examples of different religious views, ethnicities, cultural backgrounds, and family structures. Personally I favor the latter, despite the fact that my (as-yet hypothetical) child would inevitably be exposed to differing viewpoints, including the fact that some view his parent’s marriage as immoral or invalid.
GLSEN advocates for the inclusion of LGBT-themed materials in the curricula so that students have positive examples of LGBT people. If you can acknowledge that positive examples exist, which you seem to be able to do, then why shouldn’t we include them in history, English, arts and other core curricula? We already do the same for positive examples of other diverse classifications, like religion, race, and level of ability.
As evidence for your claim of indoctrination and attempts to eliminate your version of Christian values from the minds of school children, you’ve provided no concrete proof. Instead you found a bit of easily obtainable promotional material for a public conference whose registration was open to everyone. Despite the fact that nothing in that promotional material speaks to denigrating the deeply held religious beliefs of others, you have neatly turned this one brochure into a hidden, Machiavellian GLSEN plot to eradicate Christianity.
As evidence for my claim of the real agenda of some on the religious right, which I didn’t limit to schools, by the way, I provided you with a political ad that quoted a religious source (the Bible) for justification of public policy. I provided you with two other political ads (funded by religious groups) that lied about state education code in CA and ME in order to scare voters into supporting their position. I provided you with background information on the anti-same-sex-marriage activists (Robb and Robin Wirthlin) who protested that their son, who has schoolmates with gay parents, was read one book about a gay couple that was reviewed by other parents and community members prior to its inclusion in the curriculum.
The Wirthlins, through their affiliation with anti-gay group MassResistance, were already aware prior to their move to the Lexington district of another parent (David Parker) and his very public fight with the same school district the year before they moved to it. Yet this is the couple portrayed as just another set of people whose lives were ruined by same-sex marriage.
No one has told them they cannot teach their values to their son. No one has prevented them from speaking out or being a part of the process. They choose to portray themselves as powerless because as “victims” they will garner more sympathy than the reality: They are two parents who objected to the legally established process for designing curricula because one of the books happened to be about something they disagreed with. Instead of agreeing to compromise with the district, their suit essentially attempted to get the district to ban that book. Because it conflicted with their values.
There are a lot of books out there that conflict with my values. I would imagine the same is true for everyone. But instead of opting to influence their own child, the Wirthlins (and Parkers) wanted to influence the information available to every child.
GLSEN admittedly also does want to influence the information available to children, but not by taking it away. By providing more of it.
In re: the Wirthlins, given the facts of the case, who exactly was attempting indoctrination here? The school district that wanted to find a way to accomodate the Wirthlins, or the parents who didn’t want anyone to read a book they disagreed with?
October 13, 2009 @ 2:10 pmJohan, I am talking about my personal views…and the only specific accusation I made against many (not all) LGBT activists was supported by facts. The fact that you see the inclusion of LGBT-themed educational material across disciplines as a positive force demonstrates that we disagree – not that I am wrong. And I wasn’t even claiming to be “right”. Was just sharing my personal view on the subject and positing that a majority of Americans probably agree with me.
To suggest that education needs to include positive examples of LGBT people implies that our educational system currently is providing negative examples, and that this needs to be countered in some way. I’m sure you may be able to pull some sort of example out of your hat, but I am confident that by and large our schools are not portraying gay people negatively. And frankly, I don’t think elementary schools should be focusing on sexuality or sexual behavior at all – gay or straight.
I think any honest advocate on this issue would have to admit that the reason they believe countering viewpoints should be provided is that elements of society at large – via religious institutions, media/entertainment, etc. – offer up negative stereotypes of gay people.
But it is not the job of our public schools to counter this, especially when many people have deeply held beliefs on this issue.
I’m not going to dispute or even look into your claim that some religious groups have their own agenda when it comes to school curriculum. I’m sure they do, and I think it’s a mistake. I live in California and this sort of agenda is so far out of the realm of possibility here it’s not even relevant.
October 13, 2009 @ 2:34 pmAnd to just add another brief comment…I don’t think most Americans wants our schools teaching some sort of “gay heroes” curriculum to elementary age children. We rarely even call real American heroes, heroes anymore – without qualifying it in some manner.
An individuals sexuality or preference is irrelevant to their accomplishments. No doubt some American historical figures were gay. Great. They should have a positive light shined on their accomplishments like with anyone else. But since we don’t call attention to the fact that George Washington chose to sleep with women (did he?), then why do we need to do this for the minority of figures that were gay.
By the time kids are approaching or in high school, I think human rights movements are a legitimate topic for social studies types of classes…and I have no problem with this including the LGBT movement and it’s leaders. I also believe that teens should be introduced to more critical thinking, and varying viewpoints…and so I suspect we would find to much to agree upon with regards to secondary level education.
But let’s keep indoctrination of all types out of elementary school…
October 13, 2009 @ 2:51 pmRE MR. Britain (#41)
Thank you for calling my life abnormal.
The problem with your fancy language and fancy logic is that the facts do not support your positions.
1) Not nearly so abnormal as you think. Time and time again, studies of both humans and the animal kingdom have shown statistically significant numbers of both species that engage in same-sex “intimacy” (for lack of a better word.) Yes, the number is about 5-10% for those who only engage in same-sex intimacy, but the number is higher when taking into account those individuals who are bisexual, in other words those who either identify as capable of or demonstrate a history of intimacy with both sexes. Your implication that heterosexual intimacy is “normal” and homosexual intimacy is not is based upon a flawed view of the available data. Bonobo chimps for example, are almost universally bisexual, with nearly half their interactions in that regards being with members of the same sex. (Sources here and here.)
In addition, occurrence of a set of traits is fairly shaky ground on which to classify a group of people as “deviants” or engaging in “perversion.” By the definition of deviant that you provided, I could classify people who attend church regularly as “deviant.” Meaning that they deviate from the statistical norm, of course. While that term would be accurate, you and I both know that that is not the context by which most people apply the term “deviant” to homosexuals.
2) Parenting ability is not predicated on gender. Your argument is that marriage is one man, one woman because a child needs a mother and a father in order to be adequately raised. The facts do not support that assumption. First, between 1 to 6 million children are already being raised by gay or lesbian couples in committed relashionships. Denying them protections and legal recognition harms them and their childrne. (Recognition does not imply social acceptance, contrary to your belief, unless you’re willing to argue that recognizing the free speech rights of white supremacists means you find them socially acceptable…)
Second, studies that have actually examined and compared the children of opposite-sex couples and the children of same-sex couples have not shown any disability inherent in same-sex couples’ parenting. In fact, the vast majority of rigorous peer-reviewed study shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way. (Sources here, here, and here.)
We’re not bad parents, and like most people we take deep offense to the insinuation that we are. We don’t tell you how to raise your kids, and they turn out fine. Please don’t tell us that our kids aren’t fine because of who we are. I’ll thank you to look to scientific research and support your positions before you begin to type, next time.
October 13, 2009 @ 3:09 pmMorgan,
You stated that:
That is not actually what I implied. The implication is that the alternative to providing positive examples would be providing no examples of LGBT people.
But if we’re going to remove positive examples of LGBT people, any examples of them at all, from elementary curriculum, we would need to re-write history. Bayard Rustin, a close advisor to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would be one such case where revision would be necessary. We currently teach elementary students about the civil rights movement. In order to remove the positive images of LGBT people (or “indoctrination”) that GLSEN advocates for, we would need to remove him and his contributions from history. At least until high school. That means that students shouldn’t be told about the 1963 March on Washington, lest they find out a gay man played a key role in organizing it. They shouldn’t be told about MLK’s non-violent methods either, as those were taught to him by none other than the openly gay Bayard Rustin. MLK knew he was gay, and so did other social leaders of the time, so we should probably leave out of the history curriculum how they attacked him for associating with a gay man.
We would also need to remove Jane Addams, the first woman ever to have received a Nobel Prize, from the elementary curricula. She spent years in a relationship with another woman that they both considered a “marriage.” We cannot have our children “indoctrinated” with that fact, now can we? Must wait until high school to tell them the truth about Jane, clearly.
And don’t even get me started on the Arts! We’d have to seriously limit our curriculum on the arts if we want to eliminate the possibility a child might find out about several of the many composers, musicians, actors, playwrights, etc… who may have led a life that you or other parents might find morally objectionable.
For that matter, I’ve been told there are still people in our country who believe women should not vote and should be subservient to men. Perhaps to avoid “indoctrinating” their children we should just avoid talking about women’s rights and women who have and currently do hold public office.
I also know that there are some people who find other religions, or even science, objectionable because it contradicts their deeply-held religious beliefs. We should really do our best and accomodate them by editing geology, biology, and other sciences that might cause any question of their deeply held beliefs out of the elementary curriculum. We should also remove all references to any religion whatsoever from social science courses. Kids don’t need to know other religions are out there until they’re firmly indoctrinated into their own–I mean, until they’re in high school.
Protecting your kid from opinions you find objectionable is one thing, and probably doesn’t do your child any credit. Protecting them from facts you find objectionable is another entirely, as when they find out what you’ve been hiding from them they’ll like as not wonder why.
I went to a private, evangelical Christian grade school and a private, evangelical Christian high school. I heard the word “fag” tossed about a lot on the elementary school bus. We didn’t have any notion of promoting tolerance in our curriculum with people we disagreed with. Didn’t matter if you were an “un-believer”, a liberal, or a gay, we were exposed to nothing that indicated tolerance of those things we disagreed with.
I don’t want to imply you would fail your child in the way my and my classmates’ parents failed us. In fact, from how you write, I’m certain you’ll do as you say and teach your child tolerance of those with differing values.
A lot of parents didn’t, don’t, and won’t. Waiting for 10 years to start teaching students about tolerance is 10 years too long for the kids that get bullied and beat up and cannot do their best because school has become the place of their torture and not their edification.
October 13, 2009 @ 3:43 pmJohan, you seem to be contradicting your own point (not mine) in demonstrating that there are historical figures who are gay. I haven’t said anything that suggested we should remove any references to such figures in our teaching of history – in fact I said the opposite.
What I did say is that I see no reason to draw special attention to the sexuality or gender identity of any historical figures – gay or straight. At least not at the elementary school level where many parents would be uncomfortable with their children being introduced to sexuality in any form.
We should not excuse harassment and excessive taunting from children, but it’s worth noting that there are many targets for this beyond gender expression. I had a lot of freckles and a hairline reminiscent of Adolph Hitler. And I really pity the kids who are overweight and the teasing they have to endure.
My point is that part of the education process as parents is to teach our kids that they should not empower others to define them by labels or taunts. More often than not they reflect a weakness or insecurity on the part of the attacker. I think we do a lot more to build the character and self-esteem of ours kids by teaching them how to handle most of these situations than by expecting our schools to insulate them from everything that might hurt of offend them. (And I would emphasize that I am not talking about serious bullying or harassment.)
October 13, 2009 @ 4:22 pmHomosexuality was classifed by the DSM manual (used to diagnose mental illness) as a mental disorder. This was changed in the 70′s by pressure put on the American Psychological Association by the homosexual lobby. Bottom Line: We redefined something as not being a mental disorder based on no scientific data. What a sham! My wife is a licensed marriage, family therapist. She has counseled numerous homosexuals and views their problems as those steeped in profound mental illness.
Johan, you are a sexual pervert. I’m not ashamed of calling you what the Holy Spirit inspired the apostle Paul to write. The fact that this turns you off is completely irrelevant to me. I frankly don’t care. If you were to live a life of abstinence I would welcome you gladly into the fellowship of our church and allow you the sacraments. Absent that, Romans 1 applies in a very direct sense to your chosen rebellious and deviant lifestyle. I’ll take God’s word over it versus yours.
October 13, 2009 @ 8:28 pm“Thank you for calling my life abnormal.” Johan
I simply stated that by the statistical norm of sexual identity, you self-identification is outside the norm. How is that inaccurate?
“The problem with your fancy language and fancy logic is that the facts do not support your positions.”
I examined the links you site; I found them to be anecdotal and somewhat biased. And none of them addressed the main point I made about the inherent inability of same-sex couples to provide the opposite gender adult role model.
I purposely eliminated bisexuality from my assertions, as it’s a different sexual dynamic. I stated assertions pertaining to same-sex couples and parenting.
Citing a single species, the Bonobo, as purported ‘evidence’ of widespread bisexuality is fallacious. It’s one species.
‘Normal’ in sexual behavior is what the great majority of human beings engage in and, that is heterosexuality. Clearly, you equate abnormal with ‘bad’, I do not, I’m simply asserting it to be outside the norm and when it comes to child raising, of questionable value because of inherent and unchangeable identity.
“In addition, occurrence of a set of traits is fairly shaky ground on which to classify a group of people as “deviants” or engaging in “perversion.” By the definition of deviant that you provided, I could classify people who attend church regularly as “deviant.” Meaning that they deviate from the statistical norm, of course. While that term would be accurate, you and I both know that that is not the context by which most people apply the term “deviant” to homosexuals.”
This is a false analogy; we’re discussing inherent sexual orientation, not behavior based in a choice, i.e. religious belief.
“Parenting ability is not predicated on gender. Your argument is that marriage is one man, one woman because a child needs a mother and a father in order to be adequately raised. The facts do not support that assumption.”
Assertions stated as ‘facts’ are in dispute, in all but your mind. Common sense, psychological studies as to the impact of the loss of either a mother or a father and thousands of years of societal experience support my argument.
“First, between 1 to 6 million children are already being raised by gay or lesbian couples in committed relashionships. Denying them protections and legal recognition harms them and their childrne.”
I never suggested that children be denied protection or legal recognitions. Extending legal recognition to same-sex parents will perpetuate the situation, if 20 years from now incontrovertible evidence starts to emerge that same-sex parentage has inherent limitations. After all, studies confirming the disadvantages of single parentage did not emerge until a similarly long-term period.
“Recognition does not imply social acceptance, contrary to your belief, unless you’re willing to argue that recognizing the free speech rights of white supremacists means you find them socially acceptable…)”
Nice try, but another false analogy. It does imply social acceptance when advocates are working to inculcate societal approval of same-sex marriage into many elementary schools.
“Second, studies that have actually examined and compared the children of opposite-sex couples and the children of same-sex couples have not shown any disability inherent in same-sex couples’ parenting. In fact, the vast majority of rigorous peer-reviewed study shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way. (Sources here, here, and here.)”
I examined those sources, contained within them was this admission; “existing studies are flawed by their small sample size, non-representative sampling of each type of parent, and lack of similarity between comparison groups of parents”
“We’re not bad parents, and like most people we take deep offense to the insinuation that we are. We don’t tell you how to raise your kids, and they turn out fine. Please don’t tell us that our kids aren’t fine because of who we are. I’ll thank you to look to scientific research and support your positions before you begin to type, next time.”
I never accused you or any other person of being a ‘bad’ parent. The insinuation you infer is strictly your personal interpretation. Nor do I believe that homosexuality has anything to do with personal parental ability.
I simply asserted that a father cannot be a mother nor a mother be a father and, that those gender specific role models are of great importance in the raising of children.
The, unfortunate for homosexuals, fact that ‘a father cannot be a mother and vice versa’ means that same-sex couples cannot demonstrate an appropriate, opposite-gender parental role model for a child. That’s not a judgment, that’s a factual observation. I believe that common sense supports and psychological insights into the child raising process make evident it to be mandatory for the optimal raising of children.
I am perhaps as familiar with the relevant scientific research as you are; I just observe the bias (most studies, carefully studied, reveal an agenda) and do not conveniently overlook the faulty methodologies used in many of the ‘scientific studies’. That would be because I do not have an agenda to maintain or a desired outcome to be supported. I’m also asserting a predicted consequence that we will not be able to ‘scientifically’ confirm for quite some time.
There is however, circumstantial evidence available. Europeans have had both same-sex child raising and single mother families for much longer than the US. The natural consequence; the feminization and resultant metro-sexuality of its young male adults is now much more advanced than here in the US. There is a consequence when societies abandon the aggressive, heterosexual male impulse.
The natural consequence of that abandonment is that Europe is now incapable of defending itself from armed invasion or ‘cultural annexation’. Whether from an expansionist Russia or from the coming demographic suicide it is committing, liberality will die in Europe. It’s just a matter of time, as by 2050 at the latest, Europe will be Islamic. That’s not an opinion but a demographic certainty.
As should now be evident, I’ve done my ‘homework’ and given long thought to these issues and that, before typing. I constantly reevaluate my positions on the issues; perhaps you might do the same? Or is your comfort zone more important than rationality?
October 13, 2009 @ 11:54 pmGeoffrey,
None of your arguments have cited any sources beyond “common sense” and a few lines taken out of context from the information you provided me.
We won’t have to wait twenty years to find out the results of same-sex parenting. We have plenty of examples now. And if you’d clearly examined the sources I linked to, you’d see that they were each based on or informed by scientific study, and not “anecdotal” references.
I invite you to provide the actual scientific, peer-reviewed research that informs your opinions about the inherent superiority in parenting ability that you claim for heterosexual couples. You have not yet done so. It’s not that difficult to provide a link.
In addition, my “comfort zone” has changed a lot more than you’d guess. I grew up as an Evangelical Christian, convinced that gays were immoral and going to Hell. I was taught a certain “literal” interpretation of the NIV Bible to be the “best,” and it took me some time and personal struggle to realize that the best I could do would be to reevaluate the opinions and “facts” that were given to me in the context of reason and scientific data. Where I am today is very different from where I was just ten years ago, so when I tell you that rationality and truth are much more important to me than my “comfort zone.”
You also stated:
And further claimed that this has led to:
It seems to me that such statements would need to be backed up by fact. Your first assertion, common with conservatives attempting to paint a picture of “liberal Europe” as a warning to the US, is patently false. In both Europe and the US, prejudices against homosexuality have been fairly strong and consistent. The first large wave of same-sex parenting began in both places in the early 1980s. Only five countries in Europe currently recognize same-sex marriage, and the oft-pilloried “socialist” France is not one of them. (Similar to the six states in the US that do.) A few more countries are considering such measures, and several more recognize a form of domestic partnership or civil union. (Again, similar to the few states currently debating the issue here and the several more that recognize some form of DP or civil union.)
Much like the US, the EU’s constituent components (in this case, nations) vary significantly on many issues, including the treatment of LGBT citizens.
As to your contention that the consequence of abandoning the “aggressive, heterosexual male impulse” which you believe must accompany homosexuality, clearly you’ve never been to a gay rugby game. All I can say is if you have the belief that gay men somehow give up or abandon the influence of their testosterone, you are mistaken. Your mistake is quite understandable due to the widespread stereotyping of gay men as effete, non-aggressive, and generally non-masculine.
Furthermore, you assert that same-sex parenting and single-mother parenting have caused “the feminization and resultant metro-sexuality” of young male adults in Europe. Yet you cite no sources, and insist that somehow Europe is unable to defend itself from armed invasion.
Beyond that, your contentions of the “cultural annexation” of Europe by Islam are frankly xenophobic. Hidden in your argument is the implication that Islam is a bad religion/culture. That is opinion, and not one I share. Hidden in your argument is the implication that Islam is one unified culture. That is no more true than stating that all Christian nations share one unified culture. Ever read about or been to Greece, sir? How about Spain? Or Venezuela? Or South Africa? I can quite readily pick out many, many cultural (and political) differences between those nations and our own. Yet all are predominantly Christian nations.
You may think you’ve done your homework, but schools today have a higher burden of proof than what it seems you’re used to. Cite some sources, sir. Address your prejudices. And for the love of truth, please try to back up your contentions with something more than your assertion that they are true.
October 14, 2009 @ 12:43 pmJim,
I’m not talking about “God’s law” here. I’m talking about the law that governs our nation. You would do well to remember that those are separate.
If you’d like to debate the merits of secular, civil law, carry on. This is not a theological debate, nor will it become one.
October 14, 2009 @ 1:13 pm“None of your arguments have cited any sources beyond “common sense” and a few lines taken out of context from the information you provided me.”
The quote I provided from your cited sources was NOT taken out of context. Unfortunately for you, it does contradict the veracity of the findings that you support. Rather than deal with that contradiction, you seek to disqualify it by falsely claiming it to be out of context. As your cited sources demonstrate, ‘expert’ testimony is often biased in favor of an agenda. And since when did common sense need the imprimatur of experts?
“We won’t have to wait twenty years to find out the results of same-sex parenting. We have plenty of examples now. And if you’d clearly examined the sources I linked to, you’d see that they were each based on or informed by scientific study, and not “anecdotal” references.”
Your first source was entirely anecdotal and neither it nor the second ‘source’ that you provided had even one link to any actual studies. They merely asserted, that the studies showed, what they claimed.
The third source did provide a link to the ‘Hawaiian trial’ and that case showed clear bias.
The ‘examples’ presently available show young people at the very beginnings of adulthood. Typically people do not even identify, much less acknowledge, their ‘issues until much later in life.
“I invite you to provide the actual scientific, peer-reviewed research that informs your opinions about the inherent superiority in parenting ability that you claim for heterosexual couples. You have not yet done so. It’s not that difficult to provide a link.”
You misstate my position. I never claimed that heterosexual couples are inherently superior parents. In fact I stated that, “Nor do I believe that homosexuality has anything to do with personal parental ability.” Contrary to your assertion, I made a clear indication of otherwise.
I did state that, same-sex couples have an inherent inability to provide the opposite-gender adult role model. That is a fact, and nothing you can say or do can change it. Whether it’s a salient fact is clearly in dispute between us. What I asserted was that “a father cannot be a mother nor a mother be a father and, that those gender-specific role models are of great importance in the raising of children.”
Besides common sense I support that assertion with “psychological studies as to the impact of the loss of either a mother or a father and thousands of years of societal experience.”
Do you dispute the negative impact that the loss of a father or a mother has on a child? Are links to sources necessary in support of that assertion? Do you assert that it’s not gender roles that are important but only the decline in number from 2 to 1? If so, what of the psychological difficulties children commonly show who have lost their parent at a very early age, and have no recollection of that parent?
Are you so arrogant as to discount the thousands of years of generational wisdom, imagining that we moderns know so much more about child raising than previous generations?
“In addition, my “comfort zone” has changed a lot more than you’d guess. I grew up as an Evangelical Christian, convinced that gays were immoral and going to Hell. I was taught a certain “literal” interpretation of the NIV Bible to be the “best,” and it took me some time and personal struggle to realize that the best I could do would be to reevaluate the opinions and “facts” that were given to me in the context of reason and scientific data. Where I am today is very different from where I was just ten years ago, so when I tell you that rationality and truth are much more important to me than my “comfort zone.””
I didn’t ‘guess’ as to your comfort zone, I wondered if it was a higher priority for you than rationality.
Since I do not know you personally, I can only hypothesize that your change of ‘comfort zone’ from a former Evangelical Christian to a gay, liberal Christian has more to do with resolving the inherent conflict between you’re being Gay and also embracing Evangelical Christianity. As they cannot be resolved, to avoid continued hypocrisy, clearly one or the other had to change. Since your inherent sexual identity cannot change, the only resolution possible is to reject your former beliefs. That’s understandable but hardly the rational pursuit of ‘truth’.
“Your first assertion, … is patently false. … The first large wave of same-sex parenting began in both places in the early 1980s. Only five countries in Europe currently recognize same-sex marriage,”
And that would be five more countries than here. I did not claim that all of Europe supported same-sex marriage but in the countries that do, the acceptance is of a much greater level than in the US. Indicating that those societies have progressed much further down the path we’re discussing. When it comes to consequences inherent to same-sex parenting, it was to those countries to which I referred and they are the most ‘neutral’ in all of Europe. ‘Neutrality’ is a code word for the equivalent to Obama’s voting ‘present’.
“All I can say is if you have the belief that gay men somehow give up or abandon the influence of their testosterone, you are mistaken. Your mistake is quite understandable due to the widespread stereotyping of gay men as effete, non-aggressive, and generally non-masculine.”
Half of them do, that would be the gay men who adopt the ‘female’ persona.
“Furthermore, you assert that same-sex parenting and single-mother parenting have caused “the feminization and resultant metro-sexuality” of young male adults in Europe. Yet you cite no sources, and insist that somehow Europe is unable to defend itself from armed invasion.”
I stand by the assertion that Europe’s young males are increasingly feminized and increasingly define themselves as metro-sexual. I site a ‘personal’ source; the evidence before your own eyes. Your inability to acknowledge what is, as plain as the nose on your face, in no way obviates that evidence.
Europe’s inability to defend itself is a fact and you shall observe the consequence of that fact within your lifetime. What shall you do with your denial then? Denigrate its importance or refuse to remember ever having heard the prediction?
“your contentions of the “cultural annexation” of Europe by Islam are frankly xenophobic.”
When you cannot dispute the facts, disparage the motives of the opponent?
“Hidden in your argument is the implication that Islam is a bad religion/culture. That is opinion, and not one I share.”
It is a bad religion/culture. That is not an opinion but a judgment supported by overwhelming evidential fact; over 12,000 terrorist attacks targeting innocents in the West since the mid-70’s. Female circumcision. Female chattel slavery. Brutally sexist punishments against women for crimes that men routinely escape. The death sentence for apostasy, being gay (boy would you be dead, they’d have to hang you twice) and myriad other ‘crimes’.
Hundreds of virulent passages unequivocally calling for violence against non-believers in the Koran and the Suras. Shariah law. Ongoing slavery, to this day. The rejection of unalienable human rights. The enforced imposition of religion. The codified and mandatory treatment of non-Muslims as dhimmi’s; second-class citizens who must pay the Jizzah tax, solely for being non-Muslim. Shall I go on?
For you to say that it is NOT a ‘bad’ religion/culture is for you to condone the prior facts. And opens you to the charge of the “banality of evil”.
“Hidden in your argument is the implication that Islam is one unified culture.”
Please do not continue, as you have done several times already, to ‘read’ into my assertions implications I did not specify. It’s a false argument.
Islam is diverse but in regard to Europe’s coming cultural assimilation, the ancient and famous Arab saying still applies: “I against my brother; I and my brother against my cousin; I and my brother and my cousin against the world…”
That proverb reveals a tribal reality Europe will face no later than 2050. Again, Europe’s coming cultural assimilation is not opinion but a demographic certainty and easily verifiable.
“Cite some sources, sir.”
You have a touching, if naive faith in the experts, sir.
“Address your prejudices. And for the love of truth, please try to back up your contentions with something more than your assertion that they are true.”
I would ask the same of you. But then, you appear to be of the opinion that you’ve surpassed all your former prejudices or biases… have you not?
Ah, the certainty of youth.
October 14, 2009 @ 3:20 pmJohan, I know why you have no interest in a theological debate. You have nothing to back your perverse lifestyle in the Scripture. You claim to be a “Christian” yet proper theology doesn’t interest you. You truly have been given over to a depraved mind (Rom.1).
Incidentally, the rectum was made by God as a conduit for the elimination of stool. It was not made for a penis to be inserted into it. Trying to receive special privaleges under the law for engaging in this type of perverion should never be granted. I would however allow a law that would give you a free annual visit to a proctologist.
October 14, 2009 @ 9:54 pmAlso, “secular law” is always based on moral law. Morals are codified in government laws, down to the last tittle. There is a moral presupposition behind every law, no- behind even the very existence of a government at all.
To say that law is separate from jurisprudence is ignorance or deception. To say that jurisprudence is separate from morality is also dumb. To say that morality is separate from theology for a Christian, liberal or not- is dumb.
Look at the stark contrast between most Judeo-Christian law and most Muslim law. What’s the main difference? Their theology.
October 15, 2009 @ 12:58 pmSo I have a question or two: Why is the government allowed to dictate the terms of a marriage in any way? Why should married couples recieve any different benefit than singles? This is especially pertinent for Christians. Why would something that God has given as a gift require someone to say during the vows “by the power invested in me by the State.” What business does the State have in regulating holy covenants?
And I’m not interested in talking about the history of marriage, how it was not licensed (look that word up sometime and see how well that fits with God’s sovereignty and authority in marriage) by the government in America until people started marrying slaves (so I’ve heard.) I’m talking about the moral and theological root of the legal issue of marriage.
And I’m not interested in talking about “secular law” or psychology or sociology because I’ve already demonstrated the fallacy of using those imaginary upper-tier constructs. Stick to the underlying moral arguments.
Or you all could just ignore me, the curious young guy looking for information and truth. I’ll take it somewhere else.
October 15, 2009 @ 1:11 pm[...] learned about the American ideal of masculinity from his adolescent older brother because I chanced upon it (if chance it was) the same week I’ve been studying the adolescent rage of various [...]
October 23, 2009 @ 9:15 pm