Posted on 11/21/2003 9:50:23 AM PST by scripter
"... Since the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, few psychiatric or psychological journals focus on exploring the etiology of homosexuality. Today the view that homosexuality is inborn and immutable appears to be a working assumption for many mental health professionals and for most journalists who report on gay issues. Gay rights advocate and author Eric Marcus compares homosexuality to being lefthanded.
California's Project 10 is a compelling example of the extent to which the view of homosexuality as innate and immutable has won acceptance. Project 10 provides a way for high school students who may have a homosexual orientation to be channeled toward special gay counselors who can help them to accept and adjust to their sexual orientation. Project 10 is viewed as especially crucial because of the high rate of suicide among gay teenagers (one-third of all youth suicides). In the view of gay activists and numerous psychologists, many of these suicides result from the lack of proper institutional support to assist adolescent gays in accepting their homosexuality. It should be pointed out, however, that there is not unanimity on this subject. Critics maintain that such an approach further confuses adolescents about sexual orientation rather than assisting them.
POLITICS, NOT SCIENCE
It should be pointed out, however, that the growing advocacy for gay rights does not result from conclusive scientific breakthroughs in understanding the origin and nature of homosexuality. In fact, the organizing efforts of the gay rights movement beginning in 1969 serve as the real motor behind society's changing view of homosexuality. Through PACs and political lobbying organizations such as the Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Human Rights Campaign Fund, gays and lesbians have become a political force to be reckoned with in mainstream American politics. These and other related organizations have provided political and financial support to candidates who support gay rights...
HOMOSEXUALITY AND OBJECTIVITY
... It is clear that since 1969 the gay community has adopted a proactive strategy to bring homosexuality into the American mainstream, beginning with language itself. They are no longer "homosexual"; they are "gay." And those who oppose them are "homophobes."
Gays have also managed to put a lid on much of the research into the causes of homosexuality by the pressure they brought to bear on the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Beginning in 1970, gay activists initiated a very militant campaign focusing on the APA's annual convention. Through demonstrations inside the convention, they succeeded in disrupting the APA's proceedings on homosexuality .They accused the APA of using the same tactics against them that had been used against blacks. Over a three-year period their efforts bore fruit: In 1973, after much pressure, the APA's board of directors decided to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Strong pressure was exerted on psychiatrists to hold a referendum on the issue, and this took place in 1974. Prior to the referendum, the Gay Task Force helped the APA directors to draft a letter recommending the removal of homosexuality from the Diagnostic. The APA made its mailing list available to the Gay Task Force and provided them with APA stationery. Funds were raised inside the gay community to pay for the mailing. Nowhere did the mailing mention that it had been paid for by the Gay Task Force.
By a 58 to 40 percent vote, it was decided via the referendum that homosexuality would no longer be considered a mental disorder. Since that time, fewer and fewer studies examining the causes of homosexuality have been published, according to the January 1992 issue of the Journal of Counseling Psychology. Kronemeyer and others believe that privately many psychiatrists continue to view homosexuality as a form of psychosis but are reserved in articulating this view publicly.
Ruth Barnhouse, psychology professor at Loyola College in Maryland, points out that "most of the psychiatrists involved in making the decision were not specialists in homosexuality." She also notes that, although a special task force of psychiatrists was formed to make recommendations, their conclusions (expressing strong reservations toward the new APA position) were "essentially disregarded."
Perhaps most critical of the highly political nature of the 1973 decision is Ronald Bayer's Homosexuality and American Psychiatry--The Politics of Diagnosis, in which he recounts the political role played by the gay community in reversing the APA's position. Interestingly, Bayer saw this decision as both political and vulnerable. With the advent of the Reagan presidency, Bayer warned that the APA position on homosexuality was highly susceptible to being reversed:
The homosexual movement rode the crest of social protest in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Now like the broader movement of which it was part, it encounters deep resistance to change. The recent era of major reform has come to an end in the United States. Under these circumstances the APA's 1973 decision is bound to become increasingly vulnerable.Bayer went on to warn:
In removing homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the Psychiatric Association symbolically deprived American society of its most important justification for refusing to grant legitimation to homosexuality. As the need for such a justification resurfaces in the current period, pressure will mount in psychiatrists to reclassify homosexuality as a disorder. Lacking theoretical orientation with which to protect itself from such pressure, psychiatry may find it exceedingly difficult to resist those demands.
Bayer's observations clearly suggest the APA did not have a theoretical but rather a political motivation for rescinding its former position on homosexuality..."
"... What do we know about this disorder? Well first, it is a disorder, despite the denials of the American Psychiatric Association. Great political pressure was exerted on this professional organization by gays and lesbians (some of whom are psychiatrists) to declare homosexuality to be "normal." The debate went on for years. Finally, a decision was made in 1973 to remove this condition from their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). It was made not on the basis of science, but was strongly influenced by a poll of APA members, which was initiated and financed by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. The vote was 5,834 to 3,810. 2 The American Psychological Association soon followed suit. 3 Today, psychologists or psychiatrists who disagree with this politically correct interpretation, or even those who try to help homosexuals change, are subjected to continual harassment and accusations of malpractice..."
"Today, psychologists or psychiatrists who disagree with this politically correct interpretation, or even those who try to help homosexuals change, are subjected to continual harassment and accusations of malpractice."
Here's a real life example of such harassment and accusations of malpractice:
Minnesota Psychologist Taken to Task for Saying Homosexuals Can Change by Roy Waller and Linda A. Nicolosi. Minnesota Family Council / Minnesota Family Institute
"Raymond Sampson, Ph.D., a diplomate of the American Board of Professional Psychology, was recently the target of a complaint filed with the Minnesota Board of Psychology as the result of a letter-to-the editor Dr. Sampson wrote for a local newspaper.
The complaint against Sampson was filed in November 2002 and was just recently resolved.
Dr. Sampson's legal saga began when he read an article in the March 18, 2002 edition of the Duluth News Tribune. It was entitled “’Therapy’ For Gays Continues Despite Social Enlightenment.”
Written by Duluth psychologist Lisa Capell, the article contained the signatures of psychologist Chris Henley and assistant professor of psychology Paula Pederson attached in support.
The article described conversion therapy for homosexuals as “unethical,” “barbaric,” and “misguided,” and concluded with the statement, “This type of treatment is from the era of lobotomy and straitjackets. It should not be tolerated!” The article implicated NARTH as involved in such treatments.
Upset by the mischaracterization, Dr. Sampson wrote a response. Published in the letters-to-the-editors column, it was entitled “Principled Disapproval of Gays Is Not Intolerance.” He pointed out that the column’s writers said reorientation therapy (what they called “Christian therapy”) of homosexuality is “unethical,” but, Sampson argued, “the compassionate, principled disapproval of the homosexual condition does not constitute unfair discrimination or intolerance.”
Making clear the historical fact that “no culture or time has ever considered homosexuality to be normal,” Dr. Sampson also referred to a statement published in the journal Psychological Reports that hundreds of people had “reported positive change in their sexual orientation away from homosexuality.”
A complaint was then filed against Dr. Sampson with the Minnesota Board of Psychology, although it did not list the name(s) of the complainer(s). The complaint charged that Dr. Sampson “exhibited a biased attitude and provided false and misleading information to the public by submitting the enclosed ‘opinion’ to a public news forum.”
The complaint listed several allegations against Dr. Sampson’s “misleading” statements, including:
The fact that Dr. Sampson had inadvertently referred to the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Reports as an American Psychological Journal Association-published journal. (Although it is in fact an independent journal, other, official publications of the APA have, in fact, recently published papers that show favorable outcomes for reorientation therapy and support its ethicality.)
The Psychological Reports article was supposedly misinterpreted by Dr. Sampson, based upon numbers of respondents to the survey in question, actual percentages of respondents according to their sexual orientations, etc. The allegation states that Sampson “overgeneralized and mischaracterized the content journal article.” (The allegations ignored the fact that Dr. Sampson was writing a letter-to-the-editor, not a comprehensive, point-by-point article detailing a particular study.)
NARTH's Vice President, Dr. Dean Byrd, assisted Dr. Sampson in organizing a legal defense.
''I believe that the most egregious 'overgeneralizing and mischaracterizing' actually occurred,'' Dr. Byrd said, ''when the authors of the original article stated that reorientation therapy offered to clients who seek it is 'barbaric and misguided.'”
The Board also alleges that Sampson, in his article and later follow-up letters requested by the Board to clarify his statements, referred to homosexuality as a “perversion” and a “condition.” The Board claimed that his statements were “misleading, incomplete, and lacking in factual foundation,” owing to the removal of homosexuality as a mental illness from the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders’ (DSM).
The allegation also cites the American Psychological Association’s 1997 resolution stating that the “Association does not regard homosexuality as a mental disorder.” (Yet that same resolution also states that “psychologists should respect the rights of others to hold values that differ from their own” and “they should not engage in discrimination based on sexual orientation.” -- our italics).
''Clearly,'' Dr. Byrd countered, ''that same respect for diversity that the APA calls for, must also extend to people whose values preclude their living a gay lifestyle.''
As to the specific issues involved in the complaint, the Board stated that the matters to be decided were
Whether Dr. Sampson “violated a statute, rule, or order that the Board issued or is empowered to enforce,”
“Engaged in unprofessional conduct which has the potential for causing harm to the public,”
“Violated the rules of conduct/code of ethics adopted by the Board,” and
“Made public statements that contained false or misleading information.”
On April 15, 2003, Dr. Sampson’s attorneys, Mohrman and Kaardal, P.A., sent a comprehensive response to the Minnesota Board of Psychology. Those attorneys rebutted the allegations made against Sampson; addressed the possible violation of the Board’s rules; and also “how this Board’s investigation and continual prosecution of this matter is a violation of Reverend Sampson’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion and Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection and due process.” (Dr. Sampson is also an ordained deacon in the Catholic Church).
Dr. Sampson and his counsel then met with the Board of Psychology on April 25.
Vindication
Less than one week later, Dr. Sampson was contacted by letter by the Minnesota Board of Psychology. They informed him that they had completed their review of the complaint filed against him and he was exonerated.
Their letter states that, “After a thorough review of the Psychology Practice Act and the information you presented at the conference on April 25, 2003, the [Complaint Resolution] Committee determined that there was insufficient basis for the Board to take any further action on this matter. Our file was, therefore, closed.”
The letter assures Dr. Sampson that the complaint, designated “classified” while active, and now “private” since the matter is closed, will not become part of his public licensure file. The letter is signed by Patricia M. LaBrocca, Regulations Analyst.
Because they believe the complaint should never have been filed or considered, Dr. Sampson and his legal counsel are currently considering legal action against the Minnesota Board of Psychology.
"This case is a textbook example of the politics of intimidation--how judicial boards are being influenced by activism instead of science,'' said Dean Byrd. ''We need to put the review boards on notice that we will not tolerate such abuses of power. When obviously spurious charges are filed, review boards should aggressively pursue those who filed the charges and reprimand them for having done so.''
This article appeared in the August bulletin of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. The organization’s Website is www.narth.com."
Excellent statement by Byrd and excellent find, ER.
The head of a national homosexual organization is vowing to politically "punish," "terrify" and "torture" activists who oppose his organization's agenda on "gay" rights – which he says would give him "endless satisfaction."
Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force in Washington, D.C., made the comments in yesterday's edition of Between the Lines, a Detroit area homosexual newsmagazine, the American Family Association of Michigan points out.
In addition to declaring his desire for retribution against "local legislators and leaders" who oppose the homosexual agenda, Foreman expressed a goal beyond securing legal same-sex marriage, that is gaining other means besides marriage by which homosexuals could access public and private financial benefits.
Foreman told the interviewer of his plans to go after his opponents.
"I'm … interested in going after, politically, local legislators and leaders that have launched these anti-gay initiatives," he explained. "'We beat you, now we're gonna go back and we're going to affirmatively punish you' – people who launch this stuff, so that they understand not only that they're not going to win, but that there are consequences to it.
"We would set up a [political action committee] and go in and terrify them with a credible challenge. ... So we go in, for a modest investment of money and torture these people, which would give me endless satisfaction. And the word would go out very quickly, 'You know what, this really isn't worth it.'"
Foreman was asked: "Is getting the right to marriage for same-sex couples something the Task Force is interested in?"
He responded: "We want full equality under the law, which, right now, means the freedom to marry. But we're also hopeful that we create different ways in which people can form relationships and families that don't come with all the baggage and the downsides of marriage. One of the great things about where we're going is that we are creating new ways for people to relate, new ways for people to obtain rights and benefits."
According to Between the Lines, Foreman is scheduled to be the keynote speaker at the annual Triangle Foundation Dinner on May 2 in Detroit.
An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine:
...to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely." "Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."
An excerpt from "Tammy Bruce: Respecting Marriage and Equal Rights:"
Gays ultimately need to stop looking to government for unconditional love and approval of who we are. Andrew Sullivan, a political commentator and writer many of you know and respect, wrote a piece for Time magazine where he actually equated governmental recognition of gay marriage as a necessary element to all gay people feeling accepted and wanted. He claimed that anything other than marriage will “build a wall between gay people and their own families.”
While his story was personal and moving, the argument was, frankly, nonsense, and representative of the general mentality among the gay elite. It also gives the government and other people’s opinions far too much power over the quality of our lives and effectively eliminates our own responsibility for our happiness.
Part of the fight for gay marriage is based in Sullivan’s lament—that it is only governmental recognition of who are that will make us whole. Let’s get real—the only thing that will make gay people whole is personal acceptance of ourselves by ourselves. Instead, we are still looking to Mommy or Daddy, now in the form of Society, to tell us we’re “okay” – to sanctify, if you will, our lives and relationships.
Society has been the benevolent parent for a very long time. And it has been amazing, and a testament to the American character, that despite being a people of faith who have legitimate concerns about the gay lifestyle, Americans have made this the best place on Earth for gays and lesbians, where we are free to live incomparably rich lives.
Now, when Americans have said through polls and voting, that they do not want to give up the meaning of marriage but support a comparable alternative, how do the gay elite respond? When you ask for one cultural thing to be left untouched, the Gay Elite become the Gay Gestapo.
It’s a very fast change from the polo shirt to the brown shirt these days.
In classic Thought Police fashion and like children throwing a tantrum, the name-calling flies—those who oppose gay marriage are “homophobes,” “haters” and, the label du jour, “bigots.” Once again, the Left, unable to answer critics with respect, resort to name-calling only to further the divide they need to validate their inevitable victimhood...
Hey Matt - If the shirt fits...
An excerpt from "Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues"
*Documentation to support the arguments in the Myth/Reality Section can be found in the section entitled "Fast Facts" located toward the end of the document.
Myth: Research shows that there is a "gay gene." Homosexuality is genetic.
Reality: Homosexuality is not a genetically encoded condition. Contrary to media hype, there is no conclusive or compelling empirical evidence showing any absolute biological, genetic, or hormonal causation for homosexuality. Homosexual activist and molecular biologist Dean Hamer’s study claiming the existence of a homosexual gene has been scientifically discredited. Studies that claim to prove homosexuality is genetic have been purposefully designed from a homosexual advocacy perspective and seek to convince society that homosexuality is innate, psychologically normal, and thus socially desirable.
There may be a possibility of the existence of a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality, which is far different from causation. But even this possibility is far from scientifically proven. Predisposition toward something does not mean that it is inevitable, or that such a predisposition cannot or should not be resisted and overcome. Some people may have a predisposition to alcoholism, yet we do not affirm their disposition, but rather treat their condition and help them change. Current evidence suggests that environmental, familial, and personal influences contribute significantly to the development of homosexual tendencies. Seventy years of therapeutic counseling and case studies show a remarkable consistency concerning the origins of the homosexual impulse as an uncompleted gender identity seeking after its own sex to replace what was not fully developed in childhood. ( NARTH.com )
Although individuals who experience homosexual attractions and thoughts may not have chosen these tendencies, they do have a choice as to whether or not they will act on the feelings. It is the acting on these feelings that constitutes homosexuality. Many people have left the homosexual community and live successful heterosexual lives, which often includes marriage and raising children. See Fast Facts #73-83...
Myth: In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its list of "disorders." Homosexual behavior should be considered normal.
Reality: The decision to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) was made after APA leaders and members had endured several years of intense political pressure and disruptive lobbying efforts by militant homosexual activist groups. (Ronald Bayer, "Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis," 1981) Homosexual activist groups pressured APA committees to remove homosexuality from the APA’s approved list of disorders. In spite of the long documented history showing that therapists have helped homosexual clients reduce and change their homosexual tendencies, professionals who persist in viewing and treating homosexuality as a changeable condition are labeled unenlightened, prejudiced, homophobic, and unethical. There is currently a movement within the APA to normalize pedophilia that appears to be following the same path to legitimization as homosexuality. See Fast Facts #1-3, 4-23, 35-40, 41-58, 77-82
Myth: The mental and emotional problems that homosexuals experience are due to the straight community’s persecution and intolerance of their lifestyle.
Reality: If this were true, then one would expect to find lower rates of suicide and mental illness among homosexuals in areas where homosexuality has been mainstreamed and widely accepted for decades (i.e., San Francisco, European countries, particularly the Netherlands). However, research shows that there is no reduction in the rates of suicide, mental illness, substance abuse, alcoholism, and homosexual domestic violence in areas where homosexuality is more widely accepted. High rates of emotional trauma in homosexuals are not induced by society but rather are the result of deviant behavior that assaults the emotional and physical health, of those who engage in homosexual sex. See Fast Facts #1-23, 24-34, 35-40...
Myth: Schools are not a safe place for homosexual students. This problem should be specifically addressed in school curriculum, clubs, and safe-school policies and programs.
Reality: Public schools must be safe for every child, without differentiation. Most schools already have policies prohibiting harassment of every kind. Many children suffer from the same kind of harassment purportedly directed exclusively at homosexual students, including children who are overweight, undersized, timid, suffering from acne, or who belong to ethnic minorities. Anti-harassment policies should cover all students, in all circumstances, equally, and not provide special protection for specific groups.
Federal crime rate statistics (www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm) reported a total of 140 incidents of hate crimes based on sexual orientation within U.S. schools and colleges during the year 2000. The nation has roughly 55 million students. The incidence rate of 140 crimes based on sexual orientation relative to 55 million students is 0.00003 percent, or three in 100,000.
Pro-homosexual organizations such as Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network (GLSEN), and the National Education Association (NEA) see safe school policies as an opportunity to establish clubs and develop curriculum that will indoctrinate student populations toward pro-homosexual advocacy. These organizations use the "safe school" notion as a Trojan horse. Once sexual orientation is established as an issue of safety rather than of sexual behavior, activists demand the entire fabric of public instruction be modified to promote, validate, and even celebrate risky sexual practices and lifestyles that are unacceptable to the majority of students and their families. See Fast Facts #1-4, 13, 20-23, 41-58, 101-113...
( EdReform's note - See "Documentation showing that the "saftey in the schools" issue is a ruse by GLSEN and other homosexual organizations" and "An excerpt from 'Queering the Schools'" )
Fast Facts 77. "The removal of homosexuality from the DSM 2 (American Psychiatric Association) was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved the out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports but also of a number of other serious studies by groups of psychologists, psychiatrists, and educators over the past 70 years. It was a disheartening attack upon psychiatric research and a blow to many homosexuals who looked to psychiatry for more help, not less." (Socarides, 1978, pp. 421-422 Sourced in: P. Scott Richards, "The Treatment of Homosexuality: Some Historical, Contemporary, and Personal Perspectives," AMCAP Journal Vol. 19, No. 1, 1993)...
Additional documentation:
An excerpt from "Evelyn Hooker and the Normalization of Homosexuality" by Dr. Thomas Landess
"Evelyn Hooker has been among the most influential figures in the highly successful movement to convince the American people that homosexuality is a "normal variant" of human sexual behavior. Her 1957 study, "The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual" (Journal of Projective Techniques, 1957, 21, 18-31) is the most frequently cited scientific source for the argument that homosexuality is not a pathology, that homosexuals are as free from mental disorder as heterosexuals.
Such assertions have not only found their way into standard psychology textbooks but have also provided a scientific basis for decisions in major court cases involving the legality of state sodomy laws and prohibitions against homosexual employment in certain state and local agencies (e.g., schools, police departments). Indeed, when the American Psychiatric Association debated the issue of homosexuality in 1973, Evelyn Hooker's work was Exhibit A for those who wanted to remove homosexuality from the group's list of mental disorders.
For many commentators and activists, the Hooker study effectively ended the debate over whether or not homosexuals were in any way abnormal in their relationships with each other and with the community at large. Today many Americans have accepted the idea that homosexuality is "normal" and "healthy" without realizing that such an opinion is derived in large measure from a single study -- one conducted by a UCLA professor whose previous laboratory subjects had been rats...
CONCLUSION This unquestioning acceptance of "authorities" on the basis of professional reputation or political correctness threatens the integrity of our legal system. Judges must take greater responsibility for assessing the soundness and accuracy of testimony by so-called experts; yet, paradoxically, such a task is manifestly beyond the competence of the court. This dilemma is the consequence of the politicizing of the scientific community over the past several decades, particularly in questions of sexuality. The recent exposure of Kinsey's errors indicates just how long researchers have been careless or deliberately misleading in approaching sexual questions. And the widespread acclamation of recent, flawed studies "proving" that homosexuality is inherited genetically is evidence that the problem has only worsened over the years."
Dollywood’s request angers gay organizers
Catholic institutions grapple with handling married gay workers
Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues
Homosexual leader vows to 'torture' opponents
"Gay Militia" Storms Christian Dinner in Calgary ( click here for video of the queer protesters )
I recently received the following email from Mission America:
Subject : Initial Results of our Student Survey
Survey Reveals: Students Lack Vital Information About Homosexual Risks
Your help on collecting survey information is still needed! See below.
The survey of middle and high school students Mission America has been conducting over the last six months is yielding some startling news about vital health information students are not getting from schools. We have tabulated the surveys we've received and we're very excited (as well as dismayed) about some of the trends.
So far, we have received surveys from around the country, with a higher concentration in the Great Lakes area. We would like to get many more, so we are keeping the survey open through the next few months and will give a final report in our fall issue.
But so far, students are indicating huge gaps in basic information schools have provided about homosexuality and its risks. The majority of students, for example, have NOT learned in school that two-thirds to three-fourths of HIV in the U.S. is the result of homosexual sex between men. Many students are, instead, attending classes throughout the curriculum that are delivering messages promoting tolerance of homosexual behavior. Students are also reporting incidents where some have spoken out in opposition to homosexuality in a responsible, non-bullying context, and are often treated with intolerance by not only students but also teachers and staff.
There is also a high correlation between the existence of a homosexual club at a school, and other pro-homosexual events and units of study. We are eager to document this to hopefully provide information school administrators can use to keep homosexual clubs out of the school environment.
PLEASE HELP! We’d like this study to be as comprehensive as possible and represent many regions of the U.S. If you’d like to help out by getting students you know to fill out the survey, it’s available at www.missionamerica.com/surveyform.php in PDF format, and in plain text also at www.missionamerica.com/agenda.php?articlenum=8 . The survey is only for students in public schools or private, non-religious schools. Have them complete the survey, then mail it back to us at PO Box 21836, Columbus, OH 43221 .
We are so grateful for the great help we’ve gotten from readers so far, and for your help in the future.
Homosexuality Propaganda: COMING TO A SCHOOL NEAR YOU
It’s Elementary A Video Review Children are our future. What we invest and instill in them will determine the cultural values of generations to come. Homosexual activists understand this principle all too clearly. As a result, they released a video designed to reshape the way American children understand homosexuality.
The video, entitled, It’s Elementary: Talking about Gay and Lesbian Issues in School, is a masterful work of propaganda. It is vital for people to understand that this video is not for adults. The target audience is children. Activists are after the heart and minds of the next generation
It’s Elementary opens with pro-family Sen. Robert Smith (R-New Hampshire) arguing that Congress should withhold federal funds from school districts which promote homosexuality.
The senator’s comments are interspersed with schoolchildren’s thoughts on homosexuality, such as "homosexuals are not bad people." Then the video cuts to the senator saying, "We must protect taxpayers by keeping this trash out of schools . . . and it is trash."1
At this point, the heavily slanted tone of the video is set to endorse homosexuality and disparage anyone who holds reasonable objections. It takes viewers on a tour of classes where teachers address the issue of homosexuality.
No Wrong Answers?
The first stop is New York Public School 87. In this elementary school, teacher Cora Sangra leads her fourth grade class in a discussion of homosexuality. "There are no right or wrong answers," she says.
But by the clever way in which she directs the class discussion, it’s clear she really doesn’t mean that. By simply asking questions, she steers the class discussion toward the conclusion that homosexuality is normal and natural.
These young children absorb this message like a sponge.
The next stop is Hawthorne Elementary School in Madison, Wisconsin. Here, Daithi Wolfe leads his third grade class in an exercise dealing with homosexuality. Wolfe draws a circle on the chalk board and writes "Gay and Lesbian" in the center.
Then he has the class brainstorm about this subject, and he writes their ideas on the board. All negative ideas are written on the right side.
All positive words, he writes on the left. One girl self consciously suggests the word "weird." Up on the right side it goes. Later someone says: "Nazi." Again, it goes on the right alongside "weird." What message is sent?
Wolfe continues his lesson by telling his students that Michelangelo was a gay man. He plays a section of "Circle of Life," the theme song from the popular movie The Lion King and asks the children if they know who sings the song.
"Elton John!" the children respond with excitement. Wolfe informs them that Elton John is a gay man. Many of the children are astonished.
When he notes that Melissa Etheridge is a lesbian, the girl who suggested the word "weird" sinks back into her seat mouthing the words "a lesbian" as a glazed look comes over her eyes.
"Give Us the Facts?"
The video then takes its viewers to an independent school in New York City, known as Manhattan Country School. Junior high students discuss the appropriateness of teaching about homosexuality in schools. "Schools need to give us all the facts and let us decide," one eighth grader commented. But what kind of "facts" are the teachers providing?
No one ever seems to share the "facts" about how homosexuality places people at a higher risk for sexually transmitted diseases.
One girl complains about how some material has an "in your face" approach.She disagrees with it because it tends to "freak kids out."
But a fellow student soon chastises her, saying, "The reason they freak out is because they haven’t seen it before . . . It needs to be thrown at them."
Next, at Luther Burbank Middle School in San Francisco, California, teachers brought homosexuals into the classroom to talk to the kids. The young teens tended to be opposed to homosexuality at first, but they soften toward it by the end of the presentation.
One teacher at Burbank comments on why he believes it is important to cover such topics in class. "If the educational system does not deal with these issues early on, then there’s bashing in the streets."
The principal of Luther Burbank Middle School agrees, saying, "[Homosexual education] should be mandatory. [The students] need to understand it so they can move on to learning." He is suggesting that without accepting the homosexual lifestyle, children are hindered from learning.
Early in the film, producers strive to discredit those who would oppose such teachings—particularly on the basis of faith and religion. Spliced in between children’s musings are strategically selected clips from "Donahue" and "The Ricki Lake Show" in which "Christians" say such things as: "God hates faggots!" and "The Bible I read says homosexuals should be put to death."
Never is any time given to a genuine Christian perspective which focuses on issues of sin, forgiveness, deliverance and reconciliation.
A Healthy Education?
The last school visit is to Cambridge Friends School in Massachusetts. This elementary school annually celebrates Gay and Lesbian Pride Day. The day before Pride Day, teachers gather for a faculty meeting to discuss how they plan to celebrate it in their classrooms.
One teacher poses a very interesting question: "What if a child comes from a family that believes homosexuality is wrong? Are we supposed to tell them that homosexuality is right and their family is wrong?"
Several teachers try to hedge their way around this question with comments on diversity and tolerance. Then finally one teacher says what the others have only been brave enough to infer: "We are asking kids to believe this is right—not as a matter of moral principle, but as a matter of educating them, and this is a part of what we consider to be a healthy education."
The following day at the school assembly, children cheerfully—and ironically—sing "This Little Light of Mine." Teachers and children alike wear pink triangle pins in support of homosexuality. And a male teacher "comes out" to the children.
He is both dynamic and eloquent, and the children react with wild applause. A teacher then speaks to the children with "tears of joy" in her eyes, sharing how proud she is of them and their acceptance of homosexuality—"they give her hope for a better future."
The video concludes with a series of bogus statistics regarding hate crimes and gay teen suicide in an effort to emphasize the importance of homosexual education in the schools.
The hour and a half long video is a Debra Chasnoff/Helen Cohen film produced by Women’s Education Media (WEM). Debra Chasnoff, an Academy Award winning director, used her Oscar for a previous film to "come out" as a lesbian.
Chasnoff’s purpose in creating the film is two-fold: to counter the "hysteria of the Religious Right" and to capture the hearts and minds of the next generation.
In a recent interview, Chasnoff openly states, "What’s clear in the film is that, the younger the kids, the more open they were . . . If we could start doing this kind of education in kindergarten, first grade, second grade, we’d have a better generation."
Co-producer Helen Cohen echoed this sentiment when she said the film is, "another medium to affect social change."4 Chasnoff is currently working on another film which explores different kinds of families, including gay and lesbian couples with children. The intended audience for this film is students—our children.
Distribution, Awards and Endorsements
It’s Elementary received widespread support and distribution at the National Education Association’s (NEA) 1997 national convention held in Atlanta. A lesbian caucus used the video as its big feature, and the NEA Peace and Justice Caucus promoted the video, labeling it "masterful." The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network
(GLSEN) was on hand to advertise books, video lists and Internet resources.
Targeted to state departments of education, local school boards, parents and teachers, the video has been screened in at least six states.California Assemblyman Sheila J. Huehl, an professed lesbian, intends to have it shown in all 50 states and has hosted a special screening for state education policymakers.
Endorsements include the Minnesota Parent-Teacher Association and the American Library Association, who called it "a sterling production" and "highly recommended."
The American School Counselor Association is making copies of the video available to schools across the nation. It’s Elementary has won several awards, including the C.I.N.E. Golden Eagle for the Best Teacher Education film of 1996. There are high expectations it will be nominated for a 1998 Oscar.
The video has done "phenomenally well" according to Ariella Ben-Dov, an associate producer with WEM. "We’ve sold approximately 1,200 video tapes . . . most of those sales are to educational organizations: elementary schools, middle schools and high schools.
They are being used for teacher training." Currently, WEM is soliciting financial support for national distribution, and various local PBS stations are airing the film in 1999.5
Stellar reviews have come from national mainstream media. The San Francisco Chronicle praised it as an "unabashedly biased, upbeat look at a subject that most parents would probably rather see disappear."
The Boston Globe review was quite frank when it said, "The filmmakers’ agenda is so clear, so unapologetic, the final result is refreshing."Sympathetic reviews such as these bolster support for the video and help gain approval for its distribution.
What Can We Do?
The video is clearly propaganda designed to change the next generation’s perspective on homosexuality. Larger than this is the fact that it was funded in part by your tax dollars through a National Endowment for the Arts grant to Portland Art Museum Northwest Film Center. But, most important, is the toll exacted on our kids.
What is the real cost of It’s Elementary? Do we want a generation that advocates an unnatural, immoral and harmful lifestyle and behavior? Will our children become the generation which legislates and compels acceptance of homosexuality?
Moral obligation to Godly truth demands that we protect the minds of our children. Children today hold the public opinions of tomorrow.
Abraham Lincoln understood the importance of education when he stated, " The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next."
At the heart of this cultural war lies the hopes and dreams of our children. One cannot help but fear the legacy we leave! Should we not speak out? Let’s give our children an education that teaches them how to reason, not what to think.
America does not need more false and damaging propaganda pumped into the schools. Children are our future. The values we teach them will determine what tomorrow looks like. It is up to parents, teachers and others to make sure children do not become prey to such cleverly crafted propaganda campaigns.
Children deserve the truth, and the truth is that homosexuality is a profoundly unhealthy and immoral lifestyle. For the sake of future generations, let’s teach the real facts in our schools.
Concerned Women for America
http://www.cwfa.org/
Union denies benefits to gay couples
Gay 'marriage' foes seek injunction in federal court
Gay presence will be doubled/Wanted: homosexual Democrats.
Same-sex marriage debuts May 17 (MA)
Gay marriage opponents see fight getting tougher - Setback likened to Roe v. Wade
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.