'Ex-Gays' Seek a Say in Schools

Los Angeles Times ^ | May 28, 2006 | Stephanie Simon

[DBeers]

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Over the last decade, gay-rights activists have pushed programs to support gay and lesbian students in public schools. Their success is striking:

More than 3,000 Gay-Straight Alliance clubs meet across the country. Nearly half a million students take a vow of silence one day each spring in an annual event to support gay rights. California may soon require textbooks to feature the contributions of gays and lesbians throughout history.

Critics, mostly on the religious right, view all this as promoting the "homosexual lifestyle." Unable to stop it, they have turned to a new strategy: demanding equal time for their view in public schools and on college campuses.

Conservative Christians and Jews have teamed up with men and women who call themselves "ex-gay" to lobby — and even sue — for the right to tell teenagers that they can "heal" themselves of unwanted same-sex attractions.

They argue that schools have an obligation to balance gay-pride themes with the message that gay and lesbian students can go straight through "reparative therapy." In this view, homosexuality is not a fixed or inborn trait but a symptom of emotional distress — a disorder that can be cured.

Alan Chambers, a leading ex-gay activist, recalls how scared and depressed he felt when a high-school counselor advised him to deal with his attraction to other boys by accepting his homosexuality. He had no choice, she told him: He was gay. "It was very damaging," Chambers said. "I didn't want that. I hadn't chosen it."

His senior year, Chambers found his way to Exodus International, a network of groups that support ex-gays. He is now married to a woman, a father of two — and the president of Exodus.

~SNIP~

[free_at_jsl.com]

I like your arguments. I have not seen such a clearly stated argument against homosexuality in schools before now.

I have two young boys in public school and I am worried.

[Lucky Dog]

Thank you. Feel free to borrow them as you like... with some attribution, of course.

[rfreedom4u]

Paul Lynde was a great comedian and actor. Of course it had NOTHING to do with the fact that he was gay.

[rfreedom4u]

Obesity is defined by behavior, i.e., engaging in eating activity with no exercise and gaining lots of weight. (The term obese is a diversionary tactic employed to rhetorically cloud the issue.)

Any human behavior (not driven by autonomic or instinctual responses) that is not voluntary is, by definition, a psychosis.

Therefore, obese behavior is either a voluntary choice or a psychosis.

If obese behavior is a voluntary choice, then it is subject to the same types of societal regulations as is any other behavior such as pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc.

If obese behavior is a psychosis, then it is validly subject to treatment and possible cure.

If obese behavior is voluntary, it has no more claim to discussion in a public school curriculum than does pedophilia, prostitution, polygamy, etc., i.e., none.

If obese behavior is involuntary (a psychosis), it has no more claim to discussion in a school curriculum than does any other psychosis, i.e., none.

In either case, obese practitioners have no valid claim to insist on inclusion of discussion of their eating habits in a public school curriculum. (If these individuals do not practice exclusively obese activity, then, by definition, they can choose not to be obese.) By the principles of genetics, exclusively obesity practitioners would cause such types of individuals to appear in the population at no greater rate than that of other genetic disorders which prevent their victims from enjoying life to the fullest, not the currently observed proportion of the population.


The argument can be twisted to anything. I have a cheesecake habit but don't demand any special recognition. It's my CHOICE! There is no cheesecake gene.

[Lucky Dog]

The argument can be twisted to anything. I have a cheesecake habit but don't demand any special recognition. It's my CHOICE! There is no cheesecake gene.

The argument is pure logic. Logical arguments must be both sound and valid, meaning that their premises must be true and the syllogism is free of logic fallacies. In the case I presented both criteria are met. There is no “twisting” as you put it.

The presence or absence of any particular gene is irrelevant to the point of the argument. The point is simply that an individual acts either voluntarily or as the result of a psychosis. In either case, homosexual behavior is not entitled to any special acknowledgements or privileges.

I hope this has clarified the argument for you.

[rfreedom4u]

In either case, homosexual behavior is not entitled to any special acknowledgements or privileges.

I agree completely.

[Lucky Dog]

I agree completely.

Spread the news.

[longtermmemmory]

Why don't the ex-homosexuals simply create a course program and take it to the school board for use as "approved materials".

How about using the referendum process to force school boards to present the ex-homosexual information? Many boards even have diversity boards that are subject to judicial review if they fail to present "diversity" to the students.

[mikeyc]

I read so many posts on FR from individuals who put an incredible amount of energy into the arguement that homosexuality is a 'choice'. I really don't understand why this arguement is emphasised so much. Why is it so important a point?
Whether it's a choice or not, homosexual activity is not right. Even if it's a genetic error in some homosexuals, it doesn't give it any more validity.

None of the arguements for it being exclusively a phsychosis, a choice, or a genetic flaw has been proven beyond doubt, and maybe they are all true in varying degrees in different individuals.

Whatever... we really don't know for sure, and I don't see how it really matters.
Homosexual activity is destructive and negative, and should be contained in society, whatever the cause.

Can someone enlighten me to why the cause of homosexuality is so important?

[Lucky Dog]

Can someone enlighten me to why the cause of homosexuality is so important?

You have already stated parts of the reason, yourself:

Homosexual activity is destructive and negative, and should be contained in society, whatever the cause.

Beyond your own statement implying negative impacts for the afflicted individual, there are negatives for the society as a whole.

In a nutshell, the argument is that homosexuals are militantly “pushing” their life style on the rest of society, demanding change in millennia old, family, moral traditions, insisting on unjustifiable societally disruptive legal changes, etc. More specifically, consider the following:

The legalization of homosexual marriage will quickly destroy the traditional family.

Children will suffer most.

Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically.

Some states allow gay couples to adopt children even though there are many studies which confirm that children do not "thrive" as well in households parented by a single gender. Government programs such as Big Brothers Big Sisters were developed because we know that children need gender identification.

Religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized.

The health care system will stagger and perhaps collapse.

From 1981 through 1999, there were 751,965 cumulative reported cases of AIDS in the U.S. At least 56 percent of the AIDS diagnoses occurred in gay or bisexual men. In other words, two percent of the population had at least 56 percent of those reported AIDS diagnoses. The second largest group was IV drug users. What about heterosexual sex? In the U.S., persons who have been infected with HIV through heterosexual contact have usually had vaginal or anal intercourse with someone in one of the high-risk categories -- a bisexual male or someone who is an IV drug user. It is now estimated that there are between 900,000 and 1,000,000 persons in the U.S. who are HIV-positive.

In addition to the physical, psychological, and emotional devastation of HIV/AIDS is the high cost of treatment. The wholesale cost for the combination drug therapies treating HIV is about $14,000 annually per patient. (Medication costs can be much higher depending on the drugs included in the regimen.) A study completed in 2002 estimated that costs treating patients who had progressed to an AIDS disease were around $34,000 annually per patient. Variations in this approximation include medications, hospitalization, diagnostic costs and clinic costs. The health care costs of AIDS diseases and drugs for treating HIV have impacted your health insurance premiums tremendously. The direct costs of HIV/AIDS are similar to other very serious illnesses; however, the indirect costs are higher since HIV affects predominantly working-age persons.

More funding is now spent on research into AIDS cures than is spent on heart disease and cancer research combined. This expenditure is despite the fact that heart disease and cancer kill many times more people than AIDS.

To add to the disease argument: Sexually transmitted diseases – Research gathered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC, has found significantly higher rates of rectal gonorrhea, HIV/AIDS and all three strains of Hepatitis among homosexuals. Other studies have likewise linked homosexuality with increased rates of Human Papillomavirus (the leading cause of cervical cancer worldwide), syphilis and anal cancer. Although self-identified homosexuals account for less than 5 percent of the American population, they are the carriers of over 50 percent of HIV/AIDS cases.

There are, in fact, many more arguments that could be brought up here. However, these are enough to establish the point.

[mikeyc]

Just two points to make here, and closely connected:

Pedophilia: People with pedophilia have fantasies, urges or behaviors that involve illegal sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).

I think the important word in this sentence was overlooked... the first 'or'.
The quote you use states clearly that pedophilia relates to people who have pedophile fantasies and urges, as well as those who are involved in the activity.

On that same subject, regarding homosexuality, I have always understood homosexuality to be what standard dictionaries describe it to be:

homosexual (noun) a person, especially a man, who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex and not to people of the opposite sex
Cambridge Dictionary

Homosexual: A person sexually attracted to persons of the same sex. Homosexuals include males (gays) and females (lesbians).
---MedTerms.com Medical Dictionary

Can someone please explain why the word is being misused on this forum to describe only those who indulge in sexual activity?
It makes it so difficult to discuss homosexuality when we are talking about different things.

With respect.

[mikeyc]

Yes, I totally and unreservedly agree with all the points you have made about homosexuality.
However, I'm still not clear why the cause of it is so important. Surely the points you have made about it still apply, whatever the cause is?

[Lucky Dog]

Can someone please explain why the word [homosexual] is being misused on this forum to describe only those who indulge in sexual activity?

On the contrary, the word, “homosexual,” has been correctly and precisely used in referring only to those in practice the behavior.

It makes it so difficult to discuss homosexuality when we are talking about different things.

You are absolutely correct… Using the term homosexual to describe only those who indulge in the activity makes it far easier to discuss the issue in terms of fact and logic. Claiming multiple meanings for a term is a tried and true, rhetorical tactic for those who cannot win on the facts and logic.

Psychologists have coined the term “sexual orientation” in an attempt to create a distinction between those who “feel’ or “think” a certain way in contrast to those who “behave” a certain way. Does not this effort give you a clue as to why the term, “homosexual” is appropriate only for those who practice the behavior?

One does not call some one who “feels” like he should be married to multiple women, but does not do so, a “polygamist,” does one? One does not call some one who “feels” like she should sell her body for sexual pleasure, but does not do so, a “prostitute,” does one? Therefore, why should the term homosexual be applied to one who merely “feels” or “thinks” about the activity, but not engage in the activity?

Perhaps you would care to take a go at explaining the difference in the same term as applied to one who merely “feels” or “thinks” about something in contrast to one who actually engages in the activity…

Your response?

[Lucky Dog]

From my earlier post #45 (in part):

The argument is pure logic. Logical arguments must be both sound and valid, meaning that their premises must be true and the syllogism is free of logic fallacies. In the case I presented both criteria are met...

The presence or absence of any particular gene is irrelevant to the point of the argument. The point is simply that an individual acts either voluntarily or as the result of a psychosis. In either case, homosexual behavior is not entitled to any special acknowledgements or privileges.

I hope this has clarified the argument for you.

[mikeyc]

" I hope this has clarified the argument for you."

Yes, I think so... but even if there was a gene that contributes in some way to homosexual urges in some individual (something nobody knows, as genetic decifering is in it's infancy), that would also be of little consequence, as such a gene would be a deformity of purpose. Any homosexual gene would not support homosexualisation in society. There are genes found for other deseases and negative mental conditions, but none of those conditions have the ability to recruit and have such a negative social effect on society.

My point is that whatever the causes of the condition, and whether that includes something genetic or not, the same arguements against homosexuality would still apply. To stick to an 'either voluntary or psychotic' arguement, and totally discounting the possibility of a genetic connection, limits the arguement against homosexuality. The liberals and homo activists seem to use the gene argument in their own favour, when I really don't see it as exclusively their own ammunition.

The 'gene' situation is unproved either way, and probably won't be proved for a long time. Simply denying it's possibility doesn't appear to me to be a positive approach to the arguement.

[Lucky Dog]

The 'gene' situation is unproved either way, and probably won't be proved for a long time. Simply denying it's possibility doesn't appear to me to be a positive approach to the arguement.

I am not sure I understand the point of your post.

I have never denied on this thread that such a gene exists, nor have I asserted that it does. One could claim that a so-called, homosexual gene exists until the proverbial “lake of fire” freezes over, and whether, or not, such was actually the case matters nothing. Genes do not determine human behavior in non-psychotic individuals.

Consequently, the existence, or lack thereof, of a so-called, homosexual gene is not germane to the discussion of homosexual behavior. If I understand your last post, I think you agree on this point.

[mikeyc]

I'm Sorry. My point wasn't directed at you individually, but I was just replying to your post to make a general point about the strong arguements put against it's possible existence.

You are right. We do agree.
:)

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Even if it's a genetic error in some homosexuals, it doesn't give it any more validity.

The important thing is that factually, it is not... I do agree with you overall premise to an extent... Disability, welfare, Social Security, etc., etc., ad nausea...

The social psychosis generated by behavioral conditioning (Pavlov's salivating dogs) in the popular culture and the conditioned response to accept the false premises of mental illness or birth defect will be used as a political tool to systematically rob the public purse.

Then, we could have other self-inflicted mental illness and disease (aside from those we already do) subsidized by the government consolidating an ever increasing portion of the economy in the hands of the cultural Marxists.

[mikeyc]

"On the contrary, the word, “homosexual,” has been correctly and precisely used in referring only to those in practice the behavior.

As I quoted two dictionaries to show the contrary, one of them from which you have quoted, maybe you can provide a quote from a dictionary to back up your statement above?

I understand what you are saying, but when the majority of the population use the word 'homosexuality' to mean an orientation (which is what it has always meant), you can pervert the meaning of the word to whatever you like, but the most logical thing would be to create a new word to describe what you mean.

The fact is that the word means what all the dictionaries tell you it means. All you do by trying to repurpose the word is to create confusion.

I just want to add that your suggestion that someone wanting to commit polygomy or is a prostitute is in any way comparable to the mental condition of a homosexual, grossly underestimates the power of homosexuality within the individual with the affliction. It isn't simply something that you "feel". If it was, then it would be far less of a problem than it is.