EDITOR'S NOTE: Because of the length of the following post, there will be a few days' interval before the next post. The next post will appear January 21, 2009, Guam time.
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 1997 03:04:28 0600
To: Rob Weinberg
From: Frank Grose
Subject: Re: Government Promotion
“How do you feel about your tax dollars being used to PROMOTE this (homosexuality)?”
You sure you want to go down this road with me? Here we go.....
Not really, since it was just used as an example of "government promotion" in the schools, but I guess I got it anyway. (As though we needed another topic of discussion going simultaneously!)
That's one clever third grader. Can you tell which "side" she's on? I suspect one of her parents is a lawyer because of her "talmudic" response. Talmudic in this context means answering a question with another question. You see me do it often, but it's not because I'm Jewish. Rather, it's because as a lawyer I was trained in the Socratic method, which has its origins, I suspect, in the Hebrew study of the talmud. I'm not convinced one way or the other which side the child is on from her question.
So, I guess the government indoctrination program worked on her. ; )
Now, let's lay some groundwork here: I don't expect you to answer this question, but much of the debate between the left and right involves a presupposition about the nature of homosexuality. Is it genetic or environmental? Nature or nurture? Something you're born with or a learned response? Modern scientific thought says that it's either genetic, or perhaps an abnormality in the embryonic or gestational process that causes it. Because I believe that no one in their right mind would deliberately chose to be oriented toward their own sex in the face of such rampant hostility and alienation in society, I believe that there is a scientific or medical explanation to why people are homosexual. In short, they are born that way.
Well we agree here. Surprised? It is in the genes. But let me explain a little more fully. So is adultery, pedophilia, etc. It is inherited ... from Adam. It is called "sin." We all inherited the curse of sin. Now I know that is not what you wanted me to say, but it is the truth. A thief is not a thief until he steals something. You were not a husband till you ritual of marriage (public and private). In dealing with this subject, one must separate the person from the act. Whatever one desires, that is not what makes him what he is. I wanted to fly, but until I went through a process, I was not a pilot, regardless of how badly I wanted to be. We condemn actions, not people. Jesus Christ, our example, loved the sinner, but hated the sin. When it came to sinful actions, you bet he was intolerant.
I will use the word "homophobia" freely. The more I think on it, and I've thought a lot about it these days unrelated to our dialog, the more I am convinced that term is accurate. A phobia is an irrational fear, homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals, that has no basis in fact.
With all due respects, Rob, you've been spending too much time on the wrong web pages! Your use of the term "homophobia" is rather surprising coming from you, an intellectual. That is the product of a sick brain of somewhere way, way out on the left. You can do better than throw out cheap stuff like that. Who, for crying out loud, is afraid of a homosexual? Certainly not me; no one I know. That is just emotional hatred from a low class of people that neither of us have any association with. You are better than that, my friend.
I have had many friends who are homosexual. You have too, you probably just didn't know it. You probably have family members who are homosexual but wouldn't dream of disclosing it to you. That spinster aunt? That confirmed bachelor uncle? Those cousins that were very creative, but never seemed to settle down and find the right spouse? They're all around and among us, leading very productive, if sexually secretive to you, lives.
I won't take that as a testimonial. I think a first cousin is, but that is about as close as it get with me. (Not a brag; fact.) You are right in that there are more around than we realize. My brother worked for one. I know a couple of folks who may be, but I don't care to know. We do our respective jobs, and that's okay. Am I tolerant, or what? ; )
They have made tremendous contributions to our world as scholars, artists, warriors, scientists, pastors, ministers and educators. In short, they're not bad people in and of themselves. It's just when it comes to matters of sex, they are disposed to prefer their own. And THAT is absolutely none of your or my business UNLESS a child is involved, and then it's all of our business, whether it comes from a homosexual or heterosexual.
I am not cutting down the contributions made by such people. I had the pleasure of ensuring several never got the chance to be warrior while I was a basic training commander. Whatta you gonna do when a guy says, "I just can't take the temptation."? At least he was honest enough to admit it and ask to get out. Others didn't, but got caught in bed with another guy later on. Regardless of how I feel about homosexuality, those who practice it do not belong in the military. Neither do women belong in combat either, but that is entirely another issue. (No, I don't want to debate that topic now.) And when a minister succumbs to such temptation (like any other sexual sins), lots of people get hurt.
A notion you must, if you possess it, disabuse yourself of is the idea that homosexuality and pedophilia are related. They are not. The incidence of pedophilia and child abuse by homosexuals is statistically no greater than by heterosexuals. In whole numbers then, your grandchild has considerably more to fear from an opposite sex pedophile than a same sex pedophile. More importantly on the subject of pedophilia, your grandchild stands a phenomenonally higher statistical chance of abuse by incest than by a stranger or non family member.
You are, no doubt closer to statistical data to support those statements than I. I'll take your word for it, without asking the source of your information. (Picture that! A right wing fundamentalist Christian whacko TRUSTING a flaming liberal!?! ; ) But notice, I didn't say "lawyer" or "Jewish.") Unfortunately, you are probably right. My wife served on a grand jury last year. She said I wouldn't believe the high percentage of child molestation cases. Some crimes deserve frontier justice. Child abuse is one of them. Don't know how or if I could handle such should it
occur with my grandchild.
My first reaction to the beginning of the article was surprise that third graders are learning about tolerance and sexual diversity. Upon reflection, I realized that the third grade is probably exactly the right age to start teaching tolerance. If they're old enough to call one another names on the playground, they're old enough to learn better.
Tolerance for people? Yes. Of their acts (of homosexuality) and lifestyle? No.
Blame it on AIDS and an official push for acceptance of diverse lifestyles, but notions of what even young children need to know have been radically altered. Kindergartners are learning about "homophobia" as lessons about alternative lifestyles and homosexuality appear in America's elementary schools often without parental knowledge.
"Without parental knowledge" is... debatable. In the face of parental apathy is more likely. A slight, but significant difference. Note the use in the first sentence of the conjunctive "and." There are two distinct concepts at issue here, discussed in detail below. One is AIDS, the other is the question of tolerance. They are not automatically tied together, except in the minds of homophobes.
It was a newspaper article. Are you saying we can't believe what we read in the newspaper? Children need to be taught about AIDS. They ought to be made to be scared to death of it. But to teach tolerance of the homosexual lifestyle (as normal) along with it is taking advantage of one to promote the other. Yes, a deliberate use of the word "promote." Nearly a decade ago, state mandated AIDS instruction opened the door to teaching about homosexuality in schools, as teachers found it impossible to talk about how AIDS is transmitted without discussing homosexual practices. At first, discussions of the topic were largely confined to high school, but that is changing.
Teachers who aren't qualified to address the topic of AIDS without the details of homosexual behavior, shouldn't be trying. It should be left to someone who is qualified, or perhaps a team of a medical professional and a minister, accompanying the teacher. Kids that age know about "queers" and what they do. They need to be told not to engage in it, but leave the details of how much and what they can do "safely" out of the curriculum. Haven't we seen the result of the "safe sex" instruction? Telling them how far they can "safely go" with homo or hetero sex (I'll use your term) has the EFFECT of promoting it. Don't deny it. You said that the second grade teacher would be promoting religion (because of her position of authority) if she didn't handle the prayer suggestion just right. The same certainly applies here. The social experiment of safe sex has failed! It is time they heard "NO."
Again, originally I found it somewhat surprising that this was discussed this early in school. The article mixes them somewhat, but here we're talking about AIDS as a public health question, normally confined to discussions of venereal disease in sex education class. Given the confines of articles and space limitations, the two paragraphs suggest that AIDS awareness and homosexual tolerance are taught together. I doubt it is true and explain why in a bit.
As I said before, it shouldn't be taught together. Instructions in human sexuality and reproduction should be in segregated classes, unless the underlying motive of the curriculum (not necessarily the teacher, but the authors of the lesson plan, etc.) is one of promoting the activity. Yep, there are those in education, I wouldn't trust out of my sight. And the secretive way such instruction is often given, further proves the point.
Considering the fact that girls are arriving at puberty at the age of 10-12 these days, compared to 13-16 when we were young, it makes sense to discuss it earlier than high school, say around the age of 10. On the issue off tolerance, it makes absolute sense the more I think about it, that third graders, around age eight, would be taught at that age. Rogers and Hammerstein said it best in "South Pacific":
Wait a minute, Rob. Remember your logic. Even pre-adolescent girls can be intolerant. What does puberty have to do with it. I am for, in the right setting with qualified personnel, teaching human sexuality, hygiene, and biological functions at the appropriate level for the children, but only with parental permission and if the course is open for parental preview and class monitoring.
I know you are going to jump on that one, so let me say a little more on it. You don't see it relating to religion, and it may not yours. But it does mine. Homosexuality (the act) is a sin. The Old Testament scriptures are explicit about that. For the child of Christian parent to be taught what he can do "safely" with either sex is promoting an activity that is counter to my religion and the religion and values the parent is trying to instill in their child. Delaying such explicit knowledge during the more formative years can only be positive. That is what a lot of folks find objectionable about the DARE program. They have the kids "role play" doing wrong. Putting too much emphasis on something that shouldn't be done has the effect of promoting it.
Child psychologists know that a child's psyche, his sense of himself, his place in the world, his view of how parents and adults and he are supposed to interact, is pretty well "formed" by the age of 5 to 7. The best time to teach a child to be a racist or a homophobe is by that age. Afterwards, you've got to undo that learned intolerance, and it's often too late.
Let me tell you a little more about me so you can appreciate who you have teamed up with. I grew up hearing everyone, including my parents, referring to blacks as "niggers." The difference was, then, at least with my folks, it wasn't used as a derogatory term, only an identification of race. I was told that they didn't like to be called that, and that "negro" was the proper word. My parents were racist either. Never saw anything other than kindness shown by them to anyone, especially a member of a minority group. They didn't express racist comments publicly or privately. I never learned to be prejudiced. I hated the word "nigger." My oldest child was in the second grade before he ever heard it. He came home and asked his momma what it meant? She deferred to me, and I explained it to him as best I could in a way that you'd have been proud of. Any racist concepts my children got, they didn't learn from me. With some years behind me, I don't like some of the things I see of blacks as a whole these days, but I keep those thoughts very private. I have black neighbors. They are good folks. Spent some time over at his house chatting with one of them just this morning. (Not a testimonial.) A small person is one who would instill racist ideas in their children. I have little use for him. A cute little song, that may be quite true, unfortunately. But you are preaching to the choir.
The Clinton administration recently endorsed grade school "diversity" training to encourage students to be tolerant of minorities, homosexuals and the disabled.
The National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers union and a powerful voice in American education, adopted a resolution urging schools to develop activities and programs that "increase acceptance of and sensitivity to" diverse groups, including homosexuals.
I agree with Clinton on this one, for reasons expressed above.
But Rob, it's "government endorsement" of morals and values with which I may not agree!! That is inconsistent for you to agree with Clinton. If someone's, morals, values, or religion, is promoted by the government, do you disagree with it only when it fails to align with your particular belief (or agenda, if the term fits)? I'm really not trying to be unkind or sarcastic here, but the inconsistency is very apparent. You may try to rationalize it, but it isn't likely to be very effective.
Remember that quote from Pastor Neimoller on my web page? "When they came for the homosexuals I said nothing, for I was not a homosexual...." If you can accept that there may be a medical basis to explain homosexuality, then it's only one step from discriminating against homosexuals on the basis of their orientation to discriminating against the disabled. From there to race. From race to religion.
Please, not the "disabled" line with regard to homosexuals! You know better, and statistics of income and personal economics prove it. I am not tempted by robbery; some may be. Some of those who give in to the desire are robbers. They got that title by committing an act, not by having the desire, whatever the source of the desire. Notice carefully, that I have not condemned anyone for the thoughts or temptations running around in their heads. It is when they act on them and commit an antisocial act, is when I an intolerant of it (the act). Homosexual acts would still be repulsive to me, even without a belief in the Bible. Unless they have been changed recently, some states still have laws against it. Out of consideration for your lack of belief in the Bible as Truth, I'm trying to avoid a biblical response. I hope you can appreciate that. Just don't try to make homosexuals a "protected minority" or "disabled" (before they get AIDS). It is bad enough that my taxes go to care for folks with AIDS when over 90% of them got it through immoral activity and drug abuse, both of which are in violation with either man's or God's laws. I'm not advocating we stop and just let them die. The bad part is they become a burden to working folks like you and me because of their careless, immoral, or legal activity. They are still of the age they should be contributing to society, not taking from it.
"Teachers need more opportunity dealing with these issues," said Richard W. Riley, the administration's secretary of education.
“Hey, Rob, does a Presidential ‘ENDORSEMENT’ qualify as ‘government promotion?’ ”
Absolutely and categorically "no." Homophobes would say "yes," but that is because they fear homosexuals and do not understand the message. When the president says we need to be tolerant of people who are different from us, he is not saying, "Hey! Try it. You'll Like It...." He's saying, if they ain't bothering you, don't bother them.
I say "Yes" and I am NO homophobe. I don't fear homosexuals... period. I shall not resort to expletives to emphasize that point.
Rob, you're buying into a technique that was used so effectively in Hitler's Germany. First they identify, then they isolate, then they vilify. Next comes passing laws against, then they act within those laws. Was it "unlawful" for the SS to drag Jews to the ovens? Taking your advice not following your example), I am trying to refrain from name calling.
You see, I do not view this as a religious or moral issue. Or, stated differently, I can separate the morality question from the political question of how we're all supposed to live in this world together. The president is addressing the political question.
Unless you claim some kind of moral superiority, my view is just as valid as yours. To me it is closely related to the religion issue. See, you aren't prone to talk in such tolerant terms as "how we're all supposed to live in this world together" when it come to prayer in the school, before a ball game, or in a courtroom. God forbid that a teacher or principle mentions God in the "non-approved" context, but it's okay for the same people to teach my kid all the dirty little details of the homosexual lifestyle, then have the audacity to tell him to accept it as normal, and it is against my religious convictions and done without my permission. You have your work cut out for you to make me believe that, my friend. And you won't get to first by using the tired expressions and name calling so typical of the left. Would you have given that same kind of argument to the parents of the Jewish kids in Pike County? "Hey, you all cool it. They weren't really putting you down because of your religion. We've all got to be able to live togther, now." Come on!
“May I invite you to consider the following as analogous to this situation and the "prayer crisis" in America. Mat 7:3 "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" Where is the outcry against this?”
You may "invite" me anywhere, but just as is true of an invitation to a homosexual encounter, I may not necessarily go with you. I don't follow your point with Matthew. That has always been a favorite of mine, right up there with "let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone." I do not accept the premise that teaching tolerance equates to promoting or endorsing homosexuality as a lifestyle.
You fail to see the wrong in what the school is doing because you find a way to rationalize that it isn't. That may fit fine and dandy in your world view, but you're losing site of the fact that we don't all share your world view.
It is not analogous to the "prayer crisis" except that the religious right has that issue high on its political agenda. It is the right that mixes apples and oranges. To say "be tolerant of homosexuals" is not the same as saying "go out and be one." Only people who are afraid of their own sexuality would draw that conclusion.
You are getting close to making personal accusations here. Careful. Listen carefully, it is not the individual but the practice that is the object of intoleration. There is a difference. You can hate a child’s unacceptable behavior without hating the child. Try to see the difference. One is a sinner, the other is sin. The sinner needs salvation. Christ died for him too. The sin needs to cease. Please try to understand the Christian point of view on this and you won't be making "apples and oranges" mistake yourself.
I am very secure in my own masculinity. I suspect you are too. I suspect that your objections to homosexuality are premised entirely on your understanding of the biblical prohibitions against it. What I consistently find in the vocal opponents to homosexuality is they themselves have many "issues" with their own sexuality. I have suspected on more than one occasion that those who object the loudest are fighting their own latent homosexuality. "Not me," they cry. Well as Hamlet said to his mother, "Methinks thou doth protest too much."
See the response above. Methinks you absorb unchallenged the bunk that the radical homosexual organizations publish. That isn't characteristic of you at all. Try substituting Christianity or religion in the above paragraph. It seems that it is those who need religion (salvation) the most are the ones being so vocal against it. Now that I would believe.
“(This is not intended to prompt a discussion on homosexuality, but to, once again, point out government promotion of the "left" agenda in the public schools.) Read on.”
The point was "government permotion," not our respective feelings and beliefs about homosexuals and homosexuality. Keep the focus.
There you go again. You can't do that. Start a discussion and then disavow responsibility for doing so by saying you don't intend to.
Ditto above.
As a purely political matter, it may very well be a "left" agenda. But make sure you understand the message before you criticize it.
Good advice. Try it with my message regarding the difference in view of the homosexual and the practice of homosexuality, and with "not all prayer is inherently promotion of religion."
"But to Florida mother Jodi Hoffman, the results at the classroom level have been disastrous.
"Ninety eight percent of parents out there have no idea what's going on in their schools," she says. "We know we've got a problem when they prosecute if you talk about God anywhere near a school, but it's OK to teach students that anal sex is an acceptable method of birth control."
I would not be surprised that 98% of parents don't know what's going on in their schools. That explains a helluva lot, including the dropout rate, teen pregnancy, juvenile crime and a host of other societal ills.
Amen. Of course that 98% no longer includes those parents who found out and pull their kids out in favor of private or homeschool, for their kid's sake.
I defy anyone to produce evidence that any teacher has ever taught, let alone suggested, that anal sex is an acceptable method of birth control, or that homosexuals have ever said that. That's unadulterated hysteria, and should clue you in right away that what this woman has to say is inherently unreliable.
You are grasping at straws!
Mrs. Hoffman and her husband, Paul, have pulled their three children out of Broward County public schools and filed a class action suit against the school board to stop what they call the board's promotion of homosexuality in sex education courses.
This woman's problem is as much that she doesn't want her children taught about tolerance as she doesn't want them taught sex education. They are distinct issues, but she's lumped them together. From a public health standpoint, sex education is necessary. No less so than is true of teaching about the spread of heterosexual venereal disease, or tuberculosis or any other communicable disease. We can't hide our head in the sand. One of the ways AIDS and HIV are transmitted is through homosexual sex. Another is sharing needles. But today the primary spread of AIDS is through heterosexual sex.
I shall not challenge the truth of the last statement, but then we have the homosexuals and drug addicts to thank for it, don't we. I know that not all who get AIDS committed homosexual acts, but trace back the family tree of their particular virus, and you'll surely find a homosexual back there somewhere (a statistically high probablility).
"I am furious and outraged that tax dollars are being spent to promote a lifestyle that if embraced will cut our son's life in half," says Mrs. Hoffman.
The first time I read this I was truly baffled. She's made the quantum leap that tolerance of people who are oriented differently than you are will lead her son to homosexual encounters which will then automatically lead to her son contracting AIDS. Wow! Do you think if you're much more tolerant of me, you'll wake up Jewish and craving lox, bagels and gefilte fish?
Try reading it again. That isn't what she said. Don't you agree that a person who embraced or adopted the lifestyle (participated in the acts) would likely shorten his life? If it is so great, have you told your son to "take your choice, boys or girls"? Of course not. And for lots of reasons beyond avoiding AIDS.
Among the Hoffmans' complaints: At one middle school, the school board allowed officials from a community organization to tell the children they would be lucky to be on the receiving end of oral sex and not to worry if their "cut free" leg happened to be splashed with HIV positive blood.
The last part of this sentence is scientifically true. Assuming the first part to be scientifically true, I can tell it's out of context and distorted. What might have been said is that swallowing semen has not been shown or scientifically proven to spread HIV absent a sore or cut inside the mouth of the recipient. Those are not endorsements or promotion of homosexuality as a lifestyle. That's a public health matter designed to educate on how AIDS and HIV is spread and how it is not. Science filtered through homophobic hysteria. Interesting stuff you're sharing there, Frank.
So, if you can't get aids from oral sex, and homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle, then oral sex with another man is safe and acceptable. And that isn't promotion?!? If it were religion, it certainly wouldn't pass the "effect" portion of the Lemon test, would it?
"I'm not a nut, I'm not a foaming religious right winger or a fanatical bigot," Mrs. Hoffman says. "What I am is pro parent and pro family. I'm for my children.”
Ah, but she is all of those. And her saying that she's not doesn't make the converse true. She is afraid of homosexuals and translates that fear into a prediction that her son will die of AIDS if he is tolerant of them. That's the exact same kind of thinking that cause the burning of numerous alleged "witches" during the times of the plague in the middle ages. It's hysterical nonsense.
Let's see, calling folks names is step number 3, I believe. You condemn her automatically because she has an opposing opinion. I prefer to give her the benefit of the doubt as knowing the children, the school, and the situation. Remember, she has the responsibility for what her child turns out to be. The schools (meaning government) think they have the right to conduct one social experiment after another on our children with impunity. I personally know an individual that took part in the famous government LSD experiment. Fortunately, he got the placebo.
"Schools make the kids think about sex," she says. "When my daughter was 10, we opted her out of a sex education class and they put her in anyway."
Schools make the kids think about sex?! Give me a frigging break!
Right! I thought it was hormones and short skirts and all that stuff too! ; )
That woman's daughter will be pregnant or have a venereal disease by the age of 15, and it won't be the school's fault for failing to teach the kid how to prevent either. Teaching kids about the causes of pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases is a public health issue that Ms. Hoffman is clearly unqualified to handle. Neither is an endorsement of premarital sex.
If she is pregnant at 15, she won't be alone. Have you checked the statistics on teen pregnancies to back in the 50's? Any explanation of the sharp trend upward around the 1964 timeframe, or the steep slope even with the current method of teaching sex ed? Obviously something isn't working well now. You'd fire your broker if he didn't do something to halt such an unfavorable trend. But the government keeps mandating more of the same failed methods. Speak softly, Dad, there may be a teenager in your house.
And teaching children tolerance of people who are oriented differently is not an endorsement of homosexuality as a lifestyle to be emulated.
EFFECT! (Why not? It works against religion.)
Well, you pegged me right on the politics of this issue. And it is a political question. Reliance on biblical proscriptions aren't the answer to this political question. For example there are loads of things in the Bible that we as a government don't follow. The first three or four commandments, depending on whose interpretation you're reading, are in direct conflict with the free speech and establishment clauses of the first amendment. Slavery is no longer condoned as it was in the Bible, nor is servitude in women. We don't stone people for adultery, we don't follow the dietary laws, we don't circumcise, there are hosts of other examples. You have a moral and religious problem with it based on your reading of the Bible. I don't.
If you don't know where you are going, any road will get you there! In Humanism, there is no wrong and no right. It's all arbitrary and relative. Yes, I do believe in a higher standard than man's laws. Whatever viewpoints I learn to appreciate and accept from you will not be those that run counter to my belief in God. If it can't be fit into that frame, it don't stand a chance. I'm not saying that because my head is in the sand. I'm saying, if you want to persuade me, you have to do it within those bounds. Because of your acknowledged) inadequacies in the Bible, you may have trouble with that.
Walk a mile in the shoes of the Hoffmans? I'd love to, but they're too tight, too ignorant, to phobic. But I'll tell you what's really wrong with such people and how I would wear those shoes, assuming I held the same belief that homosexuality is wrong and that sex education should not be taught in schools. It would go like this: "Son, we know you're being taught in school that you should be tolerant of all kinds of people. We agree with that general principal, and in your daily life you should behave accordingly. But we believe that God says that homosexuality as a lifestyle is wrong. We want you to understand that to tolerate people who are different than you is not the same thing as meaning you should be like them.
Those are good approaches. They might work, even if the "effect" of the message they are getting in the classroom and in the hallway is otherwise. It might even work even when they think their parents are old stick in the mud and homophobic. I hope it does work for you. BTW, I see you too have a "normal" marriage. ; ) Shhhhhh! It gets more "normal" with time.
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment