For concerned students, parents and communities
The activities and policies below may sound nice, but in reality protect and promote homosexuality and sexual promiscuity, putting students directly in harm's way instead of cautioning them about risky behavior.
Is your school jumping on this foolish bandwagon?
1.__ A "safe schools" non-harassment program
Assumption: Claims that students involved in homosexuality need to be protected because they are at higher risk for harassment and violence.
Problems: Protects dangerous behavior and silences those who believe homosexuality is wrong. Assumes that some students are naturally homosexual, and that it is not risky behavior. Also assumes that these students need special safeguards not extended to other students, and that a well-enforced, equitable non-harassment policy is insufficient.
Result: The behavior of homosexuality becomes essentially endorsed by the school, because it protects the option for any student to engage in it. Ends up labeling anyone who objects to homosexuality as a potential "harasser."
2.__ A homosexual student club
Assumption: That students involved in homosexuality are a self-contained minority who need higher self-esteem and greater comfort with homosexual behavior.
Problems: Establishes adult/community support for participation in homosexuality with all its known risks. Ironically, in most schools, HIV educational programs about the risks of this behavior are fully supported. A club provides a venue where students curious about this behavior, but who have not yet engaged in it, can readily meet students and even adult advisors to begin homosexual relationships-with school support! With the emphasis on homophobia, these clubs become breeding grounds for hostility, where bigoted attitudes are nurtured against anyone who objects to homosexual behavior, objections which can save a student's life.
Results: Communities and families become divided on this basic issue, and student lives and welfare are put at extreme risk based on misinformation.
3._Non-discrimination policy based on "sexual orientation"
Assumption: That people practicing homosexual behavior are a minority group different from other people. Also, that they are in need of special protection based on homosexuality.
Problems: Underlying message is that homosexuality is acceptable in the school environment for anyone who wants to engage in it. Ends up labeling all objections to homosexuality as problematic, rather than the dangerous, immoral behavior itself. Homosexual practices can and do change over time.
Results: Students and teachers who want to engage in homosexuality, bisexuality etc. are protected in doing so, and in expressing this to others in the school system. This in essence becomes an endorsement of a behavior which should actually be discouraged.
4.__ Programs to stop "homophobia," "hate" or "bias"
Assumptions: That there is something wrong with objecting to homosexuality. That homosexual behavior is a minority issue like racial status. Any objections to homosexual behavior are said to originate from "hate" and are connected to violence against homosexuals. Such programs also claim there is no difference between expressed hatred of homosexuals and commonplace moral objections.
Problems: Puts those who object to homosexuality for any reason on the defensive. Causes those who have objections to remain silent, leaving an open field for radical student, teacher or outside groups to define "hate" and discrimination however they wish. Flies in the face of freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of speech.
Examples: 1) GLSEN (radical homosexual activist group) teaching manual, "Tackling Gay Issues in School," which focuses on non-respectful tactics to silence all objections to the full expression of homosexuality. It also encourages student experimentation.
2) Programs about "differences" and "diversity" which usually combine positive values like acceptance of racial differences, with dangerous acceptance of homosexual lifestyles. AT&T's program "Opening the Doors to Diversity: Voices from the Middle School" is one of these. 3)The Department of Justice also sponsors programs on reducing "hate" that make this same erroneous connection, as do the videos "It's Elementary" and "That's a Family," and the play "Cootie Shots."
Results: Christians, conservatives and in fact, all supporters of traditional values are accused of "hate." Instances of harassment are linked to those who would never commit such acts. Students are not warned about homosexuality, so more will experiment with this high-risk behavior.
5._Pro-homosexual literature added to curricula and libraries;
pro-family material bypassed or discarded.
Assumptions: That stories involving homosexuality, even if sexually graphic in nature, provide necessary "support" for students who "are" homosexual, and provide education for all students about the need to accept this lifestyle. Material supporting the traditional family is viewed as discriminatory.
Problems: Dangerous misinformation is packaged as "diversity" and the content of much of the material for older students qualifies as obscenity.
Examples: The following books have been the focus of parent objections in schools around the country.
My Two Uncles; The Duke Who Outlawed Jellybeans; Daddy's Roommate; Heather Has Two Mommies; One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dad
Middle school and high school:
Entries from a Hot Pink Notebook; Am I Blue?; Annie on My Mind; Athletic Shorts; Becoming Visible; Who Framed Lorenzo Garcia?; Tommy Stands Alone; Two Teenagers in Twenty; Invisible Life; Just As I Am; This Too Shall Pass; Understanding Sexual Identity; A History of Western Society(textbook)
6._AIDS and "safe sex" education programs
Assumptions: That all students are at risk of AIDS; that all students need to be taught about use of condoms for "safe sex." Acceptance of homosexuality is heavily encouraged in these programs.
Problems: Only students engaging in homosexual encounters, anal sex, or using intravenous drugs are at high risk, so the graphic nature of such programs is unnecessary. Besides, condoms don't protect against HIV fully, or against other STDs well at all. The use of the term 'abstinence' is tossed around, but in the context of condom use, experimentation, not abstinence, is the take-away message students receive.
Examples: "FLASH" curriculum;"Reducing the Risk of HIV and STD," "Becoming a Responsible Teen," "Be Proud !Be Responsible," and any program endorsed by the Centers for Disease Control or Planned Parenthood, both of which are committed to a "safe sex" ideology .
Results: Students accept sexual permissiveness as the norm. Classroom activities and studies involving condom use, obtaining contraceptives, and the option of abortion fuel this trend. Marriage-free language and values also accelerate the likelihood of early sexual activity and ongoing irresponsibility.
Other "red-flags" for community concern...
7.__Teachers/staff who are openly homosexual
Not positive role models for students. Close student-teacher relationships are a high risk.
8._ Involvement in your school of radical pro-homosexual groups like
GLSEN, PFLAG, ACLU, Lambda Legal Defense Fund
These groups are well-funded and looking for fights. Any objectors will be subject to public disgrace.
9._Celebrating "Day of Silence," gay pride" month or "coming out" day
There is nothing to celebrate about encouraging kids to adopt dangerous sexual practices.
10._Exhibits/DVDs/programs on families headed by homosexuals
Tries to put a conventional face on problem behavior.
11._ Students & parents with concerns being silenced
Intimidation goes hand-in-hand with the expressed goal of "ending homophobia."
12._ Teacher in-service meetings promoting diversity and complaining about "homophobia"
Often required now by school systems, these programs foster attitudes of hostility toward tradition-minded parents, who are portrayed as trouble-makers.
How Does Your School Score?
8 - 12 = A signal that corruption is widespread and entrenched within the system. Look for heavy influence of radical homosexual groups, using attention-hungry teens, parents and teachers to front their issues. Sexual promiscuity is undoubtedly rising among students and teachers, and academics are likely to be suffering. Get the kids you care about out of this school now.
4 - 7 = This is a school under assault. The school board has been indoctrinated and the administration and staff probably has many open homosexuals. Parents can save this school only by massive re-education and some big changes at election time.
1 - 3 = Selected administrators and teachers are sympathetic to homosexuality, but there is obviously a core that retains common sense and high standards. Parent involvement will work to turn this school around.
0 = Low-risk for student endangerment. Indicates a school system that genuinely protects students, maintains high health standards and moral integrity, and keeps its focus on education, not social engineering.
This checklist may be copied and duplicated in its entirety for your local use.