| The word "ban" is negative. Like "taboo," the term offends modern sensibilities trained to be ever more accepting of any envelope-pushing behavior.That's why the media describe California's Proposition 8 constitutional marriage law as a "ban," not the codification of something positive and timeless....The media have turned the meaning of marriage on its head. Calling the law a "ban" says its only purpose is to discriminate against homosexuals. By this reasoning, any law or policy that defines something is a "ban."
Click to Learn More |
|
|
|
Home>
Fighting the Gay Agenda in Schools>
|
|
Winning through intimidation... |
|
|
"Eradicating Homophobia" Means Silencing Families:
Translating GLSEN's Deceptive Language about Homosexuality
Do you believe parents, teachers and communities should still be able to hold and voice beliefs that homosexuality is morally wrong? That it is a sin, according to some faiths? That it carries great health risks?
Activities taking place in many schools, often instigated by the radical organization GLSEN, would silence all objections about homosexuality in the name of "tolerance." These activists intend to make schools and the world "safe" for homosexuality. And they define "safe" as free from all objections to open homosexuality. How do they hope to halt criticism?
By claiming that such criticism is a pretend social illness called homophobia-defined as broadly as needed to accomplish their objectives.
In the teaching manual "Tackling Gay Issues in School," GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, supplies model lesson plans for teachers to use in schools.
A central objective in many of these lessons is the need to stop "homophobia." But homophobia as they portray it goes way beyond overt cruelty.
As GLSEN see it, homophobia includes:
* Religious belief that homosexuality is a sin
* Natural heterosexual repulsion at the thought of homosexual acts
* Society's "compulsory heterosexuality"
* Failure to "respect" people who "are" homosexual, bisexual, etc.
(Respect is defined as failure to be openly supportive.)
Examples from "Tackling Gay Issues":
1. GLSEN connects violence to any disapproval of homosexuality. On pages 44-50 of "Tackling Gay Issues, " the authors address "Violence Prevention." They paint homosexuals as chronic victims of harassment, name-calling, even assault. Such prejudice, they say, is the cause of suicides or suicidal tendencies on the part of homosexuals.
While there is no doubt that opinions are strong and cruelty does occur, this is a separate issue from approval of homosexuality. It is well known-or used to be-that one can disapprove of homosexuality and still be kind to homosexuals. For GLSEN, though, it is important to paint all disapproval with a violent brush. As a consequence, the "solutions" to the victimhood status boil down to one: all those prejudiced against homosexuality must be made to change their minds. The conclusion is clear, that the violence that does occur is being exaggerated to force such a change throughout our culture-starting in our schools.
The solution? Student and staff workshops on violence and overcoming prejudice
(page 49-50).These workshops concentrate on "re-education" about "misconceptions" and "prejudices." There is zero tolerance of the right of any student or teacher to disapprove of homosexuality in any way.
2. Religion is always the "bad guy." Principled opposition is not valid. In the school setting, religious beliefs can only be based on ignorance, fear, or evil intentions, according to this manual.
On page 77, a "scale" of homophobic attitudes is presented. At the lowest level is the belief that homosexuality is sinful or immoral.
On pages 81-84, the lessons are titled, "The Connection Between Homophobia and Other Forms of Oppression." On page 84, "power/privilege charts" are used to list groups that are "powerful" (i.e, in this lesson, "oppressors"). Christians are on this list. Also making the "oppressors" list are heterosexuals, men, and adults.
Added to the slams against religion is misleading information about faith. On page 105 is a sheet on "gay/lesbian" history. Students are to answer: "True or False: Jesus condemns homosexuality in the bible." [ A lower case "b' on the word Bible is in the original.]
The answer on page 107 says: "FALSE: Most passages, which are interpreted as condemning homosexuality, are found in the Old Testament, and derived from Hebraic tribal law; all of the few New Testament references are all [sic] in the book written by Paul, who was born decades after Jesus' crucifixion. No condemnations of homosexuality are found in any of the 'Gospels' or books that deal with the life of Jesus."
Many errors are communicated to students in this sloppy passage. Christian theology maintains that Jesus was divine, fully present as part of the godhead in the Old Testament, so any Old Testament law was under His authority. He also isn't quoted in the Gospels as saying a word about rape or incest. He didn't have to-the Jews knew all this law extremely well. Paul was only a few years younger than Christ, not born several decades later. And the longest passage in the Bible on homosexuality is Genesis 19, not a "law" passage but the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, from which we get the term "sodomy." It is referenced many other times in both the Old and New Testaments. In the New, homosexuality is condemned by Peter and Jude as well as Paul.
But the biggest insult here is the disparaging tone of this deceptive exercise. Where's the "respect" demanded by homosexuals, for those who are "different" from them?
3. How can someone "prove" he or she isn't "homophobic"? Is being polite and kind
enough? NO.
On page 41, among the suggestions for heterosexual people to help reduce homophobia are to "hold hands with someone of the same sex in a SAFE public place." This is "for sensitization." Also, "wear pro-LGBT buttons and T-shirts," "challenge homophobic jokes and epithets," and attend "gay" events and support their causes.
If an elementary school student should happen to verbalize a homosexual slur, the recommended course of action on page 145 is to both discipline and "educate" the offender. This education should include "reading something age-appropriate [by whose definition?] or talking with a counselor about 'sexual minority' people"; "meeting some openly gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender people"; or perhaps providing community service for the local chapter of PFLAG ( a homosexual activist group)!
4. Also contributing to homophobia, the manual claims, are the "pervasive and
insidious" messages of "compulsory heterosexuality" in our culture. In a lesson on
page 67, middle schoolers are directed to list and discuss all the examples they can
think of where homosexuality was criticized, and heterosexuality emphasized.
"Rigid" gender roles also, as you might guess, also contribute to homophobia, as
outlined in lessons on pages 68-70.
5. And, the most "primitive" form of homophobia is repulsion about homosexual acts,
according to something called the Riddle scale (pages 71 and 77). The next levels (in
increasing acceptability to GLSEN) are pity, then tolerance, then acceptance. Given
this, being repulsed about homosexuality, which is a natural feeling among most
heterosexuals, evidently will not be tolerated as an attitude on the part of any
student, parent or teacher, if GLSEN has anything to say about it .
------------------------------------
Communities should think long and hard about whether children should be anywhere near a school that incorporates GLSEN's philosophies of early sexualization, intimidation, discrimination and indoctrination.
Source:
Tackling Gay Issues in School, A Resource Module edited by Leif Mitchell, co-sponsored by GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network. 1999, Planned Parenthood of Connecticut and GLSEN.
|
|
|
