Homosexuality and the
You have provided many reasons on your website on why we should resist those who want "to promote acceptance of homosexuality among children." By the phrase "acceptance of homosexuality," you point to "homosexual clubs, adoption of pro-homosexual school policies, the showcasing of homosexual literature." You're actually giving a spin to reality -- this is not to make children accept homosexuality, it is to encourage them to accept people who may be homosexual.
Showingcasing African American literature during Black History Month, for instance, is not an encouragement for students to have sex with African Americans. But, when it is done to fight discrimination against those with an alternative lifestyle, it is "to teach every child that homosexual marriage is a viable future option." That is to say, there is an intense oversexualization in your message. You even referred to gay marriage as "same sex liaisons."
The message of groups like the Gay-Straight Alliance is not encouraging sexual activity, but with protecting groups that may be discriminated against on account of their choice of living. In contrast, when I review your message, it is like walking into the strip club of philosophical argument -- as almost every part of your message seems to focus on sex, sex, and more sex.
"Finding homosexuality repulsive is a natural human instinct to protect oneself..." This is one brilliant message. Protect oneself from what? From the unrestrained passions of gay love boiling underneath everyone's skin, that, at a moment's notice, might explode into the ravages of a hot, public, sexual orgy? What do you really think you need to be "protected from"? Apparently, diving right into a massive, gay orgy would be your first impulse if you weren't so "protected" by being "repulsed."
Most activists and literature about gay rights doesn't focus on the sexual act at all. But you just can't, or at least won't, get it out of your mind. It is an eternal focus. "No biological cause for homosexual or gender-variant desires or behavior has been found in humans. Claims to the contrary are founded on wishful thinking, not scientific fact." Again, focus on the impulse, desire, and sexual fascination. Perhaps, you forget, there is no biological cause for heterosexual behavior, either, and the same sex drive leads toward many variations -- not just gender-specific. Human sexuality wouldn't be as rich as it is if everyone was attracted to the exact same thing, and the impulse toward heterosexual lifestyle is the same as the one toward gay lifestyle.
Your interpretation of the schooling system is also somewhat bizarre, and -- if only subconsciously -- intensely sexual-minded. "The 'package' of fluid sexual practices, featuring oral sex, is being sold to kids through many sex education programs and the popular culture." Public literature that details objectively the health of sexual activity is not "fluid sexual practices...being sold to kids." What would you rather do? Provide them all their understanding of hygiene from five chapters in Deuteronomy, or just leave them in ignorance? Naturally, health education means body education, and that means sexual education. You can teach about sex without it "being sold," just like every other subject.
"There are thousands of ex-homosexuals whose lives attest to the ability of humans to overcome homosexual desires and practices." And there are millions of ex-Christians whose lives attest to the ability of humans to overcome a narrow-minded view of the world and its inhabitants. There are so many problems with our world today, from gender behavior roles, to racism in government and law enforcement, to careless attitudes of consumers, to the thoughtlessness of the citizen, and to the apathy of the working class. If you want to change something, begin here, where people can really improve their lives and leave something lasting for future generations.
To help others change from homosexual to heterosexual, or vice versa, is like helping someone give up strawberries to love mangos. You have spent time, effort, and material in bringing about a change which, in the total view of civilization, has done nothing. And that is a waste. With so much murder, rape, exploitation, and oppression in the world, you think it's a good idea to change peoples' preferences. Why not focus on trying to simply make people good, and not worry about their personal habits?
"Homosexuality involves practices that are dangerous and high-risk to the body, which is designed for heterosexual function, so the first priority of adults who really care for youth should be to help them at all costs avoid these behaviors." This is quite an interesting statement. What makes you think that Homosexuality is "high-risk"? Because the body is designed for heterosexual function? This doesn't seem true at all, since it seems to work the exact same for homosexual function, and just as well. And for those who are gay, the human body is designed for homosexual activity, because it simply does not work for them with heterosexual activity. That is the definition of utility -- we measure it in regards to how something serves our purposes, and the body is not made for heterosexual activity, when it is the body of someone who is gay.
"Within the bounds of kindness and civility, students, teachers and parents who find the behavior personally repugnant should continue to have the right to express this opinion." Perhaps education is less important because of the ideal of the Christian religion. But teachers aren't being paid so that they can express approval or disapproval of their student's personal lives. It's not a church, where children come in to meet with a priest and confess. It would be inappropriate for a teacher to say they found a student's lifestyle repugnant as to say they found their race, culture, or religion to be repugnant. It is simply unacceptable, uncivilized behavior -- but this, apparently, is necessary when advocating for Christianity.
"Because of the community's concern and love for youth, adults should support them if they wish to change homosexual desires and behavior. Any other approach puts children at high risk of disease and even premature death, and we should love our children too much to let that happen." Children are going to die early if they become homosexuals? Yeah, I don't recall seeing that study. "High risk of disease"? Yeah, that comes from the food served in the school lunches, not in the particular activities they use to find sexual release. Diet and exercise actually have a stronger relationship to health than say, one's personal or cultural values. There's an influence, clearly, as your personal values drain your mind from forming any reliable analysis of the health situation of the youth. By the way, you can fight high-fructose corn-syrup drinks without trying to alienate a significant minority of civilization.
"Because of the great risks involved, and our concerns about the welfare of ALL students, every student who reveals homosexual attraction deserves to know that he or she has a choice. This is both humane and sound public health policy." This is bizarre. If the student reveals homosexual attraction, it is clear that they are making their choice. That is what freedom of choice means -- being free to make that choice. Why not tell students in the beginning that they have a choice to accept any sexuality that they want? Oh, wait, then this would mean making homosexuality "a viable future option." I guess there's no way to be fair, honest, open, or informed when the Christian religion takes precedence to everything else.
"Educational programs that in any way condone or support homosexuality should be stopped immediately in all U.S. schools." What would you rather there be? Ignorance, fear, and public hysteria over understanding sex and sexual orientation? Or, you go so far as to say that school programs should be opposed to homosexuality, and should make a portion of the students feel alienated in their own schools?
"Because of the dysfunctional, unhealthy and changeable nature of homosexuality, legitimizing it as 'marriage' constitutes irresponsible and reckless public policy that endangers the future of our children and grandchildren." Well, that's quite the long-winded and unfounded statement. All throughout the statement of purpose, you have said that you wanted to give freedom of knowledge and choice to students, but no -- it all drives back to this one point. "We don't like gay people. And we try to point out how it is bad for them, but really, we're just trying to convince ourselves that it's bad for them."
It may be entirely Christian, though, to spend your time on excluding people from civilization and society. Only a few hundred years ago, Christians made the same arguments, except in favor of excluding people who gathered wood on Sunday. (Numbers 15:32) If there is anything you can do for your religion, you can make it look more social and less bigoted -- accept people, love them, for who they are and who they decide to be, and not what you want them to be.
Thank you for listening. I patiently await a response...