When the Comstock Act was passed in 1873, the dissemination of any "article of an immoral nature" through the U.S. mail or across state lines became legally prohibited. It remains on the books today forbidding the use of the mails to distribute obscene material. 1.
In the 1950's, the Mattachine Society, the Daughters of Bilitis, and ONE,Inc. developed into national organizations supporting gay liberation by defying the Comstock laws. In 1958, One Magazine, the first gay magazine to reach a wide audience, won a decision from the U.S.Supreme Court to allow it's mailings. Feminist publications addressed lesbian concerns in the 1970's and 1980's, and during the 1980's and 1990's, gay and lesbian publications boldly promoted safer sex practices, countering mainstream admonitions for celibacy. 2.
When homosexuals were discussed in the news prior to the 1960's it was generally in a negative light. In 1964, Life published an article "Homosexuality in America." Although mostly negative, it attempted to explain homosexuality to the mainstream society.
Following the declassification of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973, media became more positive in its willingness to discuss issues related to gays and lesbians. In 1979, Time magazine reported "Homosexual publishing is booming, and gays now receive far more sympathetic coverage in the media...At the same time, there is strong reaction against the homosexual rights movement." 3.
SIX POINT STRATEGY
In 1987 homosexual activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, published an article titled "The Overhauling of Straight America", followed in 1989 by a book titled After the Ball. In these writings Kirk and Madsen laid out a six-point strategy to radically change the way Americans perceived homosexual behavior. 4.
1. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible. "almost all behaviors begin to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances."
2. Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers.Tragedies were turned into opportunities to promote the homosexual agenda by portraying anyone who opposed it as a murderer or sympathetic to murder.
3. Give homosexual protectors a 'just cause'. "A media campaign that casts gays as society's victims and encourages straights to be their protectors must make it easier for those who respond to assert and explain their perspectives."
4.Make gays look good. Portray homosexuals sympathetically in the media.
5. Make the victimizers look bad. "We intend to make the anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dis-associate themselves from such types."
6. Solicit funds.Get corporate America and major foundations to financially support the homosexual cause.
Kirk and Madsen knew that they would be required to wage a war of propaganda. Opponents were portrayed and denounced as ugly caricatures. Even thoughtful and heartfelt concerns for family well-being were vilified as hate-mongering, bigotry or homophobia.
In 1989, The San Francisco Examiner ran a report entitled "Gay in America" that ran for 16 days. Subsequently, newspapers across the country ran articles, often 2 or 3 pages in length, explaining gay issues to the local public. 5.
TARGETING TELEVISION 6.
Three years after the Stonewall Riots representation on prime time TV became a critical symbolic target. Homosexual activists sought to influence the way they were portrayed. They had an important advantage. They had 'agents in place'. A substantial number of gay people, some in high positions, worked in the TV industry who were not open about their lifestyle. These 'agents' were able to leak information to activists about upcoming episodes in which gays were depicted negatively.
Ron Gold, the media director of the Gay Activist Alliance, wrote to all three networks requesting meetings. Before the meeting with ABC, an agent had supplied information about an upcoming episode of Marcus Welby, MD where Welby advised a homosexual who was both a husband and a father to suppress his homosexual desires. The meeting with ABC was confrontational and hostile. A meeting with 25 angry activists was not the kind of meeting that network executives preferred to have. Although the objectionable episode aired a few days later, the meeting did impact later decisions. Gay activists were invited by ABC executives to comment on any scripts dealing with homosexuality.
CHILD MOLESTATION EPISODE 7.
A story line that was unacceptable to gays was an episode that linked homosexuality to child molestation, a relationship that activists wanted to eliminate in the media. When Ron Gold lost his temper with ABC executives, communications broke down. When the Gay Activist Alliance experienced disagreements, Gold split from the group to form the National Gay Task Force(NGTF), which developed as a gay rights umbrella organization around the country.
NGTF turned the episode related to child molestation to a gay media activist in Boston, Loretta Lotman, who launched a national campaign against the Welby show, galvanizing the gay community. Grassroots groups applied pressure on local ABC affiliates. Threats were included as strategies for success. When Lotman called the Boston ABC affiliate, WCVB, she warned that "if something were not done about the program, the station would be 'hit with a protest the likes of which you've never seen before'". Advertisers were pressured to withdraw support.
NGTF pressured the American Psychiatric Association to publicly condemn the offensive Welby episode. They also succeeded in having the National Education Association release a report objecting to the show's portrayal of homosexuals as sterotypes.
In response to this aggressive campaign, ABC issued a statement defending the episode. However, the producers made changes to minmize offenses.
COAST TO COAST SURVEILLANCE 8.
NGTF leaders presented themselves as a 'resource' for information about homosexuality rather than a pressure group. However the possibility of a protest was never out of the question. Between 1974 and 1977, seven 'zaps' - as the activists called their protests - occurred. Gays working in TV continued their surveillance of the industry. The NGTF agenda for network programming included: "increased visibility, elimination of stereotypes, continuing gay and lesbian characters, and gay couples. Gays also insisted on a 'moratorium on negative portrayals'...Gays thus became an ongoing political presence in network television." 8.
The Gay Media Task Force, run by Dr. Newton Deiter, was formed in Los Angeles at the encouragement of NGTF to hold the media accountable on both sides of the country. In the 70's, more and more gay characters appeared on prime-time TV. One critic labeled 1976 as "the year of the gay" because gay characters appeared in "at least seven situation comedies and in several television movies." These shows were aimed at public education. "In virtually every one the heterosexual characters learn to accept gay people and their lifestyles."
MOVING TOWARD THE NEW MILLENIUM
Beginning in the mid 1990's, Ellen, Friends, The Drew Carey Show, Will and Grace, and Sex and the City introduced characters with implied or actural gay behaviors and issues. In the new millenium, Oprah Winfrey embraced gay and lesbian concerns on her popular daily show. Lesbians who had left their husbands to marry their lovers were interviewed, gay men were guests invited to share their life stories, and a week was devoted to the life changes of trans-gendered people. At one point Oprah turned to the television audience and said, "I think this is soooo interesting. Don't you think this is interesting?" Soon Ellen Degeneres, a popular lesbian, became host to a late afternoon talk show. Gay activists had become institutionalized in network TV.
REFERENCES
1. Rierson, Sandra. "Comstock Act(1873). http://www.enotes.com/major-acts-congrsss/comstock-act. 2/1/2010.
2.The Gay Almanac. Compiled by the National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History. New York: Berkley Books. 1996:281.
3. Leo,
4. Sears, Alan & Craig Osten. The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today. Nashville, TN:B&H Publishing. 2003:17-28.
5. The Gay Almanac: 286-287.
6. Montgomery, Kathryn C. Target:Prime Time -Advocacy Groups and the Struggle Over Entertainment Television. New York: Oxford University Press. 1989:Chap. 5.
7. Ibid.:81-83
8. Ibid:87-94.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
(5) Safe Sex Becomes Seductive: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America
SAFE SEX?
In the last 30 years condoms have been claimed to provide safe sex or safer sex. Condoms are being sold and distributed around the world as the solution to casual sexual behaviors in preventing pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. They are being 'pushed'by school and university health clinics, and even medical facilities with the implicatin that sex will be safe if you 'protect' yourself with a condom. However, the typical use failure rate of condoms is 14%, accounting for inconsistent and incorrect use as well as breakage and slippage. Use factors such as experience, condom size and use of lubricant can affect slippage and breakage. 1.
A study involving 26,291 homosexual men and heterosexual man and women who visited the University of Colorado's clinic in Denver over a two year period reported that 57% of the women, 48% of the heterosexual men and 33% of the homosexual men reported error in condom use.2.
Efficacy rates for condom use is generally reported for pregnancy. However, rates for sexually transmitted diseases vary by disease. Condoms do not prevent transmission of the human papillomavirus which is the leading cause of cervical cancer. Michigan's statewide gay newspaper, Between The Lines , reports that the risk of anal cancer increases by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. They state that a condom only offers limited protection against anal cancer.3.
Suppose, for example, that 20 million people used condoms for 'protection' and safe sex. By the typical use rate of 14% failure, two million and eight hundred thousand people will be unpleasantly surprised that they were, in fact, not safe.
STD's IN THE GAY POPULATION
The Center for Disease Control (CDC)reports statistics on sexually transmitted diseases (STD's) in the United States and its dependent areas. Health departments report their data to CDC so the information can be analyzed to determine who is being affected and why. The CDC 2008 surveillance report estimates that there are approximately 19 million new STD infections each year - almost half of them among young people 15-24 years of age.
Syphilis makes a comeback
Syphilis was a disease that was on the verge of elimination. In 2001 it re-emerged as a public health threat because of a resurgence of the disease among men who have sex with men (MSM). In 2008 there were 13,500 reported cases of primary and secondary syphilis, the most infectious stages of the disease. Reported cases of syphilis showed that 63% were among MSM. This is of particular concern because syphilis infection facilitates HIV transmission. Syphilis rates among blacks were about eight times higher than that of whites in 2008.4.
HIV/AIDS enters the country
HIV was introduced into the U.S. through the homosexual community. After its initial diagnosis in 1981, it spread rapidly across the country through male homosexuality, intravenous drug use, bisexuality, and multiple heterosexual partners. Infants were infected by mothers who had the HIV virus. In 2006, CDC estimated that over half (53%) of new cases occurred in gay and bisexual men.
Through 2007, the cumulative estimated number of AIDS diagnoses in the 50 states and the District of Columbia(DC) was well over one million - 1,018,428. Over half of these cases(50.3%)was reported in four states: New York, California, Florida and Texas. By 2007, the cumulative estimated number of deaths from AIDS in the 50 states and DC included 557,902 adults and adolescents and 4,891 children under 13 years of age. Although Blacks represented about 12% of the U.S. population, cumulated estimated AIDS cases for Black and African Americans through 2007 exceeded that of Whites, numbering 426,003 to 404,465 respectively. Black women were particularly affected as bisexual men brought the disease home to their wives and girlfriends. 5.
# of AIDS cases for 50 states and DC through 2007 = 1,018,428
# of AIDS deaths for 50 states and DC through 2007 = 562,793
Life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is compromised by perhaps 20 years.
An article printed in the New York Times reported that a young male homosexual has about a 50% chance of getting HIV by middle age. In 1998 the CDC reported that an estimated half of all new infections of HIV in the U.S. were among people under 25.6.
Other STD's common among the homosexual population.
Included in this list of particular concern is anal cancer. Other maladies include Chlamydia, cryptosporidium, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus or genital warts, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B&C and syphilis. 7.
PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE POLICIES
Joseph Nicolosi, President of NARTH said, "Most medical groups have embraced the homosexual agenda and are advocating that lifestyle despite all the scientific studies and medical evidence that demonstrate medical and psychological risks...Homosexual activism and political correctness are clearly trumping science." 8.
It is essential in any society that policies are implemented that promote and protect the health and well-being of its citizens. The American Public Health Association and other health organizations must be aggressively held accountable for accurate reporting. 'Activist spin' must not be allowed to override responsible scientific research.
Evidence shows that mortality and morbidity rates are substantially higher for those who engage in homosexual practices, particularly anal intercourse, with the tearing of the rectal lining and diseases associated with subsequent contact with fecal matter. "Activism must not be placed above science in informing public policy. It is an injustice to homosexual men and women to allow activism, including accusations of homophobia, to silence discussion of health risks or to suppress research." 9.
REFERENCES
1.Workshop Summary:Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention. 2000, June 12-13. Hyatt Dulles Airport. Herndon, VA. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Nat. Institute of Health, Dept. of Health and Human Services. July 20, 2001:10. http://www.3.nlaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/pof/condomreport.pdf.
2.Condomman, "Condom Use and the Spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases." http://www.condomman.com/articles/index.php?tag=rising-std-rates. April 19, 2008.
3. Glenn, Gary. "Compassionate Society Should Discourage Homosexual Behavior." American Family Association. htp://www.freepublic.com/focus/f-news/1039280/posts. March 19, 2001.
4.CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Sexually Transmitted Diseases Surveillance, 2008". http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats08/trends.htm. 1/10/2010.
5.CDC. "Basic Statistics, 2007". http://www,cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/print/basic.htm. 1/10/2010.
6. Brinkman,Susan. "Health risks of the homosexual lifestyle." Catholic Standard & Times (May-June, 2004). http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/printarticle.html?id=4236. 1/10/2010.
7. Ibid
8. Ibid.
9. Byrd, A. Dean."The American Journal of Public Health Highlights Risks of Homosexual Practices." NARTH. http://www.narth.com/docs/risks.html. 1/10/2010.
In the last 30 years condoms have been claimed to provide safe sex or safer sex. Condoms are being sold and distributed around the world as the solution to casual sexual behaviors in preventing pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. They are being 'pushed'by school and university health clinics, and even medical facilities with the implicatin that sex will be safe if you 'protect' yourself with a condom. However, the typical use failure rate of condoms is 14%, accounting for inconsistent and incorrect use as well as breakage and slippage. Use factors such as experience, condom size and use of lubricant can affect slippage and breakage. 1.
A study involving 26,291 homosexual men and heterosexual man and women who visited the University of Colorado's clinic in Denver over a two year period reported that 57% of the women, 48% of the heterosexual men and 33% of the homosexual men reported error in condom use.2.
Efficacy rates for condom use is generally reported for pregnancy. However, rates for sexually transmitted diseases vary by disease. Condoms do not prevent transmission of the human papillomavirus which is the leading cause of cervical cancer. Michigan's statewide gay newspaper, Between The Lines , reports that the risk of anal cancer increases by nearly 4,000% for men who have sex with men. They state that a condom only offers limited protection against anal cancer.3.
Suppose, for example, that 20 million people used condoms for 'protection' and safe sex. By the typical use rate of 14% failure, two million and eight hundred thousand people will be unpleasantly surprised that they were, in fact, not safe.
STD's IN THE GAY POPULATION
The Center for Disease Control (CDC)reports statistics on sexually transmitted diseases (STD's) in the United States and its dependent areas. Health departments report their data to CDC so the information can be analyzed to determine who is being affected and why. The CDC 2008 surveillance report estimates that there are approximately 19 million new STD infections each year - almost half of them among young people 15-24 years of age.
Syphilis makes a comeback
Syphilis was a disease that was on the verge of elimination. In 2001 it re-emerged as a public health threat because of a resurgence of the disease among men who have sex with men (MSM). In 2008 there were 13,500 reported cases of primary and secondary syphilis, the most infectious stages of the disease. Reported cases of syphilis showed that 63% were among MSM. This is of particular concern because syphilis infection facilitates HIV transmission. Syphilis rates among blacks were about eight times higher than that of whites in 2008.4.
HIV/AIDS enters the country
HIV was introduced into the U.S. through the homosexual community. After its initial diagnosis in 1981, it spread rapidly across the country through male homosexuality, intravenous drug use, bisexuality, and multiple heterosexual partners. Infants were infected by mothers who had the HIV virus. In 2006, CDC estimated that over half (53%) of new cases occurred in gay and bisexual men.
Through 2007, the cumulative estimated number of AIDS diagnoses in the 50 states and the District of Columbia(DC) was well over one million - 1,018,428. Over half of these cases(50.3%)was reported in four states: New York, California, Florida and Texas. By 2007, the cumulative estimated number of deaths from AIDS in the 50 states and DC included 557,902 adults and adolescents and 4,891 children under 13 years of age. Although Blacks represented about 12% of the U.S. population, cumulated estimated AIDS cases for Black and African Americans through 2007 exceeded that of Whites, numbering 426,003 to 404,465 respectively. Black women were particularly affected as bisexual men brought the disease home to their wives and girlfriends. 5.
# of AIDS cases for 50 states and DC through 2007 = 1,018,428
# of AIDS deaths for 50 states and DC through 2007 = 562,793
Life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is compromised by perhaps 20 years.
An article printed in the New York Times reported that a young male homosexual has about a 50% chance of getting HIV by middle age. In 1998 the CDC reported that an estimated half of all new infections of HIV in the U.S. were among people under 25.6.
Other STD's common among the homosexual population.
Included in this list of particular concern is anal cancer. Other maladies include Chlamydia, cryptosporidium, herpes simplex virus, human papilloma virus or genital warts, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B&C and syphilis. 7.
PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE POLICIES
Joseph Nicolosi, President of NARTH said, "Most medical groups have embraced the homosexual agenda and are advocating that lifestyle despite all the scientific studies and medical evidence that demonstrate medical and psychological risks...Homosexual activism and political correctness are clearly trumping science." 8.
It is essential in any society that policies are implemented that promote and protect the health and well-being of its citizens. The American Public Health Association and other health organizations must be aggressively held accountable for accurate reporting. 'Activist spin' must not be allowed to override responsible scientific research.
Evidence shows that mortality and morbidity rates are substantially higher for those who engage in homosexual practices, particularly anal intercourse, with the tearing of the rectal lining and diseases associated with subsequent contact with fecal matter. "Activism must not be placed above science in informing public policy. It is an injustice to homosexual men and women to allow activism, including accusations of homophobia, to silence discussion of health risks or to suppress research." 9.
REFERENCES
1.Workshop Summary:Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention. 2000, June 12-13. Hyatt Dulles Airport. Herndon, VA. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Nat. Institute of Health, Dept. of Health and Human Services. July 20, 2001:10. http://www.3.nlaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/pof/condomreport.pdf.
2.Condomman, "Condom Use and the Spread of Sexually Transmitted Diseases." http://www.condomman.com/articles/index.php?tag=rising-std-rates. April 19, 2008.
3. Glenn, Gary. "Compassionate Society Should Discourage Homosexual Behavior." American Family Association. htp://www.freepublic.com/focus/f-news/1039280/posts. March 19, 2001.
4.CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Sexually Transmitted Diseases Surveillance, 2008". http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats08/trends.htm. 1/10/2010.
5.CDC. "Basic Statistics, 2007". http://www,cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/print/basic.htm. 1/10/2010.
6. Brinkman,Susan. "Health risks of the homosexual lifestyle." Catholic Standard & Times (May-June, 2004). http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/printarticle.html?id=4236. 1/10/2010.
7. Ibid
8. Ibid.
9. Byrd, A. Dean."The American Journal of Public Health Highlights Risks of Homosexual Practices." NARTH. http://www.narth.com/docs/risks.html. 1/10/2010.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
( 4)Politics of GRID - HIV/AIDS: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America
It was 1981. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover braced himself as he examined a gaunt young man whose arms and sides were covered with angry purple welts from a rare, ugly cancer, Kaposi's Sarcoma. This once rare disease was now popping up around the country, especially in San Francisco and New York. This deadly, wasting disease was known then simply as GRID, "gay-related immune disorder" because of its disproportionate appearance among male homosexuals. As GRID spread it was grouped with other conditions such as "gay-related bowel syndrome" which gays were prone to because of the practice of anal intercourse.
It was anticipated that the fledgling gay movement would be dealt a severe setback for medical reasons. Unexpectedly the gay community's first priority was "to protect homosexuality itself as a perfectly acceptable, normal, and safe way of life". Because the virus could be transferred to anyone, the first move was to rename "gay-related immune disorder" to AIDS: "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome", though gay related anal intercouse and promiscuity created and continues to preserve the American reservoir for HIV/AIDS. Thus, AIDS was politicized from the start. 1
Social and cultural factors came together to bring about a delay in the attack on AIDS. Because the disease was linked to homosexuality and drug use, many people in positions of power felt the problem did not need to be seriously addressed. Some religious leaders declared that AIDS was punishment for the sins of homosexuality. Also the Reagan administration's policy of smaller government and austerity in social and health programs created competition for government funds and AIDS researchers lost out in the battle. 2.
AIDS was causing 53,000 deaths a year in North America by 1995. By 1997 an expensive AIDS cocktail including protease inhibitors was being used that reduced the amount of the HIV virus in a patient's bloodstream providing additional years of relatively healthy life. The death rate dropped from 59 per 100 people with AIDS to 4per 100 in 1998. No vaccines had proven successful. The Centers for Disease Control researchers were concerned that unsafe sex among young gay men would increase if they believed that AIDS could be effectively controlled by protease inhibitors. 3.
June 2003 edition of the Journal of the American Public Health
The above issue discussed risks associated with homosexual practices. Bad news was reported in one article after another: 4.
- Among 4,295 homosexual men who reported engaging in anal sex with one or more partners in the previous year, 48% reported unprotected receptive anal sex and 55% reported unprotected insertive anal sex. Unprotected anal sex was highly associated with drug and alcohol use. (Beryl A. Koblan et.al)
- Sex without disclosure of HIV status is common. Data from a study indicated that 45,300 gay or bisexual men, 8,000 heterosexual men and 7,500 women who were HIV infected engaged in sex without disclosure of theri HIV status.(Daniel H. Ciccarone, et. al.)
- A study of six metropolitan areas reported 93% of African American men who were HIV infected did not know they had the virus, contradicting the view that 'coming out' is associated with better mental health, responsible behavior and lower rates of HIV infection. African-American men who disclosed their homosexuality had a higher HIV prevalence (24%) and engaged in more unprotected anal sex (41%) than those who did not disclose their status. (14% and 32% respectively).(David J. Malebranche)
Homosexuality and mental illness were discussed in the Archives of General Psychiatry. J Michael Bailey concluded, "Homosexual people are at a substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression and anxiety disorder." This conclusion was corroborated by a study from the Netherlands published in Archives of Psychiatry, 2001. The Dutch society is one of the most gay tolerant in the world. Yet the risk for mental illness by those engaging in homosexuality is significantly higher than among heterosexuals in that country.5.
In response to the above research, Dr. A. Dean Byrd, Vice President of The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, expressed concern that the authors failed to conclude that "homosexuality is neither innate nor immutable," that "homosexual men and women have a choice in how they respond to their attractions," and "that homosexuality represents an adaptation - not an identity." Byrd criticized many of the authors for being preoccupied with 'homophobia' without allowing room for other hypotheses. Byrd stated, "Perhaps it is not homophobia but misquided activism that is responsible for the current health problems that plague homosexual individuals...Rights issues seem to have replaced individual and community health concerns." 6.
REFERENCES1. Satinover, Jeffrey. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. 1996:9-16.
2. Sullivan, Thomas J. Introduction to Social Problems. Boston:Allyn and Bacon Pub. 2000:116.
3.Palen, J. John. Social Problems for the Twenty-first Century.
4. Byrd, A. Dean. "The American Journal of Public Health Highlights Risks of Homosexual Practices." NARTH. http://www.narth.com/docs/risks.html. 1/10/2010.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
It was anticipated that the fledgling gay movement would be dealt a severe setback for medical reasons. Unexpectedly the gay community's first priority was "to protect homosexuality itself as a perfectly acceptable, normal, and safe way of life". Because the virus could be transferred to anyone, the first move was to rename "gay-related immune disorder" to AIDS: "Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome", though gay related anal intercouse and promiscuity created and continues to preserve the American reservoir for HIV/AIDS. Thus, AIDS was politicized from the start. 1
Social and cultural factors came together to bring about a delay in the attack on AIDS. Because the disease was linked to homosexuality and drug use, many people in positions of power felt the problem did not need to be seriously addressed. Some religious leaders declared that AIDS was punishment for the sins of homosexuality. Also the Reagan administration's policy of smaller government and austerity in social and health programs created competition for government funds and AIDS researchers lost out in the battle. 2.
AIDS was causing 53,000 deaths a year in North America by 1995. By 1997 an expensive AIDS cocktail including protease inhibitors was being used that reduced the amount of the HIV virus in a patient's bloodstream providing additional years of relatively healthy life. The death rate dropped from 59 per 100 people with AIDS to 4per 100 in 1998. No vaccines had proven successful. The Centers for Disease Control researchers were concerned that unsafe sex among young gay men would increase if they believed that AIDS could be effectively controlled by protease inhibitors. 3.
June 2003 edition of the Journal of the American Public Health
The above issue discussed risks associated with homosexual practices. Bad news was reported in one article after another: 4.
- Among 4,295 homosexual men who reported engaging in anal sex with one or more partners in the previous year, 48% reported unprotected receptive anal sex and 55% reported unprotected insertive anal sex. Unprotected anal sex was highly associated with drug and alcohol use. (Beryl A. Koblan et.al)
- Sex without disclosure of HIV status is common. Data from a study indicated that 45,300 gay or bisexual men, 8,000 heterosexual men and 7,500 women who were HIV infected engaged in sex without disclosure of theri HIV status.(Daniel H. Ciccarone, et. al.)
- A study of six metropolitan areas reported 93% of African American men who were HIV infected did not know they had the virus, contradicting the view that 'coming out' is associated with better mental health, responsible behavior and lower rates of HIV infection. African-American men who disclosed their homosexuality had a higher HIV prevalence (24%) and engaged in more unprotected anal sex (41%) than those who did not disclose their status. (14% and 32% respectively).(David J. Malebranche)
Homosexuality and mental illness were discussed in the Archives of General Psychiatry. J Michael Bailey concluded, "Homosexual people are at a substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression and anxiety disorder." This conclusion was corroborated by a study from the Netherlands published in Archives of Psychiatry, 2001. The Dutch society is one of the most gay tolerant in the world. Yet the risk for mental illness by those engaging in homosexuality is significantly higher than among heterosexuals in that country.5.
In response to the above research, Dr. A. Dean Byrd, Vice President of The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, expressed concern that the authors failed to conclude that "homosexuality is neither innate nor immutable," that "homosexual men and women have a choice in how they respond to their attractions," and "that homosexuality represents an adaptation - not an identity." Byrd criticized many of the authors for being preoccupied with 'homophobia' without allowing room for other hypotheses. Byrd stated, "Perhaps it is not homophobia but misquided activism that is responsible for the current health problems that plague homosexual individuals...Rights issues seem to have replaced individual and community health concerns." 6.
REFERENCES1. Satinover, Jeffrey. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books. 1996:9-16.
2. Sullivan, Thomas J. Introduction to Social Problems. Boston:Allyn and Bacon Pub. 2000:116.
3.Palen, J. John. Social Problems for the Twenty-first Century.
4. Byrd, A. Dean. "The American Journal of Public Health Highlights Risks of Homosexual Practices." NARTH. http://www.narth.com/docs/risks.html. 1/10/2010.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
(3) Focus on The Professional Health Organizations: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America:
In 1963, concern about the increase in homosexuality prompted the New York Academy of Medicine to address the subject of homosexuality. Noting that some homosexuals were arguing that sexual deviancy is a 'desirable, noble, preferable way of life', they issued the following statement: "Homosexuality is indeed an illness. The homosexual is an emotionally disturbed individual who has not acquired the normal capacity to develop satisfying heterosexual relations." 1.
Until 1994, when all references to 'sexual orientation related disorders' was removed from the official policies of the American Medical Association, this perspective was used to justify therapies for treating homosexuality. 2.
The American Psychiatric Association also viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973. Over the years cures for treating homosexuality included: castration or vasectomy(1890's), hypnosis (1890's to 1960's), lobotomy (early 1900's to 1950's), analysis, hospitalization or institution(1920's to 1970's), aversion therapy, including drug caused nausea or electroshock (to the 1970's), and abstinence (1890's to the present).3.
Demands for normalizing homosexual behaviors occurred in the early 1970's. A homosexual faction in the American Psychiatric Association(APA) planned to disrupt the annual meetings of the APA, challenging a paper presentation on homosexuality and transsexualism. The following year the APA agreed to sponsor a special panel led by homosexuals. The Gay Liberation Front planned a demonstration at the meetings. On May 3, 1971, gay activists broke into a meeting, grabbed a microphone, and declared, "Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."
"In 1973 the APA voted to strike homosexuality from the officially approved list of psychiatric illnesses." Only about one-third of the membership was involved in this decision. A follow-up survey reported that "69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a disorder." The American Psychological Association voted to follow the lead set by the APA. 4.
Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover lamented that although psychiatry is presumably a scientific discipline and makes its decisions based on scientific evidence, the changes in definition and classification were determined not by scientific evidence, but were corrupted by politics. 5.
Political pressure again affected decisions of the APA when in 1994 the chairman of the APA's Committee on the Abuse and Misuse of Psychiatry presented to the Board of Trustee's a change, making it a "violation of professional conduct for a psychiatrist to help a homosexual patient become heterosexual even at the patient's request." When the board sent the statement to its legislative body, a fierce battle ensured.
Therapists who help homosexuals change and ex-homosexuals threatened to file a lawsuit against the APA and reopen consideration of the 1973 decision, which removed homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses. However, the Gay and Lesbian Task Force continued to challenge not only psychiatrists who undertook reparative therapy, but also to challenge psychologists, social workers, pastoral counselors, and ministers. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW), which accredits mental health practitioners, was also lobbied by gay activists to declare the use of reparative therapies a violation of the NASW Code of Ethics.6.
BACKLASH ON 'REPARATIVE THERAPY'
NARTH
The APA met challenges to its assertion that counselors should refrain from helping homosexuals change their sexual orientation. In the mid 1990's professionals concerned about the APA retreat from therapy formed the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH) to serve as an alternative to APA and a referral service for homosexual clients. By 2000 the membership was over 1000. NARTH is a "professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality." It provides educational information, conducts and collects scientific research, and promotes therapeutic treatment to those seeking their help. NARTH contends that "The right to seek therapy to change one's sexual adaptation should be considered self-evident and inalienable." 7.
Dr. Spitzer's testimony
Psychiatrist Robert L. Spitzer had offered key testimony in 1973 stating homosexuality was not a clinical disorder, leading to the APA proposal that declassified homosexuality as mental disorder. Several decades later, however, Spitzer, a professor of Biometric Research at Columbia University and Co-Editor of Psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual reversed his position, contending that mental health professionals had abandoned homosexuals who were attempting to change their sexual orientation. After former homosexuals picketed an APA meeting, Dr. Spitzer talked to numerous ex-gays and had a radical change of mind about the possibility of homosexuals changing their orientation. Spitzer conducted a study, interviewing 143 males and 57 females, to determine whether and how people change sexual orientation. Spitzer concluded that the research "Shows some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that."
Initially many colleagues and members of the gay community felt outraged and betrayed at his change in perspective. Spitzer noted, "I think that has largely dissipated. But also, I'm at the point in my career that I don't worry about such things," He added, "the politically correct term now is reorientation therapy. Reparative already implies something's broken - of course the reparative therapists believe this, but it kind of infuriates the gays to even call it reparative therapy." 8.
Exodus International
Christian leaders stepped forward to protect the rights of homosexuals who sought to change their sexual orientation. In 1973, Frank Worthen ministered to homosexuals in the U.S. He organized a conference of ex-gay ministers who formed a coalition called Exodus International, North America. In 1978 a group formed in Australia, followed by an independent group, Exodus Europe, which formed in the Netherlands in 1982. Leaders from around the world joined in 2004 to form Exodus Global Alliance. "Exodus is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ...Exodus is the largest Christian referral and information network dealing with homosexual issues in the world." Each year over 1000 members and interested persons come together for instruction and celebration in a five-day event in cities throughout North America. 9.
Love Won Out Conference
Love Won Out Conferences are organized by Focus on the Family to minister to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions and to family and friends of those who are living homosexually. Since 1998, Love Won Out has traveled to more than 50 American cities to bring "the power of God's love and His desire to transform the life of a struggling homosexual to find freedom in Jesus Christ." Attendance is limited to adults, although participants ages 16-18 may attend if accompanied by a parent. Speakers include ex gays and lesbians,Christian counselors, ministers, and educators. Melissa Fryrear, an ex-lesbian and director of gender issues for Focus on the Family notes that many protestors often have attended the conferences carrying signs accusing Love Won Out with intolerance and bigotry. She says, "There is nothing intolerant about what we say,". An 18 year-old gay attendee commented, "While I strongly disagree with many points in your message, you presented them in a loving way. I think it's important that people look at all sides of this issue...This conference was informing." 10.
REFERENCES
1. Satinover, Jeffrey. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth.Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Books. 1996:32.
2. The Gay Almanac.Compiled by the National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History. New York:Berkley Books. 1996:221.
3. Ibid.
4. Satinover:32-35.
5. Ibid:37.
6. Ibid: 35-36.
7. NARTH. http://www.narth.com/index.html. 1/24/2010.
8. Adamson, Victor J. "Homosexual change study supports reparative therapy."
Report from the American Association of Christian Counselors. June 13, 2001.
http://www.victorjadamson.com/articles2/article.php?id=4. 1/23/10.
Leblanc, Douglas. "Therapeutically Incorrect: Atheist psychiatrist argues that gays can change." Christianity Today. April 2005, Vol.49, No. 4:94.
Spitzer, Robert L. http://borngay.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=003506.1/24/10.
9. Exodus. "Who We Are". http://www.exodusinternational.org/about_exodus.shtml. 1/25/2010.
Exodus History. http://www,exodusglobalalliance.org/ourhistoryc87.php. 1/25/2010
10. Fryrear, Melissa. "Love Won Out is about ministry, not intolerance." Focus on the Family. Feb. 19, 2009.
Focus on the Family. Love Won Out Conference advertising brochure. 2004.
Until 1994, when all references to 'sexual orientation related disorders' was removed from the official policies of the American Medical Association, this perspective was used to justify therapies for treating homosexuality. 2.
The American Psychiatric Association also viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder until 1973. Over the years cures for treating homosexuality included: castration or vasectomy(1890's), hypnosis (1890's to 1960's), lobotomy (early 1900's to 1950's), analysis, hospitalization or institution(1920's to 1970's), aversion therapy, including drug caused nausea or electroshock (to the 1970's), and abstinence (1890's to the present).3.
Demands for normalizing homosexual behaviors occurred in the early 1970's. A homosexual faction in the American Psychiatric Association(APA) planned to disrupt the annual meetings of the APA, challenging a paper presentation on homosexuality and transsexualism. The following year the APA agreed to sponsor a special panel led by homosexuals. The Gay Liberation Front planned a demonstration at the meetings. On May 3, 1971, gay activists broke into a meeting, grabbed a microphone, and declared, "Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."
"In 1973 the APA voted to strike homosexuality from the officially approved list of psychiatric illnesses." Only about one-third of the membership was involved in this decision. A follow-up survey reported that "69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the vote and still considered homosexuality a disorder." The American Psychological Association voted to follow the lead set by the APA. 4.
Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover lamented that although psychiatry is presumably a scientific discipline and makes its decisions based on scientific evidence, the changes in definition and classification were determined not by scientific evidence, but were corrupted by politics. 5.
Political pressure again affected decisions of the APA when in 1994 the chairman of the APA's Committee on the Abuse and Misuse of Psychiatry presented to the Board of Trustee's a change, making it a "violation of professional conduct for a psychiatrist to help a homosexual patient become heterosexual even at the patient's request." When the board sent the statement to its legislative body, a fierce battle ensured.
Therapists who help homosexuals change and ex-homosexuals threatened to file a lawsuit against the APA and reopen consideration of the 1973 decision, which removed homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses. However, the Gay and Lesbian Task Force continued to challenge not only psychiatrists who undertook reparative therapy, but also to challenge psychologists, social workers, pastoral counselors, and ministers. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW), which accredits mental health practitioners, was also lobbied by gay activists to declare the use of reparative therapies a violation of the NASW Code of Ethics.6.
BACKLASH ON 'REPARATIVE THERAPY'
NARTH
The APA met challenges to its assertion that counselors should refrain from helping homosexuals change their sexual orientation. In the mid 1990's professionals concerned about the APA retreat from therapy formed the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH) to serve as an alternative to APA and a referral service for homosexual clients. By 2000 the membership was over 1000. NARTH is a "professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality." It provides educational information, conducts and collects scientific research, and promotes therapeutic treatment to those seeking their help. NARTH contends that "The right to seek therapy to change one's sexual adaptation should be considered self-evident and inalienable." 7.
Dr. Spitzer's testimony
Psychiatrist Robert L. Spitzer had offered key testimony in 1973 stating homosexuality was not a clinical disorder, leading to the APA proposal that declassified homosexuality as mental disorder. Several decades later, however, Spitzer, a professor of Biometric Research at Columbia University and Co-Editor of Psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual reversed his position, contending that mental health professionals had abandoned homosexuals who were attempting to change their sexual orientation. After former homosexuals picketed an APA meeting, Dr. Spitzer talked to numerous ex-gays and had a radical change of mind about the possibility of homosexuals changing their orientation. Spitzer conducted a study, interviewing 143 males and 57 females, to determine whether and how people change sexual orientation. Spitzer concluded that the research "Shows some people can change from gay to straight, and we ought to acknowledge that."
Initially many colleagues and members of the gay community felt outraged and betrayed at his change in perspective. Spitzer noted, "I think that has largely dissipated. But also, I'm at the point in my career that I don't worry about such things," He added, "the politically correct term now is reorientation therapy. Reparative already implies something's broken - of course the reparative therapists believe this, but it kind of infuriates the gays to even call it reparative therapy." 8.
Exodus International
Christian leaders stepped forward to protect the rights of homosexuals who sought to change their sexual orientation. In 1973, Frank Worthen ministered to homosexuals in the U.S. He organized a conference of ex-gay ministers who formed a coalition called Exodus International, North America. In 1978 a group formed in Australia, followed by an independent group, Exodus Europe, which formed in the Netherlands in 1982. Leaders from around the world joined in 2004 to form Exodus Global Alliance. "Exodus is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ...Exodus is the largest Christian referral and information network dealing with homosexual issues in the world." Each year over 1000 members and interested persons come together for instruction and celebration in a five-day event in cities throughout North America. 9.
Love Won Out Conference
Love Won Out Conferences are organized by Focus on the Family to minister to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions and to family and friends of those who are living homosexually. Since 1998, Love Won Out has traveled to more than 50 American cities to bring "the power of God's love and His desire to transform the life of a struggling homosexual to find freedom in Jesus Christ." Attendance is limited to adults, although participants ages 16-18 may attend if accompanied by a parent. Speakers include ex gays and lesbians,Christian counselors, ministers, and educators. Melissa Fryrear, an ex-lesbian and director of gender issues for Focus on the Family notes that many protestors often have attended the conferences carrying signs accusing Love Won Out with intolerance and bigotry. She says, "There is nothing intolerant about what we say,". An 18 year-old gay attendee commented, "While I strongly disagree with many points in your message, you presented them in a loving way. I think it's important that people look at all sides of this issue...This conference was informing." 10.
REFERENCES
1. Satinover, Jeffrey. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth.Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Books. 1996:32.
2. The Gay Almanac.Compiled by the National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History. New York:Berkley Books. 1996:221.
3. Ibid.
4. Satinover:32-35.
5. Ibid:37.
6. Ibid: 35-36.
7. NARTH. http://www.narth.com/index.html. 1/24/2010.
8. Adamson, Victor J. "Homosexual change study supports reparative therapy."
Report from the American Association of Christian Counselors. June 13, 2001.
http://www.victorjadamson.com/articles2/article.php?id=4. 1/23/10.
Leblanc, Douglas. "Therapeutically Incorrect: Atheist psychiatrist argues that gays can change." Christianity Today. April 2005, Vol.49, No. 4:94.
Spitzer, Robert L. http://borngay.procon.org/viewsource.asp?ID=003506.1/24/10.
9. Exodus. "Who We Are". http://www.exodusinternational.org/about_exodus.shtml. 1/25/2010.
Exodus History. http://www,exodusglobalalliance.org/ourhistoryc87.php. 1/25/2010
10. Fryrear, Melissa. "Love Won Out is about ministry, not intolerance." Focus on the Family. Feb. 19, 2009.
Focus on the Family. Love Won Out Conference advertising brochure. 2004.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
(2) Focus on Education: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America
In 1974 the National Education Association added 'sexual orientation' to its resolution on nondiscriminatory personnel policies. Diversity training, which includes acceptance of the gay and lesbian lifestyles, became the requirement for educational administrators, teachers and students.
CLAGS
In the 1980's gay and lesbian studies developed in universities across the country. The Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies (CLAGS), was established by the Graduate School of the City University of New York in 1991 with a grant from the Paul Rapoport Foundation, a major supporter of gay/lesbian concerns. CLAGS operated as a clearinghouse for scholarly research, conferences and public programs on gay related issues. It also prepared syllabi and curriculum supporting gay and lesbian studies for all grade levels.
GLSEN
Seventy gay and lesbian educators formed the Gay and Lesbian Independent School Network (GLSTN) in 1990 to form Gay-Straight Alliances (GSA's) with the policy of protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students. Chapters were established across the country. Kevin Jennings, one of the founders, was hired as it's first full time staff person. In 1997, GLSTN changed it's name to Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN has registered more than 4,000 GSA's on school campuses and grew to 40 full time staff. GLSEN sponsors the National Day of Silence at schools across the country to bring attention to the silence caused by anti-LGBT bullying.
The Rainbow Curriculum
The gay agenda sought to promote tolerance and understanding of the gay/lesbian lifestyles in the public schools and to normalize these lifestyles in the public perception. In the early 1990's, elementary curriculum entitled Children of the Rainbow encouraged diversity and inclusion of non-European, women and gay and lesbian history in every stage of education from kindergarten through high school. Books supporting gay and lesbian families and the gay lifestyles were included in school curriculum.
It's Elementary -
In 1999, a ninety-minute video, entitled It's Elementary: Talking About Gay and Lesbian Issues in School was shown on public broadcasting stations across the country. The video showed elementary grade-level classroom discussions about homosexuality. Young homosexuals informed the students of the five gender orientations: male, female, gay, lesbian, and bisexual.
BACKLASH
When the video, Elementary: Talking About Gay and Lesbian Issues in School aired across the country, groups opposing the use of the schools to promote homosexuality staged protests. In San Antonio, Texas, 200 protestors picketed Public Broadcasting station KLRN to protest the showing.
The normalization of homosexuality became 'politically correct' in academic and educational settings. Silence was no longer imposed upon those supporting gay rights, rather those seeking to challenge the gay lifestyle were violently attacked and intimidated.
Diversity training
Diversity training sometimes became sessions of intimidation. At the University of Delaware, student Countney Halligan was not opposed to attending the required training. She soon changed her mind. In one-on-one sessions students were encouraged to speak openly about their sexuality and gay students felt pressured to publicly out themselves. The program was suspended in response to student complaints and pressure from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education , a Philadelphia based civil liberties advocacy group. The school's vice president for student life said, "The university had good intentions...but the way the program was run was unacceptable."
Educational Materials Promote Homosexuality
When same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts in 2003, pro-homosexual picture books were placed in the classrooms in the name of tolerance and diversity. Robin Wirthlin was puzzled when her 2nd grade son came home and reported to her about a story at school of a prince who didn't like the princesses his mother brought home. He fell in love with a prince and married him. Wirthlin was concerned that books like this were read to grade-schoolers. She questioned the teacher who said it was the school district's mandate to read pro-gay lifestyle books to her students. Another couple, David and Tonia Parker, were also concerned when their kindergarten son brought home a "Diversity Book Bag" which included a picture book called Who's in a Family? . The text began "Laura and Kyle live with their two moms,... Robin's family is made up of her dad,Clifford, her dad's partner...".
When the Wirthlins and the Parkers filed suit against the town of Lexinton asking to exempt their children from teaching about homosexuality, The U.S. District Chief Judge Mark Wolf ruled against parental rights stating, "The (state)Constitution does not ...permeit the Parkers and the Wirthlins to exempt their children from teaching about homosexuality or same-sex marriage." He wrote, "After all, if a few parents could do it, others would follow, maybe in vast numbers."
Intimidation
In 1993, David Woodward, a political science professor at Clemson University, was asked to serve as an expert witness for the state of Colorado to testify about the political power of homosexual groups in America. When he testified in support of traditional values he discovered that to publicly oppose gay rights was "the equivalent to being sent to the university Gulag". He was labeled 'ideologically incompatible' with the values of the university, the press attacked him viciously, and he often found the word 'Homophobe' scribbled on his office door. In his book, Why We Whisper:Restoring Our Right to Say it's Wrong, Woodward and coauthor, Jim DeMint, point out, "freedom of speech is crucial in any democracy...The demise of good government comes when this conversation is abbreviated."
Concerned Groups Speak Out
Concerned Christians and groups supporting traditional family values worked tirelessly to challenge and oppose the gay takeover of educational institutions.
The Tradional Values Coalition networks with 43,000 churches to provide materials for pro-family lobbying activities. The director, Rev. Louis P. Sheldon writes, "Children have long been targets of homosexual activists...GLSEN has established Gay Straight Alliance clubs in hundreds of junior and senior high schools. The goal of GLSEN is to convince sexually confused children that they were 'born gay'...The Day of Silence is supposed to give students a chance to protest alleged discrimination against homosexual, bi-sexual, and transgender students...In reality, the effort is designed to intimidate and silence any opposition to the homosexual agenda..."
Concerned Women for American (CWA) holds community and state events and informs the public of issues affecting the family. In 2007 a notice was sent to parents and grandparents of school-aged children stating. "The term 'Radical Homosexual Agenda' refers to a movement begun approximately 25 years ago to 'normalize' homosexuality and other deviant behaviors within our culture...Their rally cry is 'Whoever controls the schools controls the future.' High on their agenda is to expose children to sex at earlier and earlier ages in our schools..."
When President Barack Obama nominated Kevin Jennings, the founder of GLSEN, to be Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education, in charge of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, CWA founder, Beverly LaHaye wrote, "Jennings and GLSEN have one goal: promote homosexuality and transexuality to children through schools - away from the protection of parents, churches, doctors and others who know homosexual acts are unsafe, immoral and damaging..."
Dr James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, also expressed deep concern about the appointment of Kevin Jennings as the head of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Dobson states, "What hypocrisy!...He has written five books advocating homosexual teaching in the schools and elsewhere, as well as the foreward to a widely publicized book titled Queering Elementary Education."
The battle over control of education will continue as groups supporting and opposing the normalization of gay and lesbian lifestyles seek to influence the teaching of the next generation.
REFERENCES
Buss, Dale. "Homosexual rights go to school." Christianity Today. Vol. 37, No. 6(May 17) 1993:70-72.
Colson, Charles. "The Whisper Zone:Why We're Losing Our Right to Speak Out." Breakpoint. Prison Fellowship Ministries. May 1, 2008.
Curtis, Barbara. "in the beginning." Citizen. Vol.22, No.3. March, 2008:24-27. Focus on the Family. Colorado Springs, CO.
Dobson, James. Dr Dobson's Newsletter. Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, CO. Nov.2009:3.
Dorsett, Amy. "Protest in S.A. targets KLRM." San Antonio Express News. July 3, 1999:1B.
Elder, Gene. "Gay/lesbian studies:outof the closet, into college." San Antonio Express News/ Nov.3, 1991:4M
GLSEN. "Our Mission. Our History". http://www.glsen./org/chi-bin/iowa/all/about/history/index.html. 1/21/2010.
LaHaye, Beverly. Concerned Women for America newsletter. Fall, 2009.
Sheldon, Reverend Louis P. It's Not Really About Marriage: The Radical Homosexual Agenda to Undermine American Culture." Traditional Values Coalition. Washington DC. 2005:14-15.
The Gay Almanac. National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History. NY:Berkley Books. 1996:180-186.
Watson, Jamal. "When Diversity Training Goes Awry." http://diverseeducation.com/cache/print.php?articleId=10543. 1/22/2010.
CLAGS
In the 1980's gay and lesbian studies developed in universities across the country. The Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies (CLAGS), was established by the Graduate School of the City University of New York in 1991 with a grant from the Paul Rapoport Foundation, a major supporter of gay/lesbian concerns. CLAGS operated as a clearinghouse for scholarly research, conferences and public programs on gay related issues. It also prepared syllabi and curriculum supporting gay and lesbian studies for all grade levels.
GLSEN
Seventy gay and lesbian educators formed the Gay and Lesbian Independent School Network (GLSTN) in 1990 to form Gay-Straight Alliances (GSA's) with the policy of protecting lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students. Chapters were established across the country. Kevin Jennings, one of the founders, was hired as it's first full time staff person. In 1997, GLSTN changed it's name to Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN). GLSEN has registered more than 4,000 GSA's on school campuses and grew to 40 full time staff. GLSEN sponsors the National Day of Silence at schools across the country to bring attention to the silence caused by anti-LGBT bullying.
The Rainbow Curriculum
The gay agenda sought to promote tolerance and understanding of the gay/lesbian lifestyles in the public schools and to normalize these lifestyles in the public perception. In the early 1990's, elementary curriculum entitled Children of the Rainbow encouraged diversity and inclusion of non-European, women and gay and lesbian history in every stage of education from kindergarten through high school. Books supporting gay and lesbian families and the gay lifestyles were included in school curriculum.
It's Elementary -
In 1999, a ninety-minute video, entitled It's Elementary: Talking About Gay and Lesbian Issues in School was shown on public broadcasting stations across the country. The video showed elementary grade-level classroom discussions about homosexuality. Young homosexuals informed the students of the five gender orientations: male, female, gay, lesbian, and bisexual.
BACKLASH
When the video, Elementary: Talking About Gay and Lesbian Issues in School aired across the country, groups opposing the use of the schools to promote homosexuality staged protests. In San Antonio, Texas, 200 protestors picketed Public Broadcasting station KLRN to protest the showing.
The normalization of homosexuality became 'politically correct' in academic and educational settings. Silence was no longer imposed upon those supporting gay rights, rather those seeking to challenge the gay lifestyle were violently attacked and intimidated.
Diversity training
Diversity training sometimes became sessions of intimidation. At the University of Delaware, student Countney Halligan was not opposed to attending the required training. She soon changed her mind. In one-on-one sessions students were encouraged to speak openly about their sexuality and gay students felt pressured to publicly out themselves. The program was suspended in response to student complaints and pressure from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education , a Philadelphia based civil liberties advocacy group. The school's vice president for student life said, "The university had good intentions...but the way the program was run was unacceptable."
Educational Materials Promote Homosexuality
When same-sex marriage became legal in Massachusetts in 2003, pro-homosexual picture books were placed in the classrooms in the name of tolerance and diversity. Robin Wirthlin was puzzled when her 2nd grade son came home and reported to her about a story at school of a prince who didn't like the princesses his mother brought home. He fell in love with a prince and married him. Wirthlin was concerned that books like this were read to grade-schoolers. She questioned the teacher who said it was the school district's mandate to read pro-gay lifestyle books to her students. Another couple, David and Tonia Parker, were also concerned when their kindergarten son brought home a "Diversity Book Bag" which included a picture book called Who's in a Family? . The text began "Laura and Kyle live with their two moms,... Robin's family is made up of her dad,Clifford, her dad's partner...".
When the Wirthlins and the Parkers filed suit against the town of Lexinton asking to exempt their children from teaching about homosexuality, The U.S. District Chief Judge Mark Wolf ruled against parental rights stating, "The (state)Constitution does not ...permeit the Parkers and the Wirthlins to exempt their children from teaching about homosexuality or same-sex marriage." He wrote, "After all, if a few parents could do it, others would follow, maybe in vast numbers."
Intimidation
In 1993, David Woodward, a political science professor at Clemson University, was asked to serve as an expert witness for the state of Colorado to testify about the political power of homosexual groups in America. When he testified in support of traditional values he discovered that to publicly oppose gay rights was "the equivalent to being sent to the university Gulag". He was labeled 'ideologically incompatible' with the values of the university, the press attacked him viciously, and he often found the word 'Homophobe' scribbled on his office door. In his book, Why We Whisper:Restoring Our Right to Say it's Wrong, Woodward and coauthor, Jim DeMint, point out, "freedom of speech is crucial in any democracy...The demise of good government comes when this conversation is abbreviated."
Concerned Groups Speak Out
Concerned Christians and groups supporting traditional family values worked tirelessly to challenge and oppose the gay takeover of educational institutions.
The Tradional Values Coalition networks with 43,000 churches to provide materials for pro-family lobbying activities. The director, Rev. Louis P. Sheldon writes, "Children have long been targets of homosexual activists...GLSEN has established Gay Straight Alliance clubs in hundreds of junior and senior high schools. The goal of GLSEN is to convince sexually confused children that they were 'born gay'...The Day of Silence is supposed to give students a chance to protest alleged discrimination against homosexual, bi-sexual, and transgender students...In reality, the effort is designed to intimidate and silence any opposition to the homosexual agenda..."
Concerned Women for American (CWA) holds community and state events and informs the public of issues affecting the family. In 2007 a notice was sent to parents and grandparents of school-aged children stating. "The term 'Radical Homosexual Agenda' refers to a movement begun approximately 25 years ago to 'normalize' homosexuality and other deviant behaviors within our culture...Their rally cry is 'Whoever controls the schools controls the future.' High on their agenda is to expose children to sex at earlier and earlier ages in our schools..."
When President Barack Obama nominated Kevin Jennings, the founder of GLSEN, to be Assistant Deputy Secretary of Education, in charge of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, CWA founder, Beverly LaHaye wrote, "Jennings and GLSEN have one goal: promote homosexuality and transexuality to children through schools - away from the protection of parents, churches, doctors and others who know homosexual acts are unsafe, immoral and damaging..."
Dr James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, also expressed deep concern about the appointment of Kevin Jennings as the head of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Dobson states, "What hypocrisy!...He has written five books advocating homosexual teaching in the schools and elsewhere, as well as the foreward to a widely publicized book titled Queering Elementary Education."
The battle over control of education will continue as groups supporting and opposing the normalization of gay and lesbian lifestyles seek to influence the teaching of the next generation.
REFERENCES
Buss, Dale. "Homosexual rights go to school." Christianity Today. Vol. 37, No. 6(May 17) 1993:70-72.
Colson, Charles. "The Whisper Zone:Why We're Losing Our Right to Speak Out." Breakpoint. Prison Fellowship Ministries. May 1, 2008.
Curtis, Barbara. "in the beginning." Citizen. Vol.22, No.3. March, 2008:24-27. Focus on the Family. Colorado Springs, CO.
Dobson, James. Dr Dobson's Newsletter. Focus on the Family, Colorado Springs, CO. Nov.2009:3.
Dorsett, Amy. "Protest in S.A. targets KLRM." San Antonio Express News. July 3, 1999:1B.
Elder, Gene. "Gay/lesbian studies:outof the closet, into college." San Antonio Express News/ Nov.3, 1991:4M
GLSEN. "Our Mission. Our History". http://www.glsen./org/chi-bin/iowa/all/about/history/index.html. 1/21/2010.
LaHaye, Beverly. Concerned Women for America newsletter. Fall, 2009.
Sheldon, Reverend Louis P. It's Not Really About Marriage: The Radical Homosexual Agenda to Undermine American Culture." Traditional Values Coalition. Washington DC. 2005:14-15.
The Gay Almanac. National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History. NY:Berkley Books. 1996:180-186.
Watson, Jamal. "When Diversity Training Goes Awry." http://diverseeducation.com/cache/print.php?articleId=10543. 1/22/2010.
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America
Over the last 50 years gay activist groups have organized to construct a social reorganization of America. Although a comprehensive survey of sexuality conducted in 1992 at the Unversity of Chicago documented that 2.8 percent of men identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual and 1.4 percent of women defined themselves as lesbian or bisexual,(1) the gay culture, influenced by the civil rights and women's movements, rapidly influenced the American culture with gay liberation.
The movement to bring homosexual behavior into social acceptance is challenging every social institution with fundamental change, including the government and legal systems, educational systems, the professional health industry, corporations, religious organizations, and the institution of marriage and family, the media, and the military.
As the gay movements gained momentum, particularly in the media, the schools and churches, powerful counter-movements and organizations developed to challenge the changing expectations of sexual behavior as being personally and socially destructive. Battles ensured as groups within education and health systems, religious organizations and the military claimed adverse impacts on societal outcomes.
The normalization of homosexuality within society will create profound changes in social organization, especially in the areas of social integration, social reproduction, social health and the intergenerational transfer of cultural values. The social discourse has been rampant with charges of bigotry, homophobia and hate mongering. However, neither intimidation, tolerance nor back slapping love fests are appropriate means to bring about change in social behavior that has wide reaching consequences. These foundational social issues deserve serious and thorough consideration.
"The concept of externalities helps define situations that justify government intervention and identify appropriate policy solutions to the problem. Externalities exist when an individual's actions impose costs on or provide benefits to others who are not parties to the decision... This approach provides criteria for when government should act and the type of policies it should use...Positive externalities provide gains for society, while negative externalities produce losses..." (2)
In 2003, Melik Kaylan called for caution in discussing the growing changes in society. "Libertarians, now both on the left and right, say that relations between consenting adults should not be regulated if no participant is hurt, which includes the freedom to marry anyone you please. Here, there's no concern for the aggregate effect on society of cumulative individual choices...Gay marriage...alarms many Americans precisely because it contends blurry unknowable enormities. We will be, after all, the first society ever to pursue the experiment fully... What will be the ultimate human cost, and who will have the courage then to identify the cause?"(3)
REFERENCES
1.Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL,1994.
2. Steinacker, Annette. "Externalities, Prospect Theory, and Social Construction: When Will Government Act, What Will Government Do?" Social Science Quarterly,Vol.87, No 3. September 2006:459-476.
3. Kaylan, Melik. "The Way We Live Now." The Wall Street Juornal. Fri. Aug. 8, 2003: Opinion Page.
The movement to bring homosexual behavior into social acceptance is challenging every social institution with fundamental change, including the government and legal systems, educational systems, the professional health industry, corporations, religious organizations, and the institution of marriage and family, the media, and the military.
As the gay movements gained momentum, particularly in the media, the schools and churches, powerful counter-movements and organizations developed to challenge the changing expectations of sexual behavior as being personally and socially destructive. Battles ensured as groups within education and health systems, religious organizations and the military claimed adverse impacts on societal outcomes.
The normalization of homosexuality within society will create profound changes in social organization, especially in the areas of social integration, social reproduction, social health and the intergenerational transfer of cultural values. The social discourse has been rampant with charges of bigotry, homophobia and hate mongering. However, neither intimidation, tolerance nor back slapping love fests are appropriate means to bring about change in social behavior that has wide reaching consequences. These foundational social issues deserve serious and thorough consideration.
"The concept of externalities helps define situations that justify government intervention and identify appropriate policy solutions to the problem. Externalities exist when an individual's actions impose costs on or provide benefits to others who are not parties to the decision... This approach provides criteria for when government should act and the type of policies it should use...Positive externalities provide gains for society, while negative externalities produce losses..." (2)
In 2003, Melik Kaylan called for caution in discussing the growing changes in society. "Libertarians, now both on the left and right, say that relations between consenting adults should not be regulated if no participant is hurt, which includes the freedom to marry anyone you please. Here, there's no concern for the aggregate effect on society of cumulative individual choices...Gay marriage...alarms many Americans precisely because it contends blurry unknowable enormities. We will be, after all, the first society ever to pursue the experiment fully... What will be the ultimate human cost, and who will have the courage then to identify the cause?"(3)
REFERENCES
1.Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL,1994.
2. Steinacker, Annette. "Externalities, Prospect Theory, and Social Construction: When Will Government Act, What Will Government Do?" Social Science Quarterly,Vol.87, No 3. September 2006:459-476.
3. Kaylan, Melik. "The Way We Live Now." The Wall Street Juornal. Fri. Aug. 8, 2003: Opinion Page.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Keys To Loving Family Relationships
Loving relationships within the family lay a foundation for personal health and wellness. Families are a special way that love and healing are made manifest. The family is the unique organization in which we become whole in our relationships. This wholeness requires that we grow in the graces of faithfulness, patience, forgiveness and self-control. From these graces flow the joy and peace of connectedness and loving assurance.
Our modern culture emphasizes self-interest, but it is within the family that we accept others into our definition of self. Families are under stress today because social pressures that once held families together are weakened. We want our family to be a place of joy and happiness. It is up to us to make it happen.
We'll focus on four keys that will help to unlock loving relationships in our families:
* Positive communication;
* Conflict resolution;
* Money management;
* and Attitudes of gratefulness.
POSITIVE COMMUNICATION
Families provide for us a sense of companionship and completeness. Communication is essential for the expression of these relationships. When communication breaks down, love is blocked. Resentment and hostility replace companionship. Communication takes time. We need to clear our schedules of activities that keep us from communicating with each other.
In many families the key to communication cannot be found. The doors to meaningful discussions are locked. Communication involves talking, listening and understanding. Unfortunately we often are more inclined to talk about our own wants than to listen to the concerns of others. All people have an immense need to be truly listened to. Communication also requires that you share yourself verbally and non verbally in such a way that the other person can understand and accept what you are sharing.
Thoughts to Ponder
1. Communication is to love what blood is to the body. When communication breaks down, love is blocked.
2. Words have power. Choose them carefully. Words can hurt, injure, and anger, or they can heal, help and comfort.
3. Research shows that tone of voice, facial expressions and gestures communicate even more effectively than words.
4. Do your words, facial expressions and body language encourage loving family relationship?
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Conflict is natural when people live together. Our creator has made each of us differently, and family members seek to protect their uniqueness. When we are threatened, we feel an impulse to attack. Conflicts arise out of personal values, beliefs and needs. We truly love the members of our family when we understand and appreciate the ways in which they are unique. Conflict in families is an opportunity to recognize each other's needs and uniqueness and to celebrate differences. Conflicts are to be resolved, not avoided. Conflict resolution requires working together, listening, and caring. Make your family a place of safety through resolving conflict in a healthy way.
Ground rules for conflict
1. Realize that conflict is natural. People who live together will experience conflict.
2. Don't try to win. Make it a win-win solution where everyone feels OK.
3. Find a way to de-escalate. Look for the positive. Hurtful comments increase defensiveness.
4. Keep the big picture in mind. Don't let molehills become mountains.
MONEY MANAGEMENT
Money problems often cause anger and conflict in families. Money problems rank among the top four reasons leading to divorce. The problems increase as the number of people in the family increases. Problems develop when decisions about money create distance and resentment. Family members should feel that their needs and values are supported by the way in which family finances are spent.
The value of a family member should never be equated with the person's net worth. Family relationships can be destroyed if a love of things becomes a higher priority than a love of each other. Freedom from money problems more often results from spending less than earning more.
Questions to ponder
1. Is your money being spent to support your priorities?
2. Are behavior problems leading to money problems?
3. What holes need to be plugged where money disappears without knowing where it went?
4. Have you considered the feelings of other family members in regard to how the family money is spent?
ATTITUDES OF GRATEFULNESS
Appreciating the people who live in our family is foundational to loving relationshilps. The dynamic that keeps a family happy is a positive attitude. We are trained in our culture to focus on the problems that need to be solved. We too often develop a negative attitude and resent the people in our family who aren't living up to our expectations. When we cling too tightly to expectations, we lose a sense of appreciation for the goodness in those around us. Often the best way to eliminate negative behaviors is to accentuate the positive ones.
Growing in gratitude
1. To create joy in your relationships, focus on what is admirable about the people in your family.
2. When family members do something good, say so! "Thank you" and "I like that" are powerful tools for good relationships.
3. Negative impasses will break down when a positive attitude replaces anger.
4. You can choose what to pay attention to. Focus on what is wonderful about the other person.
Loving relationships don't just happen. They are the result of a decision and commitment to grow in understanding amidst all the problems and concerns that family life presents throughout the years. You can turn the keys to loving family relationships.
REFERENCES:
* Poduska, Bernard E. For Love and Money: A Guide to Finances & Relationships.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub. 1993.
* Ryan, M.J. Attitudes of Gratitude in Love: Creating More Joy in Your Relationship. NY: MJF Books. 2002.
* Whiteman, Thomas A., Ph.D. and Thomas G. Bartlett, Ph.D. The Marriage Mender: A Couple's Guide for Staying Together. Colorado Springs, CO:NAVPress.1996
Our modern culture emphasizes self-interest, but it is within the family that we accept others into our definition of self. Families are under stress today because social pressures that once held families together are weakened. We want our family to be a place of joy and happiness. It is up to us to make it happen.
We'll focus on four keys that will help to unlock loving relationships in our families:
* Positive communication;
* Conflict resolution;
* Money management;
* and Attitudes of gratefulness.
POSITIVE COMMUNICATION
Families provide for us a sense of companionship and completeness. Communication is essential for the expression of these relationships. When communication breaks down, love is blocked. Resentment and hostility replace companionship. Communication takes time. We need to clear our schedules of activities that keep us from communicating with each other.
In many families the key to communication cannot be found. The doors to meaningful discussions are locked. Communication involves talking, listening and understanding. Unfortunately we often are more inclined to talk about our own wants than to listen to the concerns of others. All people have an immense need to be truly listened to. Communication also requires that you share yourself verbally and non verbally in such a way that the other person can understand and accept what you are sharing.
Thoughts to Ponder
1. Communication is to love what blood is to the body. When communication breaks down, love is blocked.
2. Words have power. Choose them carefully. Words can hurt, injure, and anger, or they can heal, help and comfort.
3. Research shows that tone of voice, facial expressions and gestures communicate even more effectively than words.
4. Do your words, facial expressions and body language encourage loving family relationship?
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
Conflict is natural when people live together. Our creator has made each of us differently, and family members seek to protect their uniqueness. When we are threatened, we feel an impulse to attack. Conflicts arise out of personal values, beliefs and needs. We truly love the members of our family when we understand and appreciate the ways in which they are unique. Conflict in families is an opportunity to recognize each other's needs and uniqueness and to celebrate differences. Conflicts are to be resolved, not avoided. Conflict resolution requires working together, listening, and caring. Make your family a place of safety through resolving conflict in a healthy way.
Ground rules for conflict
1. Realize that conflict is natural. People who live together will experience conflict.
2. Don't try to win. Make it a win-win solution where everyone feels OK.
3. Find a way to de-escalate. Look for the positive. Hurtful comments increase defensiveness.
4. Keep the big picture in mind. Don't let molehills become mountains.
MONEY MANAGEMENT
Money problems often cause anger and conflict in families. Money problems rank among the top four reasons leading to divorce. The problems increase as the number of people in the family increases. Problems develop when decisions about money create distance and resentment. Family members should feel that their needs and values are supported by the way in which family finances are spent.
The value of a family member should never be equated with the person's net worth. Family relationships can be destroyed if a love of things becomes a higher priority than a love of each other. Freedom from money problems more often results from spending less than earning more.
Questions to ponder
1. Is your money being spent to support your priorities?
2. Are behavior problems leading to money problems?
3. What holes need to be plugged where money disappears without knowing where it went?
4. Have you considered the feelings of other family members in regard to how the family money is spent?
ATTITUDES OF GRATEFULNESS
Appreciating the people who live in our family is foundational to loving relationshilps. The dynamic that keeps a family happy is a positive attitude. We are trained in our culture to focus on the problems that need to be solved. We too often develop a negative attitude and resent the people in our family who aren't living up to our expectations. When we cling too tightly to expectations, we lose a sense of appreciation for the goodness in those around us. Often the best way to eliminate negative behaviors is to accentuate the positive ones.
Growing in gratitude
1. To create joy in your relationships, focus on what is admirable about the people in your family.
2. When family members do something good, say so! "Thank you" and "I like that" are powerful tools for good relationships.
3. Negative impasses will break down when a positive attitude replaces anger.
4. You can choose what to pay attention to. Focus on what is wonderful about the other person.
Loving relationships don't just happen. They are the result of a decision and commitment to grow in understanding amidst all the problems and concerns that family life presents throughout the years. You can turn the keys to loving family relationships.
REFERENCES:
* Poduska, Bernard E. For Love and Money: A Guide to Finances & Relationships.Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub. 1993.
* Ryan, M.J. Attitudes of Gratitude in Love: Creating More Joy in Your Relationship. NY: MJF Books. 2002.
* Whiteman, Thomas A., Ph.D. and Thomas G. Bartlett, Ph.D. The Marriage Mender: A Couple's Guide for Staying Together. Colorado Springs, CO:NAVPress.1996
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
