According to Focus on the Family’s CitizenLink,
The Washington, D.C., Board of Education will vote next month on “Healthy Learning Standards” that would encourage condom use and teach eighth-graders that they “may begin to feel romantically and/or sexually attracted to people of a different gender and/or to people of the same gender.”
Needless to say, Focus on the Family is not happy about the proposed curriculum. Speaking against the program, Randy Thomas is quoted in the article:
“Parents need to be aware of the fact that in many school districts across the nation, the promotion of homosexuality is coming in stealthily under titles like ‘health learning standards’ or ‘family life education,'” Thomas said. The new “standards” appear to push a one-sided perspective of homosexuality.
“They only present homosexuality as something positive,” he said, “whereas, as a former homosexual, I know what its like, and it’s not all positive, it’s not all perfect.”
Since CitizenLink fails to provide any specific details about what would be included in these new learning standards, readers are left to fill in the gaps for themselves. Those who take the time to find out what the curriculum (titled “Health Standards,” not “Healthy Learning Standards”) actually says will find little if anything to suggest the sort of bias implied in the CitizenLink article. The section dealing with sexual orientation reads as follows:
8.1.5 Define sexual orientation, using correct terminology; and explain that as people grow and develop they may begin to feel romantically and/or sexually attracted to people of a different gender and/or to people of the same gender.
8.1.6 Compare and contrast the theories about what determines sexual orientation, including genetics; prenatal, social, and cultural influences; psychosocial factors; and a combination of all of these.
Readers who do their homework will also learn that the sex education portions of the curriculum (which covers a broad range of health-related topics) place a strong emphasis on abstinence, something Focus on the Family usually lobbies for quite vocally. If there is a “gay agenda” hidden in the proposed curriculum, CitizenLink provides no substantiation of its existence.
CitizenLink’s brief commentary also begs the question of what Focus on the Family and Exodus would consider a balanced presentation of the issue. Would a Focus/Exodus-designed curriculum acknowledge that many openly gay and lesbian individuals lead healthy, productive lives, or would it portray the GLBT community as diseased, shallow and emotionally stunted individuals inclined toward pedophilia?
Would that curriculum be used as a recruiting tool to herd impressionable young teens into ex-gay programs, or would it honestly inform them that the best most Exodus participants can hope for is lifelong celibacy? Would it portray all gays and lesbians as victims of bad parenting and/or sexual abuse, or would it objectively present all of the research that’s been done on the causes of homosexuality (as the proposed curriculum appears to do in its current form)?
Given the consistent track records of Exodus, Focus on the Family and their allies, it’s difficult to accept cries of “one-sidedness” from them without being reminded of the pot that called the kettle black.
Mike Airhart contributed to this article.
Like the gay agenda, the numerical agenda also has a powerful lobby. I’ve been complaining for years that they only present mathematics as something positive, and as a former mathematician, I know what it’s like, and it’s not all positive integers, it’s not all perfect.
Oh how I long for the day when more courageous heros like Randy Thomas are willing to stand up and give the truly balanced perspective, that numbers leads to communism.
Good one, Emproph.
I’ve been heterosexual all my life, still am, and it’s been anything but positive. However, I refuse to call any of it negative. Great growth and learning have come from every single negative heterosexual experience.
These curriculums (i’ve not read this particular one) are written largely with the aim of getting straight kids to be more compassionate to those who don’t fit that “ideal”. They are NOT written as “recruiting” tools. I’ve not heard of one gay or ex-gay say they decided to be gay because of something they read in a book.
The anti-gay lobby seems to think that if straight kids understand and are more compassionate and accepting of gay kids, that more kids will “turn” gay. The thing is, they might come out sooner, if they feel safer. In turn, they might start dealing with all the other issues that need to be dealt with (just like straight kids need to) before they get married and divorced two times and bring a bunch of negative experience onto other people.
The casualties of the anti-gay movement are never considered in all this.
I’ll reiterate that I don’t often consider myself a casualty….but…candidly, I am. I choose to take it all for the good it’s brought to my life and not focus on the bad.
I’ve always found CitizenLink sparse on the facts in a way that slants issues drastically.
First of all, LIFE is not all positive and it’s not all perfect – duh. And I’m tired of Randy acting like this “hip insider” that knows all the gay secrets. The life he has described (18 years ago now?) sounds nothing like mine, and I dare say things have changed a bit since then anyway, no thanks to the good Mr. Thomas.
Wow. Well said, Pam.
As a former ex-gay, I know what reparative therapy and ex-gay ministry is like, and it’s not all positive, it’s not all perfect.
To put it mildly.
I wonder if his life as an ex-gay could be described the same way…
Oh that’s perfect, I didn’t even think about that.
As opposed to the ex-gay life, which IS all positive, and IS all perfect.
Actually Pam, I think the sad truth is that the anti-gay lobby is more afraid that if straight kids see real representations of GLBT people, and see that we are not freaks, they will be less likely to support the anti-gay political and religious agenda, and that would mean the anti-gay lobby would lose potential recruits. Only by maintaining the urban myths of the bizarreness and unnaturalness of homosexuality will that lobby stay in business.
“they ONLY present homosexuality as something positive.”
What?!
WHO does?
Yeah, as can Pam, I can attest that being heterosexual isn’t perfect, fun or always positive. Especially if you’re a strong minded woman.
The pot truly is calling the kettle black.
Indeed, if you sat with just a small collection of single BLACK women, the heterosexual lobby would find they are finding their heterosexuality and singlehood VERY difficult. The sense of man shortage is VERY acute. And finding an eligible black man devoid if major baggage is even tougher.
And since black women and gays and lesbians have had more of a war declared on them, perhaps the ex gays we encounter are more of the punch drunk among us and some of us can recognize it.
However, what doesn’t kill us, makes us stronger and we all, gay or not, must get through many hills and valleys in relationships before the plain.
Can I get a witness?
Turds in the punch drunk love. Amen.
Amen, Regan
The curriculum officially states that they are simply teaching that some kids may find themselves attracted to the same sex as opposed to the opposite sex. I assume that it also teaches that those kids should be treated with respect and dignity no matter what.
Exactly what would be a Christian’s problem with that, then? Some people are gonna be attracted to the same sex, like it or not. They aren’t gonna go away and they need to be treated like everybody else. Is that such a hard thing for some Christians to understand? Is that such a radical idea that it can’t be taught in public schools? I don’t think so.
Do Evangelicals even consider the fact that their kids might wind up gay? As far as I can see, they simply want homosexuality to be a “non-Christian” problem. They don’t even consider the fact that many gay kids grow up in the Church, and that’s a real shame.
Jay, as far as I can tell, people who take this attitude do not believe there are such things as homosexuals, but heterosexuals with homosexual problems (ala Nicolosi). They think a “gay identity” is just something that was recently created to legitimize people who have this “problem” and don’t want to change (or don’t know they can).
With that in mind, they don’t want kids told that gay is a legitimate class of person, and certainly not that it could ever be a normal or even happy life. Instead they want us to tell them, “Oh, some people have those feelings but it can go away, and if not we can help you deal with it, but you aren’t really gay and you wouldn’t want to live that “lifestyle”.”
In this way, they really do think such policies recruit kids into homosexuality. It’s twisted, and pretty far out, but you must see things in those terms before any of their issues make some sort of sense.
This is also why ENDA and Bias Crime legislation, etc are just terrifying to them. They don’t want “gay” codified into Federal law as a legitimate class of people. The last few months, Focus and their bedfellows have finally stated this openly in what I suppose is desperation over the possibility that some of this law will pass.
Jay,
Sadly, I suspect that those who oppose the curriculum do not genuinely believe that gay people should be treated with respect and dignity. They believe that gay people should not have the same rights and priveleges as heterosexual and that society – especially the schools – should uphold social criticism and that mistreatment and stigmatism will discourage unwanted behaviors.
And any curriculum that says all people are to be respected and treated equally is the enemy of those who favor public condemnation and civil punishment.
Randy Thomas’ comments are so irrelevant and off the point that they are laughable. All the curriculum says is that you may or may not have same sex attraction. Does Randy Thomas assert that this is not true? No. He just wants to make sure that every government or school program is filled with his religious beliefs.
It’s been so long since he’s seen or been involved in the gay community, he literally has no idea what life is like for us now. He is frozen in time and brainwashed by fundamentalist theology. Sad.
I really see it as a boilerplate response. He sees the keywords “homosexuality” and “curriculum” and out comes a smear. I can’t honestly say I have never done the same, but I was never being quoted for publication at the time either. He should be more careful about his words.
J, I don’t know what your background is, but having grown up in those circles, I have what I would call an insider’s perspective…or at least my own personal opinion. 😉
I think it all goes back to religious and spiritual elitism and superiority. I grew up in circles that were staunch supporters of FOTF, Coral Ridge, Moody Bible, Bob Jones, Bill Gothard and the likes.
I grew up independent, fundamental Baptist. A core value that was practiced, if not taught, is that we were better than others…other Christians as well. It was never spoken explicitly, but we were taught it all the same. We were better than the Methodists because they sprinkled and didn’t immerse. Catholics in all likelihood were not even saved because of their idolatry in praying to Mary and the saints. When I learned American Sign Language, the sign for Lutheran is based on the sign for weak. (I can’t tell you the number of jokes I heard on that one.)
As I got older and moved away from the fundamentalist camp and progressed into evangelicalism, I still found this sense of elitism and pride sitting there under the surface in some form. (Yes, there is a difference.) As progressed from evangelicalism to mainline denominations, I still found vestiges of it around me.
During my time in the ex-gay camp, specifically Love in Action, we were taught that we would be the spiritual elite…the equivalent of spiritual Marines…because we were facing issues and forces in our lives that people in the church as whole were to afraid to face within themselves. (Again, I can’t tell you the number of times that the staff would harangue our family and friends to “come clean” about their sexual sins during Family and Friends weekends.)
I know this is quite long. I don’t mean to say that this the ultimate solution. “Cure spiritual elitism and pride and solve the world’s problems.” However, I do believe that this plays a big part in it.
As we, as GLBT community, strive for our equality in all areas, we threaten a very central concept to their assumed position in the kingdom of God and, peeling off from that, the world at large. The easiest way to maintain your elite status is to demonize those who would threaten it. So whether it is FOTF’s…excuse me, CitizenLink’s…political activism, Exodus “compassionate cure” or the myriad of gay and HIV jokes spoken in pulpits across America on Sunday morning…the need to demonize us and to keep us foreign in the public mind is mandatory.
Re: Randy Thomas, I think Dan Savage nailed this tool when he said…
“They (Republicans) know the ex-gays are all liars, and that the ex-gay “movement” is a scam and a sham. They don’t believe that homosexuality can be cured. They just want homosexuals to refrain from coming out. They want us to be hypocrites. They want us to look them in the eye and deny that we’re gay – and we can issue those denials with their youth pastor’s come tricking out of the corners of our mouths for all they care. We’re still gay and they know it and they don’t care – all they ask is that we remain closeted and live our lives as miserable hypocrites. Remember: they’re mad at Larry Craig, for instance, not for being closeted, but for getting caught.
Oh, and the slam-dunk proof that they don’t believe in ex-gays? Ask any straight asshole that insists we can be cured – that ex-gays exist – if he would let his daughter marry one. The answer, amazingly, is always no.”
I don’t see how teaching kids that they “may begin to feel romantically and/or sexually attracted to people of a different gender and/or to people of the same gender” is slanting anything in a positive OR negative stance. It sounds pretty neutral to me. And considering that Christians like Randy Thomas find homosexuality to be negative by default, I can see how a neutral stance that does not present a negative view would automatically be seen as positive promotion of an “agenda.”
Here’s the deal – Thomas and his ilk are threatened by this because:
• Homosexuality is presented as a normal occurrence that does not require therapeutic intervention.
• Statistics that (mis)represent LGBT people as club-hopping, circuit-cruising drug users are not coupled with the teachings on sexual orientation.
• Education of the facts – and ONLY THE FACTS – will indeed present LGBT folks as JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE – because WE ARE. This will teach tolerance without even having to use the word “tolerance.”
• Naturally, as a matter of course, ex-gay “therapy” will not be seen as a necessary or palatable ‘solution’ to gayness.
Finally, Mr. Thomas, the reason why it’s “not all positive” for us gays is because people like YOU – CHRISTIANS LIKE YOU – create and reinforce an environment and a society that treats us as “broken” people who need to be fixed. But we only end up broken because this environment does everything in its power to break us.
That would make sense.. too bad it makes none to them.
I was catholic. And these sentences assert what I thought. The ironic part was that we were also taught humility as one of the best traits a person could have. Sometimes, one had no idea if what was required was humility or pride(preach to the ‘unbeliever’).
You guys are ALL dead on. They think one thing, yet they present it as another–or just half present it, and then we blather on about what they really meant to say. That’s what seems to be the biggest problem.
I could at least respect them for being honest if they would just come out and state that we are all too delusional to understand that we are actually attracted to the opposite sex, I can understand that assumption. But when they try to sugar-coat it with everything and the kitchen sink, to avoid “looking” hateful, that’s the point at which I determine that they are indeed hateful, and not at all interested in helping gays become saved, or even to become “healed” in any mental health sense.
That’s evidence that their goals are political, and not about helping anyone with “unwanted” SSA, other that those with unwanted SSA that accept dishonesty as a Christian ethic.
What’s confusing to me however, is how they are so truly confused that we do not consider intentional dishonesty to be a moral ethic.
___
And for the record, “nuancing” as Alan Chambers describes it, is WORSE than just lying, because it’s two lies.
One, because a lie of omission is still a lie. And two, because lying to yourself that a lie of omission is not a lie, is also a lie.
Pam said:
So to take this one step further, if they think that kids become gay because of the simple awareness of gays, then their goal must be to prevent kids from being aware of gays altogether.
Which for me at least, gives credence to what I believe is Exodus’ true goal, to have us eventually put to death.
Exodus endorses and promotes as much on their site:
Doctrinal Statement
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?
___
Leviticus 20:13: If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
Exodus therefore states that part of their beliefs are based on the notion that we SHOULD be put to death, but I don’t see anything on their site that says that murdering people in the name of God, in this way, is wrong.
Perhaps I’m missing something.
Not exactly, Emproph. They implied that we should not be put to death, but we should not be protected from being put to death either.
Oh, and they just HAVE to provide THESE two examples…
… as if to tell people (silently) why we do not deserve protection from being put to death.
It kind of answers one question from this post:
I believe that is only the least they could state based on their insistence of ‘trully dignified’ potrayals of the GLBT community.
From that link YukiChoe,
OMG WOW!
Laws based on a person’s homosexual behavior discriminate against the 97-99% of Americans who are not.
Who are not what? Homosexual behavior?
Someone leaving a church should have just as much legal protection as someone leaving a gay bar.
You mean that some people leaving a church don’t have that much protection? Specifically and only because they’re leaving a church? And I do mean church in the “Religious” sense.
This takes it:
YukiChoe says: … as if to tell people (silently) why we do not deserve protection from being put to death.
___
As if to tell people (silently) that seeking out a thirteen year old to rape and kill is the very RESULT of same gender attraction—IN AND OF ITSELF.
Same gender attracted person = Murderer, on the Exodus website (but silently).
(and silently in the name of Jesus)
What? Religion is already a protected group covered by hate crimes laws. So Exodus is saying that they support adding sexual orientation, too? Or are they lying when they say that they want gays to have as much legal protection as Christians?
I rather suspect it’s the latter.
None of us in the community would advocate the murder of anyone. I think its clear to say at least that.
My own mother who, generally speaking, isnt in favor of me being a homosexual man doesnt want me to die. And she will be one of the first ones to say that homosexuals can do great things.
Where things really hit the skids with her, is in her unwillingness to put her family around anything remotely “homosexual”.
I’ve seen some of the most hardened anti gay folks cave in his thinking when i asked him for a peaceful discussion on our views. People know that if they actively look at our community and get to know us, our spouses, our friends whatever. They would realize were all in the same boat… flawed but beautiful loving people.
So yes i think its fair to say that the Ex-Gay movement’s greatest tool is blanketing silence. That is to say, they blatantly ignore the obvious (gay folk exist and will continue to pop up out of the woodwork despite their genuine attempts to teach parents to raise their kids to be straight)
I have a friend who is the head of an exodus based group here in the states. And while he is one of the more sincere ex-gays i’ve met, he would still honestly admit that he checks out men.
If i were in his position, and my mother knew i was still attracted to men she would go to all ends to stop my marrying a woman. Yet she would be the first to encourage me, that i’ll be normal someday.
This stuff never ends people… but you allready know that dont you!
🙂
Your bro
Mike G.
Skemono said:
If you push they (Exodus) will say they are against all bias (hate) crime laws, but I’ve never gotten a reply on why they do not lobby for the recall of the entire thing rather than simply against inclusion of GLBT. I believe the answer is in my previous comment.
It all seems rather transparent and dishonest to me.
Wow, I went to comment and but you have already put it up there for me: one doesn’t present a child with an account of how babies are made and then, to show both sides, explain to them about how some men like to rape women.
Well put, Amanda.
As powerfully spoken by Captain Jean-Luc Picard in “The First Duty,” one of the best episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
Lol, a kindred spirit. I hope our first duty is to the truth as well.
As if to tell people (silently) that seeking out a thirteen year old to rape and kill is the very RESULT of same gender attraction—IN AND OF ITSELF.
What I find interesting is that Emproph got the facts wrong. This is not to fault Emproph, but rather to illustrate how yet again Exodus thrives on dishonesty. They describe the story as
This certainly sounds like they went “seeking out a thirteen year old to rape and kill”. But it’s not what happened.
You will notice that all the reports, including the description on Wikipedia read very lurid: “rape”, “murder”, “torture”. And they all accuse media of non-coverage because of pro-homosexual bias.
The story is:
Dirkhising was a neighbor of two men and had been involved sexually with them for several months. He spent weekends with them. Apparantly the three individuals participated in bondage scenes. In this situation, Dirkhising was tied to a bed and anally penetrated. Drugs were involved. All of the torture related to sexual acts. The kid stopped breathing while tied up (and unattended) and 911 was called. Dirkhising died shortly thereafter.
https://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a382abf9f7001.htm
Disgusting? Yes. Heinous? Yes. Deserving of the sentence? Yes.
Comparable to Matthew Shephard? Not at all. Truthfully described by Exodus? Not at all.
Jesse Dirkhising was NOT:
1. targeted for being a member of a group that the “homosexual predators” hated (e.g., Christianity).
2. randomly chosen.
3. involved with the men unwillingly. (although his age does not give him the right to consent sexually according to the law – but Shepard did not willingly engage in a violent act with his assaulters.)
4. a complete stranger to the men who tortured and murdered him.
Matthew Shepard was ALL of these things.
Honestly, the Dirkhising story is a tragic one, regardless of whether this was intentional murder or not. These guys were raping a boy, whether or not he consented.
However, I think Exodus’ use of the Dirkhising story is pretty inexcusable. To prove their point, the could have very easily brought up how an elderly woman was beaten and killed by a robber. However, the use the story of two gay men raping and murdering a young boy. The story by itself is disgustingly alarming and cruel, and it very easily plays right into the anti-gay pedophile stereotype that Cameron and others like to perpetuate.
The use of this story isn’t to show that Jessie’s like was less valuable in court that Matthew’s (they could have done that with a far less volatlie story). The use of this story was to paint a negative picture of gays–to perpetuate the “gays as monsters” stereotype, and it’s shameful.
More, the Matthew Shepard incident was a case of people trying to make an example. It was an act of terrorism against a group of people, much like putting up a burning cross. The Durkhising case was a non-representative one-off tragedy. Those two men were doing wrong, but they weren’t sending a signal out to all teenagers. They were just two really stupid and conniving men doing something totally illegal and wrong.
Right on Brady, Emily and Steve…mores the point, the ONLY cases those with an agenda have ARE Jesse Dirksihing and Mary Stachiowitcz.
And they ARE trying to paint all gay people, gay men in particular as pedophiles.
They fail to mention that Jesse Dirkishing’s death was accidental, AND that his family were dysfunctional, which made him more vulnerable to such predators. As ANY kid is or would be.
The bigger issue is lying about the gay media or gay people in general’s response to these incidents. You’d think that gay people were supporting the pedophiles (sort of the way blacks in general were convinced OJ Simpson didn’t do it.) or that there would be no justice served, as IF gay people protested the arrest and incarceration of JD’s or Mary S’s killers.
No such thing happened, but those who are determined to see mirages are convinced that there wasn’t ENOUGH outcry, from anyone.
What they don’t understand, nor care to acknowledge is (and I did my own research on this), gay men and lesbians SERVE the full of sentences or are punished MORE for the same crimes than their straight counterparts.
That when a gay person is the VICTIM, their orientation is used as a JUSTIFICATION for the crime committed against them, where no such thing is even considered when a straight person is a victim.
And as you probably all know, straights don’t serve nearly as much time for the crimes they commit against gay people as the law allows for such crimes.
It’s forgotten that the sentences for Matt Shepard’s killers was UNPRECEDENTED.
And their defenders are STILL looking to convict Matt Shepard more than his killers.
Or on some level think he deserved what happened to him.
At any rate, we tend think a little deeper here. And that would scare some people with less brain cells or emotional intelligence to handle the subject.