Labels in School, who needs them?
I have to agree with the Priest - encouraging labels for teens is taking the easy way out! Fr. Paul Scalia is a priest and the chaplin for Courage in the Archdiocese of Arlington. Son of Justice Antonin Scalia, he shares his father's gift for writing as evidenced by an excellent article in First Things entitled A Label That Sticks. I think he has touched on the crucial issue at stake concerning high school kids and sexual orientation.

Early labeling of one's sexual orientation by teenagers certainly doesn't agree with Catholic teaching on human sexuality, and for non-Catholics as well, doesn't make sense. A person is so much more than their sexual attractions, and all labels should be resisted. "Adolescents need to hear precisely this: People’s sexual inclinations do not determine their identity. Nor does every so-called “homosexual” feel attractions of the same character or to the same degree. Some have strong and lasting homosexual desires; for others, such desires are slight and passing. Lumping everyone together as having the same orientation or identity is a grotesque reduction of a complicated reality, and it massively damages the very people it claims to help."
He makes a great case against what is happening in the schools, and his whole brief (opps, article) should be read and digested.

- posted by Andy @ 4:43 PM  

 
The Politics of Diagnosis
Much has been made by the opponents of Citizens for a Responsible Curriculum about the liberal myth that homosexuality is completely normal behavior and should be equated with heterosexuality, given that the APA (American Psychiatric Association) removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1973. Let's take a look at why this occured. We've heard the myth (that homosexuality is completely normal and natural behavior) again and again. This drumbeat from our opponents leads them to the further claim that anyone who opposes this view is homophobic and a hate-filled extremist.

Rubbish.

The reality is that the decision to remove homosexuality from the approved list of disorders in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) was made "after APA leaders had endured several years of intense political pressure and disruptive lobbying efforts by militant homosexual activist groups". (Ronald Bayer, "Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The politics of Diagnosis," Princeton University Press, 1987.) The change to the DSM was NOT made as a result of peer-reviewed and published studies or the sudden discovery of a genetic link to the behavior, no -- it was a blatant political campaign to change the perception of homosexuals in an effort to normalize homosexual behavior.

Further, in spite of the long and well-documented history showing that "therapists have helped homosexual clients reduce and change their homosexual tendancies, professionals who persist in viewing and treating homosexuality as a changeable condition are labeled unenlightened, prejudiced, homophobic and unethical."

That is why opponents feel so free to disparage people like our good friend Dr. Warren Throckmorton as a quack. No matter the thousands of people that professionals like him have helped over the years. If you buck the liberal system (even if what they purport to be true is a lie), you become (in their alternative universe) the person who is outside of the 'mainstream'. Well, the CRC believes there are many people who do exist who are grateful for people like Dr. Throckmorton and Richard Cohen of PFOX who have given people with unwanted same-sex attractions hope that change is possible.
- posted by bianca m @ 1:22 PM  

 
Teens in programs more apt to vow to abstain from sex
Welcome news from today's Washington Times, June 15, 2005:

Teens in abstinence programs are likely to embrace the idea of chastity and take pledges to remain virgins until marriage, according to new federally funded research released yesterday.

Questions remain about whether the teens really will keep their promises to wait, said researchers Christopher Trenholm of Mathematica Policy Research Inc. and Rebecca A. Maynard of the University of Pennsylvania. Additional research conducted over the next few years as the teens age will determine the success of abstinence programs in changing behavior, they said.
Yesterday's report is the first from a longitudinal federal study to evaluate abstinence-education programs funded by the $50 million-per-year Title V program, which was established in the 1996 welfare-reform law.
The study, which was contracted in 1998 by the Health and Human Services Department, involved 2,310 elementary- and middle-school students. Sixty percent of the students were assigned randomly to one of four Title V-funded abstinence programs and the rest to control groups.
The four programs are My Choice, My Future! in Powhatan County, Va.; ReCapturing the Vision in Miami; Teens in Control in Clarksdale, Miss.; and Families United to Prevent Teen Pregnancy in Milwaukee.
After the students had spent a year in their programs, researchers asked them about their knowledge of subjects such as reproduction, risks of sexual activity outside of wedlock, marriage and relationships. They also were asked if the classes were helpful, whether they had taken a virginity pledge and whether their parents were involved in the programs.
The results were that students in all four abstinence programs held significantly stronger views in favor of abstinence and against unwed teen sex than their peers in the control groups.
The abstinence students also were more likely to understand the negative consequences of unwed sex, and in three of the programs, significantly more youth took virginity pledges than did their control-group peers. There were no significant differences, however, between the groups and their views of marriage, confidence in refusing sexual advances, communication with parents and perceptions about peer pressure to have sex. Leslee J. Unruh, president of the Abstinence Clearinghouse, welcomed the study as more evidence that abstinence education works.
Abstinence education results in healthy, self-confident kids,' she said. The Mathematica study offers very few answers, said Bill Smith, policy director for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, which opposes abstinence-only education.
The average age of the students was 13, 'so there's no surprise here' that they support abstinence, Mr. Smith said. At this young age, teens in more comprehensive sex education are also likely to be positive about sexual abstinence, he said.
- posted by bianca m @ 7:18 PM  

 
FACT - Condoms can't protect from some STDs
From Maine Today:

Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Condoms can't protect from some STDs

A recent article on human papillomavirus (HPV) and its link to cervical
cancer read like Planned Parenthood's misinformation.

She writes: "The virus can be passed via unprotected sex at an early age." She neglects to give the life-saving information that the virus can be passed just as easily via so-called "protected" sex at any age.

Even if one uses a condom, they are not protected. Unlike other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) which are spread through bodily fluids, HPV is spread through skin-to-skin contact, effecting the entire genital area. Like a cold virus, it can also be transferred by fingers. It is not possible for condoms to protect against this virus since they cover so little of the area that can become infected.

Scientists now tell us that HPV is the cause of all cervical cancer, which kills over 5,000 U.S. women annually. It is more contagious, and is responsible for more deaths every year in the U.S. than AIDS. (Centers for Disease Control)

It is easy to understand why Maine leads the nation in cervical cancer rates. The lie that condoms promote "safe" sex is taught in our public schools and some even hand them out to our kids. The STD epidemic will continue to rise as long as the "safe" sex lie is allowed to continue. Only the teaching of chastity and abstinence can save most of our kids from these horrible diseases.
- posted by Bob @ 9:30 PM  

 
Superintendent Weast: Dissolve the CAC
Ealier tonight at the BOE meeting, Superintendent Jerry Weast announced that it is the Board's intention to dissolve the Citizens Advisory Committee for Family Life and Human Developmenmt effective immediately and start fresh; throw out the four resources that Judge Williams objected to in the new currciulum and begin to develop a new sex-ed currciulum that includes information on sexual 'variations' as provided by COMAR. Read the full text of the resolution adopted by the Board of Education here. “We have an opportunity now to move ahead with a fresh look at this curriculum,” Dr. Weast said. “The health education program deserves the same rigorous attention to a professionally developed sequence of studies that we would expect in all of our instructional areas.”

More information will be forthcoming as we digest exactly what transpired at the BOE meeting tonight. As always, stay up to date by checking this blog and our CRC website frequently.

An amazing turn of events by all accounts. Stay tuned...
- posted by bianca m @ 9:27 PM  

 
Spinning Schools Across America

“Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation and Youth: A Primer for Principals, Educators and School Personnel”

This brochure is listed as a Teacher Resource in the new MCPS Sex-Ed curriculum and is also used by many schools across our country. It is available online at http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/facts.pdf

Let’s examine some statements in this pamphlet:

“Many deeply religious people and a number of religious congregations and denominations are supportive and accepting of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people and their right to be protected from the discriminatory acts of others.”

It appears to say that those religions which maintain that homosexual behaviors are wrong also believe that those with same-sex attractions should be discriminated against!! This is an illogical leap from one idea to another in an attempt to label conservative Christians and those of other faiths as, discriminatory.

“Although “transformational ministry” promotes the message that religious faith and acceptance of gay, lesbian, and bisexual sexuality are incompatible, that message is countered by the large number of outspoken clergy and people of faith who promote love and acceptance.”

So, churches that support transformational ministry do not love or accept those who are homosexual? No love and no acceptance: what an accusation! Not.

“Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”

“The potential risks of “reparative therapy” are great…

Clearly, this pamphlet is completely biased against 1) reparative (reorientation) therapy and 2) churches that would help individuals change their sexual orientation.

Why are schools in the United States holding so tightly onto this idea that change can’t happen? There is plenty of evidence; including many Ex-gays to prove that reorientation therapy works for many.

Shouldn’t schools be encouraging students to resist adopting sexual labels at this time in their lives? Or, have the schools abandoned common sense under pressure from liberal activist groups within the education community?

Unless more parents and citizens speak up, school systems will continue to pry children away from their parent’s values and indoctrinate them however they wish.

- posted by Andy @ 9:55 PM  

 
Same-Sex Marriage: Not in Kids' Interest?
The new Montgomery County Public Schools' Sex-Ed curriculum teaches children several new definitions of a family that, in reality, redefines the term "family" to include any number of people that only have 'feelings' towards each other, regardless of any other aspect (like gender, love, committment, etc.). Even in light of the Maryland Comprehensive Health Education Program (in the Code of Maryland Regulations - COMAR) states as a goal;

"To recognize the family as a basic unit of society that perpetuates life and promotes healthy growth and development..."

So while not directly tied to the curriculum, the recently published below article* is included here because it explores one aspect of the new familial definition that the school system is aspousing, and its effects on children in such an environment.

_______________________

OTTAWA, MAY 21, 2005 (Zenit.org). - Spain and Canada are steadily moving toward the legalization of same-sex "marriage." In past months the bishops' conferences in both countries have issued numerous declarations assailing the attempts to put heterosexual marriage and same-sex unions on the same level.

This opposition, explained the Spanish episcopal conference in a declaration April 21, does not mean that homosexuals should be discriminated against or maltreated. As individuals they have the same rights and dignity as all other persons, the bishops said. Yet, this does not mean that two persons of the same sex have any right to contract matrimony, the episcopal statement cautioned.

Opposition has been equally firm in Canada. "Because the relationship of a man and woman committed in a marriage is the strongest core of the family, and because the family is the most vital unit in society, we run great risks in tinkering with the definition of marriage and the family," explained a note published March 16 by the Canadian bishops' conference.

Of particular concern to the Church, and other groups, is that the proposed laws in Spain and Canada would allow same-sex couples to adopt children.

Adoption, insisted the Spanish bishops in a statement Oct. 1, should be about looking after the good of children, and not "supposed" rights of those who wish to adopt. Two people of the same sex do not constitute an adequate point of reference for adoption, the bishops stated.

Compelling empirical evidence supporting the Church's objection on the issue of adoption was published earlier this month in the United States by the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). The organization was founded in 1992 to provide psychological understanding of the cause, treatment and behavior patterns associated with homosexuality.

On May 6 NARTH published a study titled, "Review of Research on Homosexual Parenting, Adoption, and Foster Parenting." The paper was written by George Rekers, professor of neuropsychiatry and behavioral science at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine.

The study, accompanied by extensive documentation and bibliographical references, was prepared for use in U.S. legal proceedings on the question of whether homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.

Harmful stresses

Rekers explains that the inherent nature of a household formed by homosexually behaving adults "uniquely endangers foster children by exposing them to a substantial level of harmful stresses that are over and above usual stress levels in heterosexual foster homes."

The professor observes that adopted children are "among the most vulnerable of all citizens," as by the time they arrive at their new home they have already gone through a series of difficulties, often involving separations, neglect, and traumas such as the death of parents. Added to this is the stress of adjusting to a new home and neighborhood.

He then goes on to cite a number of studies that detail how, even when adopted children are placed in favorable family circumstances, they already suffer from substantially higher rates of psychological disorders.

Citing a wide variety of academic studies from countries around the world, Rekers explains that homosexual adults suffer from significantly higher rates of psychological disorders such as suicide, conduct disorder and substance abuse. Living with a parent who suffers from a mental disorder or has problems with drug or alcohol abuse will only trigger further stresses and problems for adopted children, he contends.

"The logical conclusion from these findings would be that heterosexual adults generally have significantly and substantially better health, more energy, and better emotional stamina to devote to foster children," argues Rekers.

Instability

Another factor that militates against homosexuals being given the possibility to adopt children is the well-demonstrated fact that same-sex partner relationships are significantly less stable and more short-lived on the average compared to a marriage of a man and a woman.

For adopted children this will lead to a substantially higher rate of household transitions in foster homes for youngsters placed with a homosexually behaving adult. Foster children have already suffered one or more traumatic transitions, notes Rekers, and more-frequent transitions result in greater psychological harm and psychosocial maladjustment.

Rekers observes that a longitudinal study based on population registers in Norway and Sweden, which included legally registered same-sex partnerships in the latter nation, reported that homosexual male couples were 1.5 times as likely to break up as married heterosexual couples.

Breakup rates were even higher for homosexual female couples, who were found to be 2.67 times as likely to split as heterosexual married couples. Rekers goes on to explain that according to this study, when controls for demographic characteristics associated with increased risk of divorce were added to the analysis, male homosexual couples were 1.35 times as likely to divorce, and lesbian couples were three times as likely to divorce as heterosexual married couples.

Needing a mom and dad

Another series of problems arises from the lack of role models, normally present in a household headed by a father and a mother. A household with one or more homosexually behaving members "deprives foster children of vitally needed positive contributions to child adjustment," Rekers states.

Lacking is the mother/father relationship and model as related to child rearing. Also absent is the model of a husband/wife relationship "which is significantly healthier, substantially more stable socially and psychologically, and is more widely approved compared to homosexual lifestyles," the professor writes.

Rekers notes that openly identified homosexual researchers frequently argue that an adult's sexual orientation has no bearing on whether they can carry out important parenting functions. He admits that this capability is necessary in a foster home, but it is not the only condition needed.

Adopted children not only require parents who can carry out basic parental functions. They also need parents who provide a family structure where there is an environment that is propitious for a child's development. In fact, for this reason, he notes, the state already puts restrictions on those who can adopt, and normally excludes, for example, newly married or elderly couples, and recently arrived immigrants.

Children placed for adoption have normally already lost a positive role model of a married mother and father, and placing them in a household headed by two persons of the same sex will leave them still bereft of this model.

Marriages that consist of both a man and a woman provide special advantages in raising children, Rekers explains. Children see and experience the innate and unique abilities and characteristics that each sex possesses and contributes to their combined endeavor. As well, children learn lessons for later life by seeing both parents working together in child rearing.

Reker argues that a heterosexual marriage provides a child with four models that provide strong advantages to a child who grows up to become a married adult:

-- A heterosocial role model of a stable married male/female relationship.

-- A heterosocial role model of mother and father coordinating co-parenting.

-- A parenting role model of father-child relationship.

-- A parenting role model of a mother-child relationship.

The study observes that the best child adjustment come about when they live with a married man and woman. "It is clearly in the best interests of foster children," Rekers states, "to be placed with exclusively heterosexual married-couple foster families because this natural family structure inherently provides unique needed benefits and produces better child adjustment than is generally the case in households with a homosexually behaving adult." Whether such arguments impress legislators in Canada and Spain remains to be seen.


*FROM ZENIT.ORG
- posted by DoctorJ @ 3:13 PM  

 
Not Isolated to Montgomery County?
This letter to the editor appeared in the May 20th edition of the Washington Times. Makes one really wonder about the nationwide scope of all this...

Sex-ed battle rages on

A fierce battle rages in Montgomery County over an expanded sex-ed curriculum that normalizes homosexuality and promotes the notion that gender is determined by a child's feelings, not biology ("Tug of war over sex education in schools," Page 1, Monday). If anyone thinks this "tug of war" is merely a blue-state battle, think again.

Homosexual advocates, smarting from the numerous defeats suffered in the November elections, are gingerly sidestepping the electoral process. Better to collaborate with sympathetic public-school systems and indoctrinate schoolchildren to ensure future acceptance.

Montgomery County, the mini-Massachusetts of the mid-Atlantic, appeared to be low-hanging fruit — but the homosexual lobby tripped again, underestimating the concern even many liberal parents have with the radical homosexual agenda.

Despite the stacked-deck administrative process used by the county to ram through a culturally divisive sex-ed curriculum, reaction was sufficiently energized to institute a lawsuit and delay, if not stop, the curriculum's implementation. In issuing a temporary restraining order against the county curriculum, Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams Jr. appropriately turned around the defendants' inflammatory claim that conservative Christians are establishing a theocracy by holding that "[t]he public interest is served by preventing Defendants [i.e., school officials] from promoting particular religious beliefs in the public schools and preventing Defendants from disseminating one-sided information on a controversial topic."

If the avoidance of electoral processes, the casting of wish as fact, the conspiring of government agencies with radical groups endeavoring to shred what's left of America's traditional social mores and the one-sided indoctrination of schoolchildren in gender politics seems undemocratic and un-American to readers, welcome to the no-holds-barred tactics of America's cultural Terminators. Coming soon — to a school board near you.

SAMUEL R. LEWIS
Oak Hill, Va.
- posted by Bob @ 1:58 PM