The Pilot & Today article, "Coming Out," presents a one-sided view of homosexuality as a normal lifestyle deserving of respect and tolerance. I disagree, as would many others.
Yet there probably will not be many voices raised in objection, at least in the public square. In spite of assertions that the gay movement "teaches tolerance," those who object to the normalization of homosexuality are judged as homophobes whose speech and behavior should not be tolerated but criminalized as hatred. Is there not a great deal of irony here? Is it truly tolerance that is desired, or are gays demanding acceptance and even approval of their habits? The photo of the three frowning youths, arms crossed, looking down upon the reader seems to illustrate this defiance. But should those who think homosexuality is wrong be intimidated into silence? Our freedoms of religion and speech are on the verge of being sacrificed on the altar of political correctness to assuage the wrath of gay activism.
The article states that the administration was "supportive immediately." Why? Does it really know what it's endorsing?
The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network is one organization working closely with the NEA to promote clubs such as this. GLSEN thinks the early sexualization of children can be beneficial. This means that virtually any sexual activity, as well as exposure to graphic sexual images and material, is not just permissible but good for children, as part of the process of discovering their sexuality. Their library is sobering. GLSEN advocates books for youths that include positive portrayals of homosexual sex between boys, pornography use, cheating on a spouse with a homosexual lover, homosexual sex between youths and adults, and straight and gay experimentation by uncertain youths.
As one author states, "Young people are just as capable of exploring or asserting their sexual identity as adults." (Mary L Gray, in "In Your Face: Stories From the Lives of Queer Youth," Harrington Park Press, 1999, p. 23, recommended by GLSEN for grades seven to 12.) Schools that use GLSEN materials, list its Web site or other contacts as resources, or allow GLSEN representatives to address students or educators may find themselves exposed to criminal liability for corruption of minors or for facilitating contacts that lead to child sexual abuse.
The article also states nothing about any alternatives to simply embracing homosexuality, as if none exist. Would the administration be supportive of Exodus International sponsoring a chapter on campus? I doubt that this organization of ex-gays would be tolerated. Why not a short statement about counseling as an alternative? Columbia University Professor of Psychiatry Dr. Robert Spitzer, who was instrumental in removing homosexuality from the American Psychiatric Association's list of mental disorders, published a study in the October 2003 Archives of Sexual Behavior. He contended that people can change their "sexual orientation" from homosexual to heterosexual. Spitzer interviewed more than 200 people, most of whom said that through reparative therapy counseling, their homosexual desires either diminished significantly or changed to heterosexual orientation.
So why is counseling not an alternative for the depression youths suffer when they think they might be homosexual? The American Psychiatric Association reports that there are no "replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality," but gay activists will not tolerate the idea that homosexuality is learned or conditioned behavior. This destroys their claim to equal rights based on being "born" gay.
A sidebar listed important events in the "timeline of gay culture," which includes the murder of Matthew Shephard in 1998. Yet there was no mention of the 1999 brutal rape and murder of 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising by two homosexuals, Davis Carpenter and Joshua Brown, in Arkansas. Why are crimes against homosexuals somehow relevant but crimes by homosexuals are not? Neither incident proves anything about homosexuals or homosexuality, but those pushing the homosexual agenda will use a gay victim as their poster child, conveniently ignoring the victimization of innocents by homosexuals. Is the Pilot & Today unaware of the difference between journalism and propaganda, or just too afraid of the intolerant gay movement to be objective?
What if a group of high-schoolers petitions the administration to permit a chapter of the North America Man-Boy Love Association, to which they will invite younger children? Will they be supportive of one form of sexual expression while discriminating against another? David Riegel, in "Understanding Loved Boys and Boylovers," states that "Many researchers ... have been taking a fresh look at the conventional wisdom which has been the basis for evaluation of intergenerational male/male sexual activities. The long-assumed harm of such activities has failed to be supported by research, and the sociocultural wrongness based on this harm is therefore left without any rational basis."
This is wrong, but once we admit the "legitimacy" of homosexuality, we no longer have a place to stand and say any sexual conduct is inherently unacceptable. We will have to continue to "call evil, good."
All people are intrinsically worthy of respect, including homosexuals. This does not mean that we are obligated to respect or accept their choices. I am neither homophobic nor hateful. Hate is of the heart, but my heart truly goes out to those caught in what I think is ultimately an empty, destructive lifestyle.
The Rev. Warren Geldmeier
Evangelical Free Church