BEHAVIOR NOT RACE, SKIN COLOR, OR ETHNICITY
by Gary L. Morella

any parents have voiced their concern in regard to a recent decision by a diversity subcommittee to allow well-known homosexual activists to speak at an in-service teachers meeting in January.

The modus operandi of the aforementioned invited speakers has illustrated their inability to bring an unbiased view on homosexual issues. Moreover, they have demonstrated a strong advocacy for the homosexual agenda locally and nationally via many journal and news articles.

The selection subcommittee's process in inviting this type of speaker on such a sensitive issue to a large segment of the school district needs to be questioned.

Homosexuality is not a diversity issue. It has been shown to be behavior which can be changed as opposed to skin color or ethnicity which can't. Moreover, given the documented correlation of homosexuality with pedophilia, the premise of discussing homosexuality in a diversity context makes no sense other than to alert parents of a genuine concern for the welfare of their children exposed to known homosexuals who are proud of the lifestyle they are living as evidenced by their desire to proclaim same publicly.

The recognition of homosexuality as a diversity issue legitimizes it as such. Traditionally, it has never been recognized in this context. Those inclined to sexual perversion need the loving support of parents and and groups dedicated to getting homosexuals to leave, not live, the lifestyle. The reasons for this are independent of any religious connotations and knowable through natural law and reason. The fact that homosexuality, even if proven genetically based (highly problematic given current research), is an objective disorder involving grave moral concern remains invariant. Would alcoholics have the right to propagate the lie that alcoholism is good for you because some feel it is "genetically based"?

The statistical evidence from the CDC in Atlanta and an examination of the plumbing are proof positive of the consequences of the propagandizing of homosexual lifestyles as a civil right. The use of the terms "gay" and "lesbian" give the public the impression that the homosexual condition is fixed and permanent. There is much scientific and empirical evidence to the contrary. Men and women who sincerely desire to develop their heterosexual potential should not be in ignorance of the opportunities for help to move toward their God-given masculinity or femininity. This fact has been blatantly ignored by the invited speakers indicating their bias.

People have a basic ethical intuition that certain behaviors are wrong because they are unnatural. We perceive intuitively that the natural sex partner of a human is another human, not a lower animal.

The same reasoning applies to the case of homosexual behavior. The natural sex partner for a man is a woman, not another man, and the natural sex partner for a woman is a man, not another woman. Thus people have the corresponding intuition concerning homosexuality that they do about bestiality--that it is wrong because it is unnatural.

Natural law reasoning is the basis for almost all standard moral intuitions. For example, it is the dignity and value that each human being naturally possesses which makes the needless destruction of human life or infliction of physical and emotional pain immoral. This gives rise to a host of specific moral principles, such as the unacceptability of murder, kidnapping, mutilation, physical and emotional abuse, and so forth.

To avoid the force of the natural law argument against homosexual behavior, some activists have tried a number of arguments. Many homosexuals argue that they have not chosen their condition, but that "they were born that way", making homosexual behavior natural for them.

But merely because something was not chosen does not mean it was inborn. Some desires are acquired or strengthened by habituation and conditioning instead of conscious choice. For example, no one chooses to be an alcoholic, but one can become habituated to alcoholism. Just as one can acquire alcoholic desires (by repeatedly becoming intoxicated) without consciously choosing them, so one may acquire homosexual desires (by engaging in homosexual fantasies or behavior) without consciously choosing them.

Since sexual desire is subject to a high degree of cognitive conditioning in humans (there is no biological reason why we find certain scents, forms of dress, or forms of underwear sexually stimulating), it would be most unusual if homosexual desires were not subject to a similar degree of cognitive conditioning.

Furthermore, even if there is a genetic predisposition toward homosexuality (and studies on this point are very inconclusive), this does not make the behavior natural or acceptable. It does not make the behavior natural because homosexuality is still not part of the natural design of humanity. It does not make homosexual behavior acceptable because other behaviors are not rendered acceptable simply because there may be a genetic predisposition toward them.

For example, scientific studies suggest some people are born with a hereditary disposition to alcoholism, but no one would argue someone ought to fulfill these inborn urges by becoming an alcoholic. Alcoholism is not an acceptable "lifestyle" and more than homosexuality is. Any inborn predisposition toward it must be resisted, not encouraged.

Homosexual activists often justify homosexuality by claiming that ten percent of the population is homosexual, meaning that it is a common and thus acceptable behavior. But the fact something is common does not make it acceptable. To give a trivial example, being rude to another person is common, but that does not make it acceptable.

But the fact is that ten percent of the population is not homosexual. That figure stems from the 1948 report by Alfred Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. The study was profoundly flawed, as later psychologists studying sexual behavior have agreed. Kinsey's subjects were drawn heavily from convicted criminals; 1400 of his 5300 final subjects (26%) were convicted sex offenders--a group which by definition is not representative of normal sexual practices. Furthermore, the 10% figure includes people who are not exclusively homosexual but who only engaged in some homosexual behavior for a period of time and then stopped--people who had gone through a fully or partially homosexual "phase" but who were not long-term homosexuals. (For a critique of Kinsey's research methods, see Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud, by Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward Eichel [Lafayette, Louisiana: Lochinvar & Huntington House, 1990]). More recent and more scientifically accurate studies, have shown that only around 1-2 percent of the population is homosexual. This would refute the alarm sounded by militant homosexual activists that an inordinate number of our children are homosexual thereby dictating special school programs to address same.

Those opposed to homosexual behavior are often charged with "homophobia"--that they hold the position they do because they are "afraid" of homosexuals.

This argument is a logical fallacy. It is an attempt to psychologize another person's beliefs and dismiss them rather than looking at the arguments for them. It is an attempt to stop rational discussion of an issue by shifting the focus to one of the participants in the discussion. A logician would point out that the mistake being committed is a form of the ad hominem fallacy (argument "to the man" rather than "to the issue") which attempts to dismiss another person's arguments based on some real or supposed circumstance the person is in. In this case, the supposed circumstances is a fear of homosexuals. In other cases, a person's arguments are dismissed based on political party, religion, race, or gender (e.g., "You just say that because you are a Republican/Democrat/Catholic/Protestant/white/black /man/woman").

Like similar attempts to avoid the rational discussion of an issue, the homophobia argument completely misses the point. Even if it were true that a person was afraid of homosexuals, that would not diminish the evidence he might bring to bear against it. The fact a person is afraid of handguns would not nullify arguments brought to bear against handguns, nor would the fact a person might be afraid of handgun control diminish the arguments brought to bear against handgun control. A person's private fears are irrelevant to an evaluation of the evidence he has publicly advanced.

Furthermore, the homophobia charge simply rings false. The vast majority of those who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way "afraid" of homosexuals. A disagreement is not the same as a fear. One can disagree with something without fearing it, and the attempt to shut down rational discussion by crying "homophobe!" falls flat. It is an attempt to divert attention from the lack of rational answers to the arguments against one's position by focusing attention on the one who made the arguments, while trying to claim the moral high ground against him.

The modern arguments in favor of homosexuality have thus been insufficient to overcome the evidence for the historic understanding that homosexual behavior is against the natural law.

The consequences of ignoring this truth that being inclined to homosexuality is objectively disordered are easily seen in the natural plane let alone the supernatural. The CDC statistics speak volumes in that regard as it is a fact that there is no such thing as "safe sex" given condom failure rates. Tragically, the disciples of 'limitless freedom for the unencumbered self' ignore this fact to their physical regret. The natural law knowable through reason alone suffices with a common sense evaluation of the plumbing involved as to a violation of the natural complementarity of the sexes. The consequences being a myriad of STDs, Hepatitis A, B, et. al. and of course AIDS.

Again, we're talking about behavior which has been proven changeable, a fact that the militant homosexual community as typified by the in-service speakers ignores, not skin color or ethnicity which can't.

What is normal for the homosexual community is not normal for the world as a whole. Killing people by the hundreds may be normal for a serial killer. Does that make what he does normal for the common good? Similarly, drinking three bottles of scotch before breakfast is normal for an alcoholic. Does that make alcoholism normal for the common good?

It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from society and the Church wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

It is a fact that there is a direct correlation with pedophilia and homosexuality in that an inordinate amount of pedophilia cases involve homosexuals compared to the rest of the population. These statistics come from homosexual sources themselves. The National/Man/Boy/Love association considers pedophilia a liberating experience for our youth. Does NAMBLA represent a cause for "diversity"? Just where does it stop?

Homosexuals expect everything to be on their terms. No one is denying their presence in society. What is being denied is the propagandizing of the homosexual lifestyle as normal. To say that people are 'created' gay is problematic at best given research to date. That is not the question. People are created with no limbs, blind, deaf, dumb. That does not detract from the capability of those people to overcome those handicaps anymore than it does for that of homosexuals to overcome the tendency to the lifestyle.

The public school is not the place for such forums, in particular, forums which are the inventions of a group with a special agenda. To allow the speakers in question a pulpit to propagandize the virtues of the homosexual lifestyle will have a lasting detrimental effect on the teachers and students in the district. This is not a "diversity" issue. It's an issue of right and wrong as defined by the natural law as opposed to "values clarification" where our children are taught that there is no such thing as right or wrong, a direct quote by one of the children used as a stage prop in the homosexual propaganda film, IT'S ELEMENTARY.

The blatant promotion of Homosexuality by the diversity subcommittee's invited speakers through the Vice Provost's office of educational equity at Penn State is a threat to civil freedoms. This is based on two Supreme Court Cases of recent memory. Griswold vs. Connecticut established the right to privacy. And Engel Vs. Vitale and Schempp-Murray established the freedom from government coercion when religious issues were concerned. If the Supreme Court could argue that prayer or Bible reading being offered in school was intrinsically coercive to those who did not share the Judeo-Christian view and, therefore, an impermissible infringement on the separation of church and state, then a school promoting homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle in a "diversity" sense could hardly be construed as less invasive or less of a breach of that separation when said school receiving funding from the state promotes activities which are counter to the religious tenets of a large segment of its taxpaying constituency. The very fact that a school is considering so-called alternative lifestyles as a legitimate "diversity" topic means that the school feels that said lifestyles are a good thing to promote, and by extension, a good thing for all employees and students to accept. The exchange is by its nature coercive. For the person of faith, the school is intruding into a sphere around which it just erected a very high wall of separation. Griswold vs. Connecticut showed that if the government is enjoined by this decision from forbidding the practice of birth control, it logically follows that it is likewise forbidden to promote it.

A public school which defacto promotes the homosexual lifestyle, i.e., suggesting practices respecting sex which may do violence to the religious beliefs of the taxpayers of the Commonwealth, by legitimizing it as a bonafide subject for "diversity" training is in clear violation of the sacred right of privacy which the Supreme Court held to be inviolate. In other words, it is a violation of the basic right of freedom of religion to coerce school employees to accept activities which are anathema to their religious beliefs. It is a more egregious violation to force taxpayers of the Commonwealth to subsidize the promotion of said activities for the same reason.

In issues of this kind where opinion is sharply divided, the first and most important consideration in searching for a solution is the preservation of the God-given right of conscience. If the courts hold that people of faith, for example, have no right to impose their own moral code upon the rest of the country by civil legislation, then by the same reasoning, they are obliged in conscience to oppose any regulation which would elevate to the status of public policy a philosophy or practice which violates rights of privacy or liberty of conscience. The citizen's freedom cuts both ways.

In situations, like this, involving serious moral issues in which people strive to form a right conscience, the role of government is clear - strict neutrality. The moment the government (public school in this instance) presumes to "give advice" in this delicate area, it opens the door to influencing the free decision of its citizens. And from influence it is only a short step to coercion.

Thus, in summary, how could the SCASD get away with promoting homosexuality in the name of diversity - a mantra for the anti-religion of secular humanism, a declared "religion" in a 40s court case, when it doesn't promote any other religion through official auspices? In effect, what the SCASD would be doing is legitimizing perversity at PA taxpayers expense, activities which are anathema to many of same taxpayers guaranteed the free expression of their religion. At the very least, if the SCASD is going to promote homosexuality to its teachers, an egregious offense against the beliefs of said taxpayers, then they also ought to provide a forum which doesn't do same, don't you think? It's called a level playing field. What is going on in this community far exceeds "tolerance" by any definition of the term that I understand. What is happening is the PROMOTION of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle.

These are serious issues regarding proposed school activities which are strongly opposed by a significant number of parents in the SCASD. Unfortunately, reasoned discussion with the SCASD has failed to date. Class action relief via civil adjudication as many have resorted to nationwide in regard to the usurpation of their parental rights remains another option.