BEHAVIOR IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHT by Gary L. Morella
"
erbal engineering" is used by homosexual activists' to
marginalize any who dare to disagree with homosexuality as an alternative
lifestyle. All in opposition are described as hateful, insensitive,
and intolerant summed up by being classified as "homophobic" in order to get
public sympathy.
The homophobia charge simply rings false. The vast majority of those
who oppose homosexual behavior are in no way "afraid" of homosexuals as a
disagreement is not the same as fear. It diverts attention from the lack of
rational answers to the arguments against one's position by focusing
on the one who made the arguments, trying to claim the moral high ground.
What an irony that the self-proclaimed forces of tolerance and
moderation seek to destroy anyone who contradicts their point
of view! In this way, the stakes in the debate over homosexuality become
clear. In public life, one point of view or the other will dominate. Social
order seeks a "social good." For homosexual activists and their allies, that
"good" is not tolerance but the enforced public acceptance of homosexuality as
a positive lifestyle.
This school district would not be advocating obesity if overweight
children were the butt of jokes or verbal harassment. They would leave it to
the common sense of their teaching professionals to rectify the situation and
give them their unqualified support. Similar arguments apply to alcoholism,
unruly students inciting fights, etc., you correct same by not encouraging
fighting. Why then are those students who are verbally harassed because of
what they believe to be an innate, unchangeable orientation to homosexuality
any different - such belief being very problematic given research to date?
Why does this activity have to be encouraged by the state via special
in-service sessions, and embracing sexual orientation as a cause for
nondiscrimination? Why is something that is anathema to the belief system of a
significant number of district residents being forced upon them? The School
Board is needlessly polarizing this community? Is this what we're paying
school taxes for?
I do not believe that reasonable people have to apologize for voicing
their concern when speakers at a teachers in-service are referenced in
publications entitled: Queer Youth Study Wants Participants (March 1996), "A
national research project on issues faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgendered youths is being conducted by a psychologist at Penn State
University from a lgbt-affirming perspective." (The last statement shows
the bias of the study), and in something called "Men Who Have Sex With Men in
the Bush."
I believe that the Administration and School Board is losing sight of
the real problem that parents like me have with their recent actions to date.
How can they say that this district is not "teaching" the acceptance of
homosexual lifestyles as normal when they allowed the most pro-homosexual
advocates in the area to speak to some of our teachers. Just what did certain
members of the Board think would happen when one such individual was allowed
to show a film recognized universally as homosexual agitprop (It's Elementary)?
Has anyone on the Board seen that film in its entirety? If they did,
I would submit that they would be hard pressed to say that its message was
nothing more than an innocuous attempt to insure that students are not the
butt of mean jokes or epithets, something teaching professionals encounter and
should be able to deal with regarding all types of behavior without encouraging
same. It's Elementary promotes the homosexual lifestyle using young children
as state props.
The state is in violation of the establishment cause of the First
Amendment when it attempts to make sexual orientation a cause for
nondiscrimination. I say this because a religion can be any belief
system including amorality which is being forced on district residents.
Behavior is NOT a civil right!
The concept of blanket nondiscrimination in reference to behavior
makes no sense as our system of positive law collapses with anarchy the
inevitable outcome. A civilized society, while not devaluing individual
people, must "discriminate" in favor of health over disease, right over wrong,
moral over immoral. Too many who have failed to discriminate have already had
to face the bitter consequences of their poor choices. Will we encourage and
enable the next generation to fail, or to succeed?
Historically, protected class status is determined by the courts and
civil rights authorities by standards which homosexuals do not meet. The
evidence for this is in their own literature where salary and empowerment
data is readily available.
The way that homosexuals choose to live their lives is ultimately up
to them. But when they come into the public square and suggest that the rest
of America needs to redefine marriage as being between two men and two women
and insist on the right in the public schools to teach children that the way
they have chosen is no morally different from the way I have chosen to live
with my wife, they should in a rational, reasonable world expect opposition.
People like me will, in fact, oppose that agenda, and no amount of
name-calling will deter us from doing that.