(A4a2) sexual disorientation

As of this date, 05-10-08, this folder contains 4 items. ******* item 1 REASONS TO QUESTION HOMOSEXUALITY - POWERFUL EXPERT TESTIMONY IN MASSACHUSETTS ******* item 2 DR. PHIL WEIGHS IN ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION ******* item 3 SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY ******* item 4 ONE PERCENT OF CANADIANS SAY THEY'RE HOMOSEXUAL ******* item 5 FIFTEEN GOOD REASONS TO OPPOSE 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' (HOMOSEXUALITY) CODES IN SCHOOLS ************************************************************************************************************************ ******* item 1 REASONS TO QUESTION HOMOSEXUALITY - POWERFUL EXPERT TESTIMONY IN MASSACHUSETTS ******* Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 ******* From: "Mission America" ******* Here is an ecellent overview of the evidence that homosexuality is not genetic and presents significant social and medical problems. ******* Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. Testifies In Massachusetts In Defense Of The Family ******* Topic: Constitutional Marriage Amendment ******* Honorable Members, Citizens of Massachusetts: ******* The debate over homosexuality is one of the most contentious and divisive in which our society has ever engaged. On the face of it, one might wonder that so intensely personal and private a matter could achieve such public weight, but wonder aside, it has: In this legislation now under consideration by the State of Massachusetts, all the varying points of that debate come into sharp opposition. As you all know, most keenly, the question before you is not merely one of academic dispute; rather, upon the outcome of your deliberations will depend the foundational social structure, hence direction of the Commonwealth in future, and in significant measure, that of our Nation as well. ******* It is therefore most urgent that these deliberations be based not only on compassion, and justice, but on the factual truth as well. Indeed, unless resting upon truth, neither justice nor compassion can long endure against shifts in sentiment. That as a society we strive no longer to condone - rather to condemn --cruelty toward people attracted to members of their own sex is an absolute requirement of both justice and humanity. But we would be short-sighted indeed were we to advance this, as any other, just cause based on fictions: Not only will the inevitable uncovering of those fictions, however delayed, provide an excuse for bigotry to reclaim its unearned place, it will engender beliefs, attitudes and policies that, by flying in the face of reality, will lead to an increase, rather than a decrease in the happiness all are entitled to pursue. Nature (and if you prefer, "Nature's God") cannot be fooled. ******* A number of claims have become central to the argument that the definition and privileged status of marriage ought be expanded to include couples of the same sex. These claims are: ******* That homosexuality has been repeatedly demonstrated to be, and is in fact, an innate, genetically-determined condition. ******* That homosexuality is an immutable state of an individual. ******* That the only disadvantages of homosexuality are those caused by social disapproval and discrimination. ******* That a society composed of same-sex couples raising children in family-like units will differ from a society composed of traditional family units in no undesirable ways. ******* None of these claims are even remotely true, however widely believed they may have become; the evidence of the kind that "everyone knows" simply does not exist; even a cursory examination of the actual sources behind these claims will reveal a very strong preponderance of evidence to precisely the contrary; the claims are simply fiction. I have below assembled a selection of statements from prominent researchers. A far wider and more comprehensive bibliography of scientific references is provided as an attachment. Most of the statements below have been selected according to three basic principles: ******* (1) They are the general conclusions of prominent scientists whose research is well-respected. ******* (2) The scientists cited have specifically identified themselves as "gay" or "lesbian" and/or as more generally sympathetic to "gay activist" political positions. ******* (3) Their research is precisely that widely cited and believed as providing evidence directly contrary to what they themselves found and acknowledge. (It is to the credit of a number of them that they have publicly acknowledged that their own evidence contradicts what they had believed and had hoped to confirm.) ******* CLAIMS vs. THE EVIDENCE ******* Claim 1. That homosexuality has been repeatedly demonstrated to be, and is in fact, an innate, genetically-determined condition. ******* Dean Hamer of the National Institutes of Health performed and published the research most widely cited as pointing to a "gay gene." Dr. Hamer testified in the Colorado Proposition 2 court case that he was "99.5% certain that homosexuality is genetic." He later came to the following conclusions: ******* "The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed..." ******* Hamer's study was duplicated by Rice et al with research that was more robust. In this replication the genetic markers found by Hamer turned out to be of no statistical significance: ******* "It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer's original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer's et al, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation..." ******* Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist at The Salk Institute in San Diego, founded the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Education in San Francisco after researching and publishing the study of hypothalamic structures in men most widely-cited as confirming innate brain differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, as he himself initially argued. He later acknowledged: ******* "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain." ******* Furthermore: "Since I looked at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later." ******* Also pertinent to the present debate is his observation that: ******* "...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights." ******* Dr. Mark Breedlove at the University of California at Berkeley, referring to his own research: "[My] findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case - that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. [I]t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain." ******* Prominent research teams Byne & Parsons, and Friedman & Downey, both concluded that there was no evidence to support a biologic theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where "temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges." ******* Richard Pillard, is the coauthor of the two major twin studies on homosexuality most often cited as providing family evidence for homosexuality being inherited. He noted to an interviewer that he, his brother, and his sister are all homosexual and that one of his daughters from a now-failed marriage is bisexual. He speculated that his father was also homosexual. The interviewer, Chandler Burr, comments re Pillard: "Many. of the scientists who have been studying homosexuality are gay, as am I." The interview is part of a book Burr wrote that purports to demonstrate that virtually all reputable scientists consider homosexuality genetic. ******* This is certainly what Pillard both wanted and expected to confirm by his research: "These studies were designed to detect heritable variation, and if it was present, to counter the prevalent belief that sexual orientation is largely the product of family interactions and the social environment" ******* But that is not what he found. Rather, he concluded: "Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins." ******* Claim 2. That homosexuality is an immutable state of an individual. ******* The 1973 decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association has had a chilling effect on scientific objectivity with respect to homosexuality and on both public and professional attitudes concerning its permanence as an individual characteristic. The decision tended to confirm the sentiment that, since homosexuality has been voted out as a formal "disorder," it need not, cannot and should not be "treated", regardless of the principle that in a free society individuals should be free to pursue happiness each according to his own lights, consonant with the well-being of others. ******* But the American Psychiatric Association, like most other professional-practitioner associations, is not a scientific organization. It is a professional guild and as such, amenable to political influence in ways that science per se must not allow itself to be. Thus, the decision to de-list homosexuality was not made based on scientific evidence as is widely claimed. As Simon LeVay (cited above) acknowledges, "Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the American Psychiatric Association to declassify homosexuality." ******* But of far greater import is the fact that whether it is deemed a "disorder" or not, it is undesirable to many, and susceptible to change. The evidence for this fact should not be obscured by the false assumption that homosexuality is either innate and unchangeable, or a "lifestyle choice" and changeable at will. It is neither: It is most often a deeply- embedded condition that develops over many years, beginning long before the development of moral and self-awareness, and is genuinely experienced by the individual as though it was never absent in one form or another. It is, in other words, similar to most human characteristics, and shares with them the typical possibilities for, and difficulties in, achieving sustained change. ******* A review of the research over many years demonstrates a consistent 30- 52% success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction. Masters and Johnson reported a 65% success rate after a five-year follow-up. Other professionals report success rates ranging from 30% to 70%. ******* Dr. Lisa Diamond, a professor at the University of Utah, concludes that, "Sexual identity is far from fixed in women who aren't exclusively heterosexual." ******* Dr. Robert Spitzer, the prominent psychiatrist and researcher at Columbia University has been the chief architect of the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic manual and he was the chief decision-maker in the 1973 removal of homosexuality from the diagnostic manual. He considers himself a gay-affirmative psychiatrist, and a long time supporter of gay rights. He has long been convinced that homosexuality is neither a disorder nor changeable. Because of the increasingly heated debate over the latter point within the professional community, Spitzer decided to conduct his own study of the matter. He concluded: ******* "I'm convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual...I think that's news...I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained." ******* When he presented his results to the Gay and Lesbian committees of the APA, anticipating a scientific debate, he was shocked to be met with intense pressure to withhold his findings for political reasons. Dr. Spitzer has subsequently received considerable "hate mail" and complaints from his colleagues because of his research. Douglas C. Haldeman, Ph.D., an independent practitioner in Seattle, WA, is a prominent gay-affirmative theorist. He comments, "From the perspective of gay theorists and activists. . . the question of conversion therapy's efficacy, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. It has been seen as a social phenomenon, one that is driven by anti-gay prejudice in society..." ******* Regarding change and the right to treatment, lesbian activist Camille Paglia states the following, in terms considerably sharper than most of us feel comfortable with: "Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, once the sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition - a phenomenon obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction...helping gays to learn how to function heterosexually, if they wish, is a perfectly worthy aim." ******* Furthermore, just as locking onto a "choice versus genetic" dichotomy obscures reality, so, too, does locking onto "unchangeable versus therapeutic change." For it is also the case, well-documented but unobserved and unremarked upon, that the majority of "homosexuals" become " heterosexual" spontaneously, without therapy. ******* By way of introduction to the scientific evidence for this, it's worth citing Paglia again: "We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pausing at the prepubescent stage where children anxiously band together by gender..." ******* The scientific evidence is as follows: The most comprehensive, most recent and most accurate study of sexuality, the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), was completed in 1994 by a large research team from the University of Chicago and funded by almost every large government agency and NGO with an interest in the AIDS epidemic. They studied every aspect of sexuality, but among their findings is the following, which I'm going to quote for you directly: "7.1 [to as much as 9.1] percent of the men [we studied, more than 1,500] had at least one same-gender partner since puberty. ... [But] almost 4 percent of the men [we studied] had sex with another male before turning eighteen but not after. These men. . . constitute 42 percent of the total number of men who report ever having a same gender experience." ******* Let me put this in context: Roughly ten out of every 100 men have had sex with another man at some time - the origin of the 10% gay myth. Most of these will have identified themselves as gay before turning eighteen and will have acted on it. But by age 18, a full half of them no longer identify themselves as gay and will never again have a male sexual partner. And this is not a population of people selected because they went into therapy; it's just the general population. Furthermore, by age twenty-five, the percentage of gay identified men drops to 2.8%. This means that without any intervention whatsoever, three out of four boys who think they're gay at age l6 aren't by 25. ******* Claim 3. The only disadvantages of homosexuality are those caused by social disapproval and discrimination. ******* To mistakenly support three out of four gay identified men in their identification with homosexuality is not a benign mistake. Bailey (of the twin study) recently examined the question as to whether homosexuality is associated with a higher level of psychopathology. He concluded: "Homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness.. [ or, another possibility]... that increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation." ******* e specifically cited "behavioral risk factors associated with male homosexuality such as receptive anal sex and promiscuity." He noted that it would be a shame if "sociopolitical concerns prevented researchers from conscientious consideration of any reasonable hypothesis." ******* The specific concern in supporting young men in a gay identification is that innumerable studies from major centers around the US and elsewhere note that a twenty-year-old man who identified himself as gay carries 30% (or greater) risk of being HIV positive or dead of AIDS by age 30. A recent Canadian study published concluded that in urban centers gay male identification is associated with a life expectancy comparable to that in Canada in the 1870's. ******* Claim 4. A society composed of same-sex couples raising children in family-like units will differ from a society composed of traditional family units in no undesirable ways. ******* There has recently been an attempt to demonstrate that raising children in a same-sex household has no ill effect. These studies are few in number, none have ever looked at those areas where difficulties would be expected and one of the most repeatedly cited researchers was excoriated by the court for her testimony when she refused to turn over her research notes to the court even at the urging of the ACLU attorneys for whom she was testifying. ******* What is known, from decades of research on family structure, studying literally thousands of children, is that every departure from the traditional, stable, mother-father family has severe detrimental effects upon children; and these effects persist not only into adulthood but into the next generation as well. ******* In short, the central problem with mother-mother or father-father families is that they deliberately institute, and intend to keep in place indefinitely, a family structure known to be deficient in being obligatorily and permanently either fatherless or motherless. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Satinover, MD is a Board-Certified Psychiatrist. He holds degrees from MIT (S.B., Humanities and Science), Harvard (Ed.M., Clinical Psychology and Public Practice), the University of Texas (M.D.) and Yale (M.S., Physics.) He completed his residency in Psychiatry at Yale with a year as Fellow of The Yale Child Study Center. He holds a Diploma in Analytical Psychology from the C. G. Jung Institute of Zurich. Dr. Satinover has practiced psychotherapy and/or psychiatry since 1974. He is the author of numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals of psychology and of neuroscience, chapters and books, among them Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. ******* His web site is http://www.satinover.com ************************************************************************************************************************ ******* item 2 DR. PHIL WEIGHS IN ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION ******* From: "PFOX" ******* Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 20:48:26 +0000 ******* By Warren Throckmorton, PhD ******* America�s newest diet counselor and author of the Ultimate Weight Solution has weighed in with his views of sexual orientation. What do the scales say? While Dr. Phil McGraw has pretty hefty advice on some matters, he�s definitely a lightweight on this one. Let�s get real and I�ll explain. ******* Dr. Phil�s website recently posted a question from a woman whose 22 year old daughter was involved in a lesbian relationship. The reader wondered if her daughter could have learned this behavior, thus allowing a possibility that her current lesbian relationship could be a phase. Dr. Phil�s reply: �Homosexuality is not a learned behavior. A sexual orientation is inherited; you are wired that way.� He acknowledges that people can experiment with behavior but if they are �really gay� then they will �find a place in that life and in that community.� ******* As one who spends time studying such matters, this advice puzzled me. Surely, Dr. Phil knows that the research concerning genetic factors in homosexuality is inconclusive. Has he never heard of LUGs (lesbians until graduation) that recently populate college campuses? If anything the research shows an environmental component must be involved in the development of homosexual orientation. To wit, a recent study of genetically identical twins in the Journal of Personality & Social Psychology found that the participants were quite dissimilar when it came to sexual orientation. Consider the study�s male identical twin pairs: if one twin was gay, then only 20% of the time was the other twin gay. Female twins were alike only 24% of the time. With 76 - 80% discordance rates, environment must play some, and I suspect, pretty significant role in creating the differences. ******* Dr. Phil�s advice to the lesbian�s mother is even more puzzling when you consider his new role as America�s weight loss guru. Why? Well, both body type and weight loss are widely known to have a significant genetic component. For instance, a recent study reported in the International Journal of Obesity Related Disorders found that when put on a weight loss program identical twins were highly related (.85 to .88) in the amount of weight and body fat lost. Ever wonder why some people lose weight easily and some don�t? The research points more clearly to genetic factors than to type of diet program chosen. By his sexual orientation standard of genetic influence, Dr. Phil should be advising people who have trouble losing weight to accept themselves and �find a place in that life and in that community.� ******* I think Dr. Phil wants to have his sugar free cake and eat it too. He says homosexuality is inherited and unlearned but the evidence points to a weak genetic influence. However, he promotes the Ultimate Weight Loss Challenge complete with a book, food guide and online �booty camp� to aggressively change a trait that is highly related to genetic factors. Why the difference? In today�s media market, it might hurt ratings if he came out with a book called, the Ultimate Sexual Orientation Change Challenge. ******* Changing from gay to straight may not be easy or culturally acceptable but one cannot entirely blame one�s genes for that fact. Genetics undoubtedly influence temperament and body type a great deal, but in most areas we don�t acquiesce to the helpless notion that we are solely and mindlessly the product of genetic determination. Why are so many willing to cast away freedom when it comes to discussions of sexual attraction? ******* I think it is a fine idea to manage one�s eating in accord with one�s beliefs and health goals. Why does this culture think it is so bizarre to do the same with sexuality? It surprises me that a person with the no nonsense approach of Dr. Phil would succumb to such blatant rejection of personal autonomy. ******* Dr. Phil may be helping obese people lose weight but there is no reason for him to cause people struggling with unwanted homosexual feelings to lose hope. ******* � 2003-2004 Warren Throckmorton, PhD. All Rights Reserved ************************************************************************************************************************ ******* item 3 SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY ******* From: "PFOX" ******* Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 ******* This is a book review of SENSE AND SENSIBILITY - STRORIES OF A LESBIAN GENERATION, CHAPTER 6, SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY ---- EX-LESBIANS by Arlene Stein, published by University of California, Berkeley ******* In Chapter 6 of her book, Sleeping with the Enemy, feminist/lesbian author and sociology professor Arlene Stein tries to understand the phenomenon of former lesbians. She explores the question if ex-lesbians are �turncoats� (traitors) or �fakers� (never were lesbians to begin with). Stein admits that �[i]ndividuals have always moved from heterosexuality to homosexuality and back again.� She explains that �[m]any women I spoke with, including some of the most politically engaged lesbian feminists, acknowledged that lesbians occasionally stray from homosexuality, and they felt this to be acceptable, as long as it didn�t happen so often as to threaten their lesbian identities.� ******* One lesbian from San Francisco explains: �The women who were the biggest manhaters, the women who would have nothing to do with men for years � those where the women who went straight. It was true every single time. Nearly every single time. They were the ones that raised the biggest fuss about men. The harder they come, the harder they fall.� ******* Stein herself explains that �in the process of becoming lesbians, many women had earlier engaged in �identity work,� becoming more masculinized, �butchier,� modeling themselves on the way they believed the �typical� lesbian looked. In a reversal of this process, in their transition to heterosexuality, many women refashioned themselves as more feminine.� For example, during the last few years of her lesbian relationship, now ex-lesbian Laura Stone began to dress differently � �I hadn�t worn a dress in eons. I began to get more comfortable with my femme identity, and when I did, I began to get more in touch with desire in general. I began to fantasize about men again.� ******* Laura �remembered that while she had �pretty good experiences with men compared to other lesbians,� at the time she �didn�t treasure that knowledge,� instead viewing it as evidence of the vestiges of her own internalized homophobia.� ******* Another former lesbian, Sharon Lieberman, �questions whether she would have chosen lesbianism had a movement not come along to make that choice easier and indeed, in some quarters, even desirable. For her, becoming a lesbian was a product of being young and open to new experiences. She attributed her lesbian past to the convergence of lesbian feminist politics and her stage of life.� ******* Stein feels that �[m]any women who came out through feminism believed that everyone was naturally bisexual in terms of their potential sexual attraction to both men and women, but that it was the political responsibility of women to channel their desires toward other women.� ******* The author concludes her chapter, Sleeping with the Enemy, with the remark that both homosexuals and heterosexuals impose �prohibitions against moving in and out of the lesbian category.� ******* ### PFOX -- Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, Box 561, Fort Belvoir VA USA 22060 ******* phone: 703-360-2225 ******* email: [email protected] ******* web site: www.pfox.org ******* To subscribe to this list of ex-gay news and views, send a blank email to: [email protected] ************************************************************************************************************************ ******* item 4 ONE PERCENT OF CANADIANS SAY THEY'RE HOMOSEXUAL - CTV.ca News Staff ******* Tue. Jun. 15 2004 ******* A new Statistics Canada health survey is the first to try to measure the sexual orientation of the population, but critics say the numbers are far lower than the truth. ******* According to figures from the Canadian Community Health Survey, released Tuesday, one per cent of Canadians say they are homosexual and another 0.7 per cent identify themselves as bisexual. ******* Along gender lines, the breakdown was 1.3 per cent of men and 0.7 per cent of women who identified themselves as homosexual and 0.9 per cent of women and 0.6 per cent of men who said they were bisexual. ******* But gay rights activists say the numbers are likely much higher -- somewhere in the five to 10 per cent range. ******* Claiming that people are more likely to answer questions about identity than behaviour, the StatsCan survey measured homosexuality by self-identification rather than by the reporting of homosexual acts. ******* "What's clear is that there is under-reporting," Laurie Arron, director of advocacy for the gay-rights group Egale, told The Canadian Press. ******* Critics of the survey say there is reluctance in the gay community to disclose sexual information in a government survey. ******* Among those who were willing to come out in the survey, Quebec reported the highest number of homosexuals or bisexuals -- with 2.3 per cent identifying with one or the other. British Columbia followed at 1.9 per cent, New Brunswick with 1.6 per cent and Ontario at 1.5 per cent. But StatsCan urged caution when examining the N.B. numbers because the number of respondents was quite low. ******* By age group, two per cent of Canadians aged 18 to 34 identified themselves as gay or bisexual, followed by 1.9 per cent of those 35-44 and 1.2 per cent of people ages 45-59. ******* The survey also compared health-related measurements among homo- and bisexual populations and heterosexual Canadians. ******* Among individuals aged 18 to 59, 21.8 per cent of homosexuals and bisexuals reported having unmet health care needs compared to 12.7 per cent of heterosexuals. ******* More than 31 per cent of homosexuals and bisexuals reported being physically active, compared to 25.4 per cent of heterosexuals. ******* The Canadian Community Health Survey, which is based on information collected from 135,000 people aged 12 and older across the country, also looked at issues such as smoking, obesity and access to primary health care. ************************************************************************************************************************ ******* item 5 FIFTEEN GOOD REASONS TO OPPOSE 'SEXUAL ORIENTATION' (HOMOSEXUALITY) CODES IN SCHOOLS by Peter J. LaBarbera ******* This item can be found on line at http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=2876&department=CFI&categoryid ******* date June 19, 2002 ******* Opposing 'sexual orientation' school codes is good on a number of fronts. ******* 1) "Sexual Orientation" codes undermine students� deeply held religious convictions. Homosexual behavior is wrong (and illegal in some states), and is regarded as sinful by many students of various faiths and ethnic backgrounds. ******* 2) Homosexual acts are unhealthy � especially for males. Like smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, they should be discouraged. Dangerous behavior that shortens a person�s life should never be promoted to impressionable students. ******* "Sexual Orientation" codes lead to escalating homosexual activism in schools. (This has happened in schools across the United States.) ******* 3) "Sexual Orientation" codes undermine parental rights by enforcing a pro-"gay" orthodoxy in schools that overrides moral lessons and beliefs taught at home. ******* 4) "Sexual Orientation" codes are used to discriminate � and propagandize � against students and groups (like the Boy Scouts) that oppose homosexuality. ******* 5) "Sexual Orientation" codes may open schools up to lawsuits from parents whose children are misled into dangerous behavior. ******* 6) "Sexual Orientation" codes draw more homosexual teachers to the schools in which they are enforced. ******* 7) "Sexual Orientation" codes encourage homosexual teachers to be "gay" activists in the classroom, and to proudly discuss their homosexuality with students. ******* 8) "Sexual Orientation" codes lead to the adoption of pro-homosexual curricula, such as pro-"gay marriage" lesson plans. ******* 9) "Sexual Orientation" codes are used to justify the pro-"gay" indoctrination of very young children. (Homosexual activists aggressively defend their efforts to mold young minds, even in kindergarten.) ******* 10) "Sexual Orientation" codes pave the way for pro-homosexual teacher and "diversity" training. ******* 11) "Sexual Orientation" codes distort traditional civil rights by equating immoral, changeable behavior with racial, ethnic and religious tolerance. ******* 12) "Sexual Orientation" codes encourage schoolchildren to embrace "gay," bisexual and "transgender" identities and then proudly share them with other students. ******* 13) "Sexual Orientation" codes, once in place, are very difficult to remove. ******* 14) Schools can protect all students from bullying through blanket protection policies that do not specify special criteria, groups or behaviors. ******* 15) Educators can make their schools safe for every student without promoting the acceptance of homosexuality. ******* Peter LaBarbera is senior policy analyst at the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America. For further information, call 202-488-7000. CWA is the nation�s largest public policy women�s organization. ******* Concerned Women for America, 1015 Fifteenth St. N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20005, Phone: (202) 488-7000, Fax: (202) 488-0806 ************************************************************************************************************************

Links to other sites on the Web

(A4a2a) homosexuality
(A4a2b) lesbianism
(A4a2c) transgenderism
(A4a2d) pedophilia.html
(A4a2e) Concerned Women for America
(A4a2f) (A) home page

The following warning is a prophetic message given to me, Frank Wagner, in November of 1974. ******* LISTEN TO THE CRY OF THE ABORTED CHILDREN. THEIR CRY IS NO. THEIR CRY IS A CRY OF TERROR. HEED THEIR CRY. ******* This prophecy is now being fulfilled. ******* For details about the source, meaning and fulfillment of this prophetic message go to ******* http://ca.geocities.com/fwagner4/index.html ******* email me at *** [email protected] ***