February 26, 2003

GO RIGHT, YOUNG MAN:

Parents say no to 'gay' agenda in schools: Poll: 71% oppose 'normalizing' homosexual relationships (World Net Daily, 2/21/03)

A new survey shows parents don't want their children taught "it's O.K. to be 'gay'" at school.

Seventy-one percent of parents responding to a poll conducted nationally said they opposed sex education programs that teach students that homosexual love relationships are comparable to heterosexual relationships.

The poll of over 1,200 parents of K-12 students was conducted by Zogby International and released Feb. 13.


It's a curious thing but the harder edged the Republicans are ideologically, the better they do--Reagan, George H.W. Bush vs. Dukakis, The Contract in 1994, George W. Bush--and the more moderate the worse they do--Ford, George H.W. Bush in 1992, Dole, Congress in 1996 and 1998, yet still many of them shy away from social issues. Half the Party gets the vapors if anyone talks about abortion or homosexuality, but there's no evidence that adhering to conservative positions on such issues hurts at all and much that it helps.

Posted by Orrin Judd at February 26, 2003 8:37 AM
Comments

I did not read the whole article, but I suspect that the survey's findings would more conclusively support a political strategy that confronts "in-your-face-proselythizing" by the Left than it would support a similarly aggressive "anti-gay" strategy. I suspect Karl Rove would agree with this. There is still a lot of "political hay" that can be made out of correcting (all) the "excesses of the 90's".

Posted by: MG at February 26, 2003 10:35 AM

You don't have to be "anti-gay" to object to public schools teaching that homosexuality is merely one legitimate choice among several.

Posted by: oj at February 26, 2003 10:42 AM

OJ:



If homosexuality is a birth defect (that is, the phenotype doesn't match the genotype due to ontological processes, and that the result compromises reproductive fitness), then it makes as much sense to teach "gay is okay" as it does to teach "blind/deaf/cleft palate is okay."



That people shouldn't be persecuted for birth defects is obvious enough, but we don't need school time devoted to left-fetishized categories.



Regards,

Jeff Guinn

Posted by: at February 26, 2003 11:28 AM

JG;



Yes, but it's not. It's a moral choice even if made by those who are psychologically inclined towards it.

Posted by: oj at February 26, 2003 12:35 PM

I bear no ill-will towards gays but there should be no doubt that their lifestyles are unhealthy.

Yet the Left have somehow managed to make them heroes!

Posted by: John Ray at February 27, 2003 5:19 AM

OJ:



Well, there is two ways to take your response.



Homosexuality could
be a moral choice, if you also agree that heterosexuality is a moral choice: both could make a choice with respect to celibacy. Of course, for that choice to be a "moral," one would have to view sex as less moral than celibacy. However, if one views sex as being morally neutral (as, say, money), then the blanket distinction is nothing more than a category mistake.



On the other hand, if your meaning that homosexuality is a choice among alternatives (Ford or Chevy? Scotch or Whiskey?), isn't your point of view left-liberal?



As a conservative, I believe human nature is flexible, but only within hard-wired constraints. Positing an ability to choose something as fundamental as one's sexuality is tantamount that conceding that all elements of human nature are malleable playthings for the chattering classes.



"Gaydar" is the term given to the seeming ability for people to accurately identify homosexuals based solely on verbal and non-verbal clues. The kind of clues, in fact, that would seem to result from brainwiring.



About six years ago, some researchers had known heter- and homosexuals read passages out of a Chemistry text into a tape recorder.



Then people were asked to decide, based solely on the tape recordings, to categorize the readers as gay or straight. I don't remember the numbers exactly, but listeners were able to decide on roughly eighty percent of the samples, and they correctly categorized the vast majority of the undecideds.



How is it a moral choice could lead to such differences in behavior that is in no way intrinsic to the choice they have made?



Male and female characteristic behavior is very different, and is a consequence of how our respective brains are wired. The only way to explain the findings above is to view them as the result of perturbations in the sex differentiation processes during gestation.



Regards,

Jeff Guinn

Posted by: at February 27, 2003 12:52 PM

"You don't have to be "anti-gay" to object to public schools teaching that homosexuality is merely one legitimate choice among several. "



This is very true. It's also very different from having the school *actively teach that homosexuality is wrong*. That *would* be a losing strategy, which is exactly MG's point.



Clean out the leftist indoctrination and the Repuclicans win. Replace it with concentration on the three Rs and Repuclicans win. Try to replace it with our own form of indoctrination and we'll lose big time.

Posted by: ralph phelan at February 28, 2003 2:41 PM
« DEFEATISM: | Main | IS IT ISLAM OR ARABISM?: »