I was busily flonking away in alt.politics.homosexuality, when The Goddess
Eris Herself suddenly made me reply to rob wade:

15 Frank Issues to Raise in Homosexual Diversity Training

How to challenge the misinformation.

Read this before you go.

As a teacher or student, if you are forced to participate in
"diversity" or "sensitivity" training, don't just sit there and
let them spoonfeed twisted concepts through manipulative exercises and
false information. Raise your hand, bring up the following issues and
expose the real nature of what is taking place: they want to force
people to accept homosexual behavior, even if some don't like it and
the responsible facts don't support it.

The false assumptions are just flying here...I know! I'll re-edit:

As a teacher or student, if you are [given the option] to participate in
"diversity" or "sensitivity" training, don't just sit there and
[veg out]. Raise your hand, bring up the following issues and
expose the real nature of what is taking place: they want to force
people to accept [reality], even if some don't like it and
the [lies presented as Truth by the homophobic Xian Right] don't support
it.

That's better.

It's time to object, question and expose the truth in open and frank
discussions. Here are some questions you might ask at appropriate times
in the workshops.

Questions are good. Asking questions is the only way to learn, after all.
Just be sure the questions aren't loaded...

For supporting references, see end.

Liar.

Issue 1: Safety, Bullying and Harassment. What documented evidence
exists to show that "gay" students are more subject to physical
attacks than others- not including surveys of impressionable students?
Isn't bullying done for all kinds of reasons? Aren't you including
"verbal" in your definition of harassment, and isn't this very
subjective, i.e., what's "harassing" to one person is just a free
exchange of ideas to another? Aren't kids who are fat or non-athletic
bullied, too? Would this mean that, to stop that type of bullying, we
need to teach students that obesity is good and physical fitness is
bad?

The suicide rate among gay, lesbian and bisexual teens -- the ones confirmed
as such by close friends or family members, the ones just beginning to come
out of the closet -- and teens perceived as "gay" by their peers and/or
parents, etc., is higher than that among teens known or perceived to be
"straight". From this, we may deduce that the pressure from those elements
to conform to the alleged "norms" is too great for them to ignore, but the
opposing pressures -- to display feelings, affections, attractions to
persons of the same sex, or else to just be themselves in whatever way it
is that other people presumptuously find objectionable -- are also too
great, meaning something has to give, usually the teen in question.

Aren't kids involved in homosexuality troubled because of the very
nature of what they are doing?

What, getting involved in sex at an early age? Probably, yeah.

Drug abusing kids are also very troubled. Do we legalize drugs to make
them feel better?

No, but we should legalise drugs anyway, since the War On (Some) Drugs isn't
working out, and the economy of North America and Europe would probably
fall apart without them now, even if the war could be "won". Legalisation
may be the only possible way to get a handle on them and make them safe to
use without necessarily addicting people.

Why can't we
just say in general that harassment and bullying are unacceptable,
without forcing acceptance of homosexuality, which has many aspects
(like high health risks) that continue to make it unsupportable?

Teens having sex is a high-risk endeavour, full-stop. And yet, they keep
doing it anyway, "the little punks." Does that mean it's okay to "punish"
them with STDs and pregnancy, to "teach them a lesson"? I don't think so.

Issue 2. Is Homosexuality Genetic? There seems to be an assumption here
that homosexuals are a fixed minority group. There's no conclusive
evidence that it's genetic, is there?

No _conclusive_ evidence, no. No evidence at all that "reparative therapy"
has any long-term effectiveness.

Can a person go somewhere and get a test for a "gay" gene?

Just wait a few more years, then ask that question again.

Aren't our bodies clearly built for heterosexual sex?

Built for gay sex, straight sex, group sex -- built for sex, period, really.

Aren't there lots of people who've gone back and forth, like movie star
Anne Heche, former "partner" of Ellen DeGeneres, who recently married a
man?

Clearly an alternating bisexual.

What about bisexuality? Isn't that clearly flexible and an obvious choice?

Well, it might /look/ like a "choice", but the only real choice is whether
to accept oneself as gay or not.

Issue 3: "Students Can Never Be Influenced to 'Become' Gay!"

Not unless they are already latently gay or bi.

Are you saying there's no chance that raising this issue constantly
won't influence some students who would never have thought of it
otherwise to start experimenting with homosexual behavior and like it?

Maybe. Is there some reason to think that this would be a "bad" thing?

What about those who've changed from heterosexual to homosexual-- as
all the mid-life changes we are hearing about--Gov. Jim McGreevey of
New Jersey, for instance?

Closet case.

Are you saying all these people simply performed heterosexually, without
enjoying it at all, all those years?

It's possible. People are capable of doing tremendously silly things to
themselves in the name of what they think is necessity.

Isn't human sexuality --for good and bad--more malleable than that?

This is also true. These are not mutually exclusive statements, except to
straight-line thinkers. Straight lines are not all there is to reality,
however...

What about the pro-homosexual advocates telling our kids it's okay to
be "fluid"?

It is. It isn't okay to force oneself to be something that one is not, just
to please one's parents/peers/family/close friends/relatives/society,
however. It doesn't work, and it really screws up one's mind, sometimes
making people become neurotic, sometimes psychotic. Since such pretense is
unnecessary and superfluous, since real friends and loving families don't
care if a friend or family member is gay, there is harm involved in it.

Issue 4: Health Risks of Homosexual Sex. What about the health risks of
homosexual sex? Isn't anal sex always high risk, no matter who does
it, even if it's with only one partner?

Same-sex *or* opposite sex. Point?

Isn't the human body really best adapted to heterosexual sex, which with
one partner, can be done safely all during a person's life?

Heterosexual sex? What's that?

Issue 5. Parental Choice. What about people who don't want their kids
to believe homosexuality is acceptable?

They have a right to feel that way. But that's all. They don't have a right
to raise predators.

Don't they have the right to teach their children what they want to?

Not an unlimited right. No one does.

What about parents who don't want their kids to hear anything at all about
homosexuality, pro- or con?

People have a right to live in a world of illusion for themselves, as long
as they don't extend it to the next generation.

Aren't these people taxpayers, too?

Usually, they're trailer trash. Not the "million-dollar trailer" kind,
either.

Issue 6. Atheists Can Object, Too. Aren't there some people who
don't have strong religious beliefs who don't want their children to
learn about homosexuality?

Yes, some people are just natural-born hateful bigots -- or else they
learned it from their own parents & peers.

So--it's not just a religious issue, is it?

Religion is just a smokescreen anyway. It's actually all about control --
they don't have any, or they don't have enough. Maybe if they learned some
*self*-control, they'd do better.

Issue 7. Is Homosexuality Just Another 'Viewpoint'?

No, it's just another way to be.

As far as "equal access" goes, this assumes homosexuality is a viewpoint.
Isn't it a behavior, not a viewpoint?

No, it's a sexuality. There's no such thing as intrinsically homosexual
behaviour, just as there's no such thing as intrinsically heterosexual
behaviour.

Would other known high risk activities like anorexia or smoking also,
then, be viewpoints?

No, they happen to be dangerous illnesses.

Issue 8. Ex-Homosexuals Do Exist.

No they don't.

How can you say no one can change from homosexuality to heterosexuality?

Because they cannot. They can be bisexual, instead of monosexual, but they
cannot change sexualities.

Are you saying it's never been done?

Not in this universe. Not likely in any other, either.

Can't people change from heterosexuality to homosexuality?

No, they cannot, Sam I am. They cannot change on a plane; they cannot change
on a train. They cannot change from gay to straight or straight to gay, no
matter what anyone may do or say.

Why do gay advocacy groups like GLSEN maintain that students have the
"right" to "explore" to "discover" what orientation they are?

Because it's fallacious to assume that one is straight, or gay, or bi, or
asexual, without checking. There are no safe assumptions.

Haven't you ever met people who experimented and liked it?

Sure! Have you suddenly decided to argue the opposing viewpoint?

Or experimented and rejected it?

That too. There are no guarantees, after all. Well, none worth the paper on
which they're printed.

Aren't humans a lot more flexible than you are saying?

? I say humans are highly flexible. However, not so flexible as to change
sexualities.

So--aren't we influencing students when we ask them to accept
homosexuality?

Acceptance of reality is a positive thing. Something to be desired in the
young.

How can you say there's no chance of changing or influencing any student
and that some students will just "be" homosexual?

Because no one who is not latently homo- or bisexual will suddenly *become*
gay or bi, just because some teacher or student talks to that one about
those sexualities.

"We do not recruit. We can only impress."

-- Marga Gomez

Issue 9. Why are homosexuals so troubled in other ways?

Why are heterosexuals troubled by so many things, like eating disorders,
suicide-by-smoking, alcohol abuse, addiction to oversized, gas-guzzling
monster trucks, Xian fanaticism, and worshipful thoughts of George W. Bush?

What about all the other lifestyle factors researchers have discovered
about homosexuals, like much higher rates of alcohol and drug use and
higher rates of mental illness?

What, you mean those things are reserved for straights-only? And when did
mental illness become a matter of "lifestyle"? Are pathological liars like
Bush & Cheney merely guilty of living the wrong lifestyle, then? That's a
bemusing thought...

Doesn't this just scream that there's something dysfunctional about the
person?

In Bush & Cheney's cases, certainly!

Aren't some (not all) major psychological groups just ignoring this
evidence because they want to look trendy, and because so many homosexuals
are in leadership positions on committees?

I dunno. Did you post this to turn on the other bigots who are also closet
cases?

Issue 10. What about respect for those who disagree?

Intelligent and *informed* disagreement is perfectly okay. I rarely
encounter it on gay issues, however.

Isn't it just another type of bias and bigotry to say that homosexuality
must be accepted by students and teachers?

Isn't it just another type of bias and bigotry to say that heterosexuality
must be accepted by students and teachers? "Normal" isn't a real concept,
except perhaps for statisticians; no real people have only *most* of a
testicle.

What about people who know all this information, but come to a different
conclusion than you do?

Depends on what that alternate conclusion may be.

Are you saying they are stupid? Isn't that bigoted and prejudiced?

If they believe ignorance and silence can protect /anyone/, they *are*
stupid, and it is neither bigoted nor prejudiced to say so.

Issue 11.Adults Corrupting Children in Same Sex Interactions. Isn't
the risk of adults having sex with minors greater when homosexual
teachers teach children, simply because of same sex activities like
coaching, mentoring, etc?

Not really, no. Or do you think little girls are safe from straight male
teachers who are pedophiles/pederasts, that little boys are safe from
straight female pedos?

Isn't this the reason homosexuals were until recently forbidden from
teaching kids?

Out of ignorance about pedophiles/pederasts, yah.

Issue 12.Why does the Red Cross refuse blood from homosexuals?

Because some bureaucrats working for it have been misinformed.

Isn't AIDS in the U.S. still spread predominantly through male to male
homosexual sex?

No, not any longer.

Isn't this why the Red Cross still refuses blood from any male who has had
sex with another male even once since 1977?

Again, due to misinformation.

The FDA has the same cautions about giving/receiving blood. How can we in
good conscience in any way say or imply this is acceptable behavior for
students or teachers?

Because attempting to prohibit students from having sex doesn't work, has
never worked, will never work, cannot ever hope to work, and should never
have even been tried. It is _retarded_ to think that there is any
possibility of such a prohibition ever being effective at all.

Issue 13. GSA's produce more bigotry, not less. If we allow a gay
straight alliance, won't their discussions of "homophobia" lead
them to form hostile and bigoted beliefs and feelings about other
students, teachers and parents who don't approve of homosexuality?

"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that homosexuality 'is a lifestyle I don't
agree with.' This is a trope you hear from the religious right a good
deal... but it is a very odd thing to say. No one speaking rationally says,
'I don't agree with the Pacific Ocean" or "I don't agree with the Grand
Canyon.'"

Paul Varnell

Don't you just trade what you say is one type of discrimination for
another--at the risk of endangering students exposed to homosexual
activity?

"Endangering"? GLBT students are endangered constantly, whenever they attend
school. In fact, GLBTs are endangered constantly, wherever there are people
openly flapping their lips about how "dangerous" we are.

And if this club wants to hold diversity days or days of silence, aren't
they acting in a way that discriminates against others' beliefs?

Well, you might think so, if you're retarded, but I couldn't possibly
comment.

Issue 14. Objections to homosexuality lead to violence?? Are you trying
to imply that all people who believe homosexuality is wrong are
potentially violent, or potential harrassers?

They are *potentially* so, yes. I'm potentially violent, too. So are you. So
are Susan Cohen, Mark A. Bilbo, Dennis Kemmerer, Attila, and every other
human being on this planet. So what?

Isn't that bigoted and prejudiced thinking that flies in the face of the
facts that many people "tolerate" people who are homosexual without being
violent or even impolite toward them?

No, it isn't. An unrealised potential isn't ever guaranteed to remain so.

Isn't it incredibly offensive, even shallow and childish, to use the term
"hatred" to describe ALL disapproval of homosexuality?

Considering the essential irrationality of that disapproval, it is none of
those things. Do you disapprove of Wednesday, too?

Issue 15. Future legal problems for the school and teachers. Won't
the school face potential lawsuits in the future if students are taught
that homosexuality is harmless and acceptable, and then later contract
AIDS?

Again, that is retarded. If they *are* taught to accept their sexuality, and
are /not/ taught safe-sex practices, then duh, they're wide-open to
lawsuits.

What if an underage student meets an adult homosexual through a
school function like a health class or a gay club meeting, and they
begin a sexual relationship?

That would have nothing to do with being taught self-acceptance, presuming
by "underage", you mean under the age of consent for sex, which is
(unconstitutionally) different for straight sex and gay sex.

Will the school be held liable for millions of dollars as in the some of
the clergy abuse situations?

See above. If the kid isn't taught about AoC issues as they apply to hir own
case, then yes.

Aren't we obligated to give them either both sides of the issue, or
not cover homosexuality at all?

I don't think you really understand /either/ side of the issue, TBH.