Judge: Schools Can Teach Homosexuality Without Parental Consent

Parents lose more rights as a result of the gay 'rights' movement...

From Judge: Schools can promote homosexual 'marriage' without parental consent, by Jim Brown, published Feb. 24, 2007, for OneNewsNow.com

WASHINGTON - A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by two Massachusetts families who want to remove their elementary school children from their public school classroom during discussions on homosexual "marriage."

U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf has rejected a lawsuit brought by the Parker and Wirthlin families against the Lexington, Ky., school system. The families argued that their constitutional rights were violated when school officials refused to notify them before their children were exposed to pro-homosexual content in the classroom.

In his ruling, Wolf said that, “under the Constitution, public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy.”

One of the plaintiffs, David Parker, says the ruling should be troubling to parents across the country.

"It ignores, really, what we're asking for," he explained. "We're asking for parental notification.

"We're asking for the school not to restrict the flow of information that's critical to enable parents to guide their children," he continued. "And, really, it sets up the situation to usurp a fundamental part of the parental role."

Parker says even parents who support homosexual "marriage" should be concerned about Wolf's decision.

"Taking the position that teachers - behind the backs of parents, to a captive audience of very young children - can indoctrinate any social perspective that they deem right," he argued, "and not even notify the parents, is absolutely unacceptable for all parents on all sides of the issues for all political persuasions.

From Judge dismisses David Parker's federal lawsuit, published by Mass Resistance

According to the 38 page ruling from Judge Wolf:

"An exodus from class when issues of homosexuality or same-sex marriage are to be discussed could send the message that gays, lesbians, and the children of same-sex parents are inferior and, therefore, have a damaging effect on those students," he opined.

Teaching all students that homosexuality is normal is not an appropriate solution to damaging effects on students being raised by homosexuals. Homosexual people are not inferior, but homosexual relationships and behavior ARE. This judge appears to be incapable of making distinctions between people and behavior.

The judge goes on to say:

"Under the Constitution public schools are entitled to teach anything that is reasonably related to the goals of preparing students to become engaged and productive citizens in our democracy," the judge wrote. "Diversity is a hallmark of our nation. It is increasingly evident that our diversity includes differences in sexual orientation."

Are we to value all sexual orientation differences? According to the American Psychiatric Associaton there are 23 distinctive sexual 'orientations.' If discrimination against sexual 'orientation' is wrong, then how can we draw an arbitrary line against some 'orientations' and not others? What about bestiality, fetishism and urophilia? Is it OK to discriminate against exhibitionists and sadists or do we teach our children these things are normal too?

On what basis do we 'draw the line?' Of course, the answer to that is, we DON'T. Homosexual activists want to see legal recognition for everything from polyamorous groups to 'queer couples who decide to create and raise a child with another queer person or couple in two households.'

Isn't diversity grand?

Special Event! The Gay Agenda? No Child Left Behind...
Sunday, Mar. 11, 7:15 PM, College Church, Wheaton, IL

The Self-Esteem Movement Backfires -- When Praise is Dangerous

By Albert Mohler

The self-esteem movement has transformed much of America, but this is perhaps nowhere more evident than in the schools. A brilliant article in New York Magazine provides a fascinating glimpse into why the movement is crashing and burning.

As writer Po Bronson explains:

Since the 1969 publication of The Psychology of Self-Esteem, in which Nathaniel Branden opined that self-esteem was the single most important facet of a person, the belief that one must do whatever he can to achieve positive self-esteem has become a movement with broad societal effects. Anything potentially damaging to kids' self-esteem was axed. Competitions were frowned upon. Soccer coaches stopped counting goals and handed out trophies to everyone. Teachers threw out their red pencils. Criticism was replaced with ubiquitous, even undeserved, praise.

Author Melanie Phillips offered a devastating critique of the movement in her book All Must Have Prizes. As she revealed, achievement in all areas was being replaced with exercises intended to boost self-esteem. Every player on the team has to receive a prize and all prizes have to be equal. She put it this way in 2003:

Surely, in the immortal words of John McEnroe, they cannot be serious? Alas, the latest pronouncement from those in charge of our exam system is truly beyond satire.

Their new idea for boosting examination success is to abolish the very idea of failure, along with the difference between the right and the wrong answer to a question.

The article indicates that older children and teenagers learn to become cynical about the undeserved praise they receive from parents, teachers, and others. They actually perform better if they receive serious and skilled criticism, rather than empty praise.

Praising effort and achievement yields positive results. Praising for the sake of praising hurts far more than it helps. It is a recipe for individual and social disaster.

Read the whole article at AlbertMohler.com