Obama's Safe and Drug-Free Schools Czar Envisions Promoting Homosexuality to Kids
Sunday, June 14, 2009 at 12:00AM Kevin Jennings, President Barack Obama’s assistant deputy secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the Department of Education, is the founder of Gay, Lesbian, Straight and Education Network. Jennings believes in promoting homosexuality to school kids and looks forward to the day when when two boys can show up to the prom and no one thinks its “bad”.
KEVIN JENNINGS: I thought of how I can get so wrapped up in my own defensiveness, and…the day-to-day struggle, and stuff, that being finished (fighting for gay rights) might some day mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say ‘Yeah, who cares?’ because they wouldn’t necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad that you would not want to promote. And when we were talking there, and Mike said, ‘You know, and I’d like five years from now—right now let’s face it, for large swells of people they think of GLSEN and kids, and they think, ‘GLSEN is bad for kids.’ They do because of their stereotypes and misinformation—I’d like five years from now for most Americans when they hear the word GLSEN to think, ‘Ooh, that’s good for kids.’’
Sane people keep the world the same [sh*tty] old way it is now. It’s the people who think, ‘No, I can envision a day when straight people say, ‘So what if you’re promoting homosexuality?’ Or straight kids say, ‘Hey, why don’t you and your boyfriend come over before you go to the prom and try on your tuxes on at my house?’ That if we believe that can happen, we can make it happen. The only thing that will stop us is our lack of faith that we can make it happen. That is our mission from this day forward.
At least he’s honest.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (26)
good. persons should not feel if they are gay/
It would be a great day when people "wouldn’t necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad". Part of the problem is that too many people mix up homosexuality as a preference and homosexual behavior. A sexual preference does not mean you have a limp wrist and a lisp or that you wear leather and chains or that you have casual sex at the drop of a hat. A sexual preference does not mean that you dress like a slut or tried to fondle every woman you meet or expect sex on the first date. There are plenty of behaviors exhibited by people of all sexual orientations that are worthy of condemnation, but when it is heterosexuality no one thinks to condemn the orientation as well.
Homosexual behavior is deeply disordered. That is apparent from a simple acknowledgment of the plumbing Almighty God gave us. Homosexual acts spread disease. That is beyond argument - the facts are in. Homosexual behaviors are intrinsically unsafe and threaten public health on many levels, not the least of which is the homosexual community's promotion of promiscuous behavior as mainstream and acceptable in order to lump homosexual behaviors in with 'one of many' deviant behaviors.
No one should harass or oppress homosexuals who do not advocate for the mainstream acceptance of their behaviors. But every attempt to mainstream homosexual behaviors is rightly understood as an attack on public health and the civil religion and should be rejected roundly.
Johnny, I didn't realize you were a trained psychiatrist and researched into human behavior. It is apparent that you are misinformed however. There are plenty of heterosexual behaviors that are intrinsically unsafe and threaten public health, not the least of which is the heterosexual community's promotion of promiscuous behavior as mainstream. Or didn't you know that heterosexuals also spread diseases and that the media promote promiscuous hetero behavior?
I would agree that no one should advocate for the mainstream acceptance of promiscuous behavior or of sexual behaviors that threaten public health regardless of the gender of the persons involved. That's hardly the point. I'm really not aware of anyone doing that except perhaps the mainstream media. In fact by refusing to allow homosexuals to marry, it is right-wing Christians who are promoting promiscuous behavior since they aren't permitting them to make public committed relationships.
Don't hide behind the public health dodge Johnny. Also don't blame our "civil religion" for your bigotry. It's not the civil religion that is being attacked here.
DELETED
gay marriage would promote commitment which should reduce promiscuity
DELETED
Sorry, TOM, I banned you yesterday because of your foul comments. You're a repeat offender and not welcomed here. All further comments from you will simply disappear.
Good job trying to change the subject, fellas.
The topic is "Obama's Safe and Drug-Free Schools Czar Envisions Promoting Homosexuality to Kids: - and the evidence that I provided compellingly suggests that homosexual behavior is not safe.
Just as naming a radical abortionist (Kathleen Sebelius) as Secy of HHS betrays a shocking lack of judgment, appointing this man as deputy secretary of the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the Department of Education shows that President Obama insists on governing against the people of the United States and even against common sense and decency.
Our healthcare system and our public education systems should not be treated as social engineering laboratories or ideological indoctrination platforms for any ideologue.
Johnny, I must have missed something. Where exactly did you provide evidence that compelling suggests homosexual behavior is not safe? I see some assertions and so allusions to behaviors that would be unsafe regardless of sexual orientation, but that's it.
Kathleen Sebelius is not an abortionist, she is a politician who supports a woman's right to make her own decisions about her own body. Her views are in line with those of the majority of Americans who want to preserve the right to have abortion under some circumstances.
I agree about our public education systems so let's get the idiotic "intelligent design" and stupid "abstinence education" indoctrination platforms out of the class room.
Charles is gravely mistaken.
The link I provided details information from the medical community that demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that homosexual sex is inherently dangerous - unless you believe shaving 20 years off of your life expectancy is not risky.
Kathleen Sebelius governed against the will of the people of Kansas whose legislature voted overwhelmingly to limit George Tiller's late term abortion mill from murdering innocent, viable babies. Her views are not pro-choice - all women can choose NOT to enter into activities that nature itself tells you produces offspring. Infanticide is not about choice, but about the Left's war against motherhood.
Yes! Let's clean up public education and eradicate the indoctrination of kids in Darwinism and environmentalism. Only those at war with Wisdom would rail against intelligent design.
Johnny: I think the dangerous behaviour is promiscuity, not necessarily homosexuality. Sadly, I haven't yet found any studies which disentangle levels of promiscuity when comparing homo and hetero sexual dangers.
I think I read somewhere that levels of promiscuity are not that different between the two communities, except that the most promiscuous gay people were a lot more promiscuous than the most promiscuous straight people. -- the 95% (number plucked from the air, sorry) mainstream was very comparable. The impact of that super-promiscuous gays could be disproportionately large when it comes to spreading disease due to network effects.
But medically, and I would say ethically, the deeper issue is promiscuity isn't it?
Johnny the article you linked, besides being based on lots of stereotypes about gays, basically says that if you engage in risky sexual behaviors, then you are at risk. None of the things they talk about are specific to homosexuals. Heterosexuals can also engage in promiscuous sex. One thing to think about - anytime a behavior is forbidden, there is a tendency to take it to extremes. If homosexuality was considered normal, the promiscuous behavior that is the real problem would probably normalize as well.
As for Governor Sebelius governing against the will of the people, that's a laugh. The people of Kansas elected her and she didn't pull the wool over their eyes about her stand on freedom of choice. She like most Americans, doesn't agree with you about forced pregnancy.
Also, you can't indoctrinate people in science and facts, only in religious stupidity like so-called intelligent design.
Charles, you are wrong again. 51% of Americans are now pro-life. And it is a popular though easily refutable tack of the Left's war on motherhood to conflate hetrosexual promiscuity with homosexual promiscuity. Not even close.
I guess you missed this "stereoype":
Jez, you raise a valid point, which is that promiscuous behavior is causing great destruction in our societies. I will never defend irresponsible, sinful heterosexual behavior. All sex outside of marriage is sinful; it also contributes greatly to the deterioration of the social fabric which is dependent on healthy marriages and families.
However, it is foolish to conflate homosexual promiscuity with heterosexual promiscuity. Homosexual behaviors are a perversion of nature itself, and deeply disordered in every way. Homosexual behaviors corrupt the consciences of the practitioners and lead to social and political action bent on mainstreaming the behaviors. To gain acceptance in society, homosexual groups often promote the most lascivious, sexually promiscuous forms of art and media in order to create an evironment that is morally lax and hyper-permissive. That too, leads to the undermining of our social fabric.
"Homosexual behaviors are a perversion of nature itself,"
I have no idea what makes you think that. Sure it's not for everyone.
Are there other urges that some people struggle with which are "perversions of nature"? I can think of plenty of harmful things that folks do (addictions, obsessive behaviours etc.), but none which I would consider a perversion of nature.
About that 1970s study: it occurs to me that at that time the quiet gays wouldn't needlessly draw attention to themselves, only the most flamboyant ones would respond to such a survey. Also, perhaps this a community is in desperate need of the institution of marriage?
Jez, if you really need me to tell you why anal sex is a perversion of nature or why two lesbians cannot conceive, there really is no point in going any further.
FWIW, the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures and a long body of Tradition explicitly condemn homosexual acts as sin that separates men from God. They can repent and find grace for conversion, healing and new life, but there is no hope for the unrepentant homosexual after this life. Many unrepentant heterosexual sinners will be met with the same fate.
Calling the social union of two homosexuals a 'marriage' no more makes it one than calling a dog a cat makes it a cat. And there is zero evidence that state sanctioned unions contribute towards 'monogamous' behavior among homosexuals.
There are other purposes to sex besides procreation.
Actually, would you tell me why it's a perversion of nature? You see, I've never once had it explained to me: it's been asserted plenty of times, but never ever explained. I quite sympathise if you simply would rather not be involved in it yourself, but "perversion of nature" is a much stronger claim than that.
"there is zero evidence that state sanctioned unions contribute towards 'monogamous' behavior among homosexuals"
Does it contribute towards monogamous behaviour among heterosexuals?
Fine. The anus is where feces are expelled. The cervix is where a human baby is expelled. The penis is where sperm is expelled.
Where do you think the penis then should naturally go? Where should it naturally not go?
If you want to focus on pleasure, what kind of pleasure can you get from anal sex? What kind of injury?
I'll let you ponder that.
Jez, your points are bizzare. You don't know why homosexual sex acts are unnatural? You don't know that for 6,000 years societies that have honored marriage have flourished while societies that offered easy-out divorce, polygamy, homosexual unions (the history of this gets quite sordid, especially in civilizations that held slaves) have crumbled into infamy?
From the New Testament:
Amy: but the sex organs are also where urine is expelled. It's not completely sanitary.
Johnny: "You don't know why homosexual sex acts are unnatural?"
There's no evidence that it has ever not occurred. It appears to be what a minority of people in any population have an urge to do, regardless of culture; in that sense that nobody needs to artificially make it happen, it seems "natural".
"societies that have honored marriage have flourished"
Which ones are you thinking of, and what does "flourish" mean? It could be material/imperial success, or length of existence etc.
I notice that eg. the fall of Rome coincides with its adoption of Christianity, and the British empire peaked and retracted during and shortly after the Victorian era, which holds a partially deserved reputation for primness and prudity. But, in my book imperial reach is not something to be proud of anyway; this is why it's important to be clear about what "flourish" means for a society.
What interests me about that bit of Romans is that the homosexuality is something that God makes them do as a punishment, something like that scene in star trek where Kirk is made to kiss Uhura as an entertainment for the mind-controlling aliens. If I read it correctly, the sin for which they are punished this way is idolatory.
Jez:
If homosexuality was natural, it would also be as you alleged, universal. It is not.
Rome fell not because of Christianity, but because of paganism. Your interpretation of history is novel; have you never read 'bread and circuses' brought down Rome? Not too mention its overextension of imperial obligations, violent transitions of power and political purges, encroachment of the Visigoths, etc... but primarily it was decadence that ruined Rome - not Christianity with it's pristine morals and ethic of unselfishness.
Britian declined because it departed from Christianity - not because of it. To the degree that Britian declined in power and influence, it first declined in faith and moral certitude. In 1900 Britian sent more missionaries into the world than any other nation. Now missionaries are sent to Britian to evangelize the atheist, agnostic and pagan English.
By flourish, I meant morally, culturally, militarily, economically - clearly Britian was much better off under Elizabethan morals and Christian culture.
Yes, you have correctly interpreted St. Paul's passage in Romans that the root of perverted behaviors was a departure from the truth - idolatry - which involves substituting God with some created being (in this case, self). The phrase, "..so God gave them over to a debased mind..." should strike fear into the hearts of the self-willed. If people truly want to worship some other god, even if that is their own libido, then God will eventually stop striving with him/her and turn them over to their own lusts and false gods for judgment. He never ceases to love the sinner but the sinner may so destroy every vestige of conscience that he is unable to respond to God's plea for repentance and His offer of deliverance.
Thus homosexuality presents the greatest and gravest of dangers in that it is a complete repudiation on the natural order established by God and requires a complete overthrow of conscience. This renders the practitioner reprobate when it comes to faith in the Living God and completely unable to accept Truth. Given the platform to mainstream this pernicious degeneracy, homosexual activists can actually upset the entire balance of society by gaining acceptance for violation of the most basic of nature's prohibitions.
Well, I wasn't claiming that Christianity caused those societies to fall, I was just thinking of the most obvious societies which adopted Christianity but then failed to flourish.
"clearly Britian was much better off under Elizabethan morals and Christian culture."
I'd disagree here. We had a large empire, we had great wealth but only because we stole resources from other nations and traded slaves. Anyway, materially we're much better off now, there's little child poverty/mortality and we can all read etc.
I'm not familiar with Ford and Beach -- I might look it up when I have a moment. It sounds interesting, although it's 1950s publication date rings some alarm bells in my naturally suspicious mind.
Thanks for the discussion about Romans -- I was quite unsure about my reading of that passage so I'm glad you think I'm on the right track with it. When it comes to government and laws, in my opinion it's not government's role to guide citizens towards accepting spiritual Truth, so this should not be a factor in deciding the legality of gay unions.
Relativism is the downfall of any empire, any civilization, any society. When Britian was Christian and proudly and unapologetically so, she was the scion of empresses. I am proud of my own nation's British roots inasmuch as Christianity is so integrally a part of the UK's absolutely impressive history.
Empire is not the worst thing in the world, Jez, particularly when empire spreds advancement in civilization which Great Britian most certainly did. In any enterprise that large there will be exploiters, carpetbaggers, lust-filled, unethical miscreants simply out for their own profits. But those aberrations do not represent the main achievments of English dominion in my humble opinion. Today, English is the language of international commerce and embassy. That did not happen by accident.
Today you say socialist UK is better off to which I answer, really? Your people have all but given up on the future as your birth rates plummet. That is the natural result of spirit-destroying socialism. Socialism is slavery, albeit soft slavery. Your empire and its awesome Navy once commanded the fear, respect and admiration of the world and now your Sailors timidly surrender to Iranian PT boats in international waters.
Mainstreaming of homosexual behavior is the sign of a society that has morally collapsed and is no longer able to make clear distinctions between right and wrong. That is what i meant by moral certitude - the old Empire imbued with Christian values and civilization may not always have made the right decisions, but it wasn't because the English didn't know the truth. But that is contemporary English moral ambivalence - they claim they don't even know the truth.
Civilizations that depart from Christianity are fit only to be crushed by the most ruthless of empires that are convinced of the moral certitude of their cause. That is why socialism and its reliance on relativism is always the prelude to servitude.
Allah hu Akbar!
Why do some guys act like girls sexually? There are hormones that are intended for the pubescent male and female mind to bring thoughts which encourage one to engage in sexual activity. A healthy sexual maturity develops.
When one is "feeling their oats" this affect is from the mildly hallucinogenic quality of these hormones. Females want to act submissive. Males want to dominate the situation. These hormones promote the attitudes appropriate to the male and female mind according to the prescription for procreation.
Tell a person with homosexual thoughts that the thoughts are from the affects of a chemical, a natural drug. If they don't care and want to act that way, act like a female sexually if you're a male, or vice versa, I don't care, either.
There aren't many but there are some sexually immature people. They simply don't care ... .