Tag Archives: behavior

American College of Pediatricians’ Letter To School Officials About Same-Sex Attraction

In a letter to public school officials, President of the American College of Pediatricians had this say about same-sex attraction and gender confusion:

Adolescence is a time of upheaval and impermanence. Adolescents experience confusion about many things, including sexual orientation and gender identity, and they are particularly vulnerable to environmental influences.

Rigorous studies demonstrate that most adolescents who initially experience same-sex attraction, or are sexually confused, no longer experience such attractions by age 25. In one study, as many as 26% of 12-year-olds reported being uncertain of their sexual orientation, yet only 2-3% of adults actually identify themselves as homosexual. Therefore, the majority of sexually questioning youth ultimately adopt a heterosexual identity.

Even children with Gender Identity Disorder (when a child desires to be the opposite sex) will typically lose this desire by puberty, if the behavior is not reinforced. Researchers, Zucker and Bradley, also maintain that when parents or others allow or encourage a child to behave and be treated as the opposite sex, the confusion is reinforced and the child is conditioned for a life of unnecessary pain and suffering. Even when motivated by noble intentions, schools can ironically play a detrimental role if they reinforce this disorder.

In dealing with adolescents experiencing same-sex attraction, it is essential to understand there is no scientific evidence that an individual is born “gay” or “transgender.” Instead, the best available research points to multiple factors – primarily social and familial – that predispose children and adolescents to homosexual attraction and/or gender confusion. It is also critical to understand that these conditions can respond well to therapy.

Dr. Francis Collins, former Director of the Genome Project, has stated that while homosexuality may be genetically
influenced, it is “… not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not
predeterminations.” He also states [that] “…the prominent role[s] of individual free will choices [has] a profound effect on us.”

The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) recently released a landmark survey and analysis of 125 years of scientific studies and clinical experience dealing with homosexuality. This report, What Research Shows, draws three major conclusions: (1) individuals with unwanted same sex attraction often can be successfully treated; (2) there is no undue risk to patients from embarking on such therapy and (3), as a group, homosexuals experience significantly higher levels of mental and physical health problems compared to heterosexuals. Among adolescents who claim a “gay” identity, the health risks include higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, alcoholism, substance abuse, anxiety, depression and suicide. Encouragingly, the longer students delay self-labeling as “gay,” the less likely they are to experience these health risks. In fact, for each year an adolescent delays, the risk of suicide alone decreases by 20%.

In light of these facts, it is clear that when well-intentioned but misinformed school personnel encourage students to “come out as gay” and be “affirmed,” there is a serious risk of erroneously labeling students (who may merely be experiencing transient sexual confusion and/or engaging in sexual experimentation). Premature labeling may then lead some adolescents into harmful homosexual behaviors that they otherwise would not pursue.

Optimal health and respect for all students will only be achieved by first respecting the rights of students and parents to accurate information and to self-determination. It is the school’s legitimate role to provide a safe environment for respectful self-expression for all students. It is not the school’s role to diagnose and attempt to treat any student’s medical condition, and certainly not a school’s role to “affirm” a student’s perceived personal sexual orientation.

But, why is letter being published here? Gay organizations and their politicians have created a school-based event called “Day of Silence.” While it is billed an an effort to promote tolerance to gay youth with the goal of preventing bullying, this event also has been used as a backboard to launch education and social policies in other states like Massachussetts. Those policies in effect engender hostility toward families who are morally or religiously opposed to gay behavior and legalizing efforts to indoctirnate children into accepting gay behavior as normative. Therefore, parents, grandparents, and others should be aware of such events and what medicial professionals other than APA have to say about the related issues of same-sex attraction and gender confusion.

To read the entire letter or for more information, please visit www.FactsAboutYouth.com

President Obama and DOMA: Why Obama’s Position is Unconstitutional

The Justice Department announced last month that it would no longer defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the president and Attorney General Eric Holder now believe the law is unconstitutional.
“After careful consideration, including review of a recommendation from me, the President of the United States has made the determination that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act…as applied to same-sex couples who are legally married under state law, violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment,” Holder wrote in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) on February 23. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Obama believes DOMA is “unnecessary and unfair.”

But as CNSNews.com reported, critics of Obama’s decision said the president of the United States, who is sworn to faithfully execute the law, doesn’t get to pick and choose which laws to defend.

Three things should be noted about the President’s justification for considering DOMA unconstitutional.

First, the Fifth Amendment has no “equal under the law” clause, but the Fourteenth Amendment does.

Second, he claims implies state laws made after the passage of DOMA effectual negate it as law rather than prior law (DOMA) negating laws of states. On the face of it, the President’s action seems legitimate because federal law is supposed to conform to the limits of the Constitution, which leaves states their 10th Amendment right to determine on matters not addressed by the Supreme Law. Most marriage issues do apply here. But, again, the justification is based on the Fifth Amendment or maybe the Fourteenth.

Third, however, is the fact that marriage comes under the rubric of human sexual behavior. Men and women enter into marriage covenants long before the Constitution existed. It is a moral act of agreement in which men with women contract to much more than sexual activity, but the basis of the covenant relationship is nevertheless sexual.

As the basis of the Constitutional compact is, so is the basis of marriage. Natural law may be defined as what is self-evidently true to human nature on the basis of reason and revealed law. Critics may disagree with the last two words, but the founders who authored and accepted by vote America’s legal definition of nationhood would agree. Be that as it may, it extremely difficult to reason from human nature as it exists to acceptance of homosexual behavior or marriage of homosexuals as lawful behavior. Some medical scientists have pointed the biological and medical difficulties with it. Simply put, sex between males and females is obvious natural behavior with the benefit of keeping the human race from extinction–even atheistic evolutionists would have to agree. Homosexual behavior is at best an aberration of natural human behavior.

“Equality under the law clause of the 14th Amendment” does not provide protection for aberrant behaviors. It is supposed to guarantee the same protections against discrimination based on natural characteristics like skin color, sex, nationality, and the like. Those characteristics are inherent to human nature. It is supposed to guarantee that common laws are equally applied to all citizens, and in breaking those laws, the same equality is to be applied. That is except for the few exempted from those laws like foreign ambassadors, heads of state, Presidents, and some times the rich.

Let’s not forget, the gay community possess an average income significantly above average John and Jane American.

Even with all of their considerable buying power, the Democratic Party President cannot make the unnatural natural and unconstitutional constitutional.

Gay Lobby’s View of Your Non-Liberal Representatives

Like most organizations seeking donations in order to balance their financial accounts, the gay lobby, Human Rights Campaign, seeks to fire up the gay community and its supporters to contribute some more cash. The view most members are expected to share is that all members of the “right-wing” are bigots, destroyers of equality rights, and haters of gays.

Here are a few excerpts:

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” may no longer be the law of the land, but the bigotry behind it is alive and well – in our schools, in our workplaces, and, perhaps most unfortunately, in the halls of Congress.

January will bring anti-gay leadership to the helm of the House of Representatives. The right-wing political machine – committed to destroying marriage equality everywhere – will be emboldened and aggressive.

We need your help to keep fighting back in 2011 and to protect our gains.

The million dollar question is how can anyone destroy what never existed–marriage equality? This is merely an extention of the same erroneous claim that gays are a naturally discrimiated-against minority requiring protection by special class rights. Because being gay is supposedly a inborn aspect of their nature, homosexual relations must also be natural. Consequently, marriage should also be a natural culmination of such relations.

The same counter-position still holds: Color, race, ethnicity, sex, and disability are all natural and inherent characteristics of biological and physiological human nature, but homosexuality is a chacateristic of sexual behavior. Sexual behavior is a biological given, but homosexual behavior is contrary to normative sexual relations among the different sexes. It is against nature and nature’s God, and therefore, it is against humanity.

The idea that gay consensual sex should be a constitutional right doesn’t add up either. No one can consent to being black, a woman, or blind at birth. People can consent to a law, to the proposition that the universe created itself, to doing violence to someone, having a doctor euthanasize themselves, or giving and receiving gifts. Consent lies in the domain of belief and behavior. Consent does not make a wrong right. Consent to wrong behavior is still wrong. All human behavior is relational in some way or another.

Who will be awake at 12:01AM January 1, 2010

If a poll taken by Ramussen today is any indicator, 62 percent of Xenia residents will awake to celebrate the beginning of a New Year. About 75 percent of adults under 30 will be praying, toasting, cheering, or kissing during the New Year’s arrival, but only 41 percent of adults over 30 will be doing the same. That means of the 38 percent of Xenians will be snoring at the New Year. Among those lazy rebels will be 25 percent will under 30s and and 69 percent of the over-the-hill-gang (those over 30).

Those who intend to still be awake at 12:01 are like to be one of the following places: 23 percent will be relaxing at home, 11 percent will be at a friends home, 5 percent will be bashing at a restaurant or bar, 13 percent will be still be wondering around, and 10 percent are not revealing where swanky place will be. Of course, the 38 percent who intend to be asleep at 12:01 AM did not say in whose bed they would presumably be snoring away. Maybe those who will be praying could pray for them as well. You never know it just might make a good and happy New Year become a reality. Anything is possible in Xenia.