Focus's Cushman Slams Sex-Ed Standards for Promoting Respect for Gay Families, Dubs Bullying Prevention 'Homosexual Promotion'

Earlier this month, a coalition of health and education groups released new recommended guidelines for sex education in schools, which address topics including sexual orientation, birth control and bullying. The non-binding recommendations have not, unsurprisingly, been popular among the talking heads of the Religious Right.

On Wednesday, Candi Cushman of CitizenLink, Focus on the Familiy's political arm, joined Janet Mefferd to discuss the new guidelines and her displeasure that, among other things, they recommend teaching young children to “demonstrate respect for these different types of families,” a notion that Cushman insists is “undemocratic.”

Cushman: The important things for parents to understand is that these standards are supposed to start in kindergarten so at the elementary level students are going to start to be taught to ‘identify different types of family structures.’

Mefferd: Ugh.

Cushman: And then demonstrate respect for these different types of families. That’s basically codes for, ‘We’re going to teach your kids about same-sex marriage and homosexual relationships and this is an option worthy of being embraced just like heterosexual marriages and relationships.’ Not only are they going to be willing to embrace it but they’re going to respect it and they’re going to get that down by the second grade. So they will need to start that probably around kindergarten so they’ll have it down in their heads by second grade. That’s just one example of them dealing with the homosexuality topic.

Mefferd: Well and in most states we don’t have same-sex marriage, so why the need for that?

Cushman: Right, it’s totally undemocratic.

Mefferd and Cushman went on to discuss the recommendations for older students, including discussions of the proper use of contraception, which Cushman claims were designed by “left-wing, casual-sex activist groups,” and are not intended to promote public health.

As for the inclusion of discussions about bullying, Cushman insists bullying prevention is a Trojan Horse for gay rights groups: “They do have this agenda of inserting homosexuality promotion under the category of bullying and this is one way they go about that with these sexuality standards.”

Cushman has been the voice of CitizenLink's opposition to anti-bullying programs, which we wrote about in detail in a report last year.

Mefferd: I thought the whole purpose of sex-ed originally was to tell kids the birds and the bees, but now it’s flat-out indoctrination.

Cushman: Right, if you look at the material that the groups who did these standards put out it’s all about students’ sexual rights, their rights. The emphasis is not on prevention, avoiding disease and harm, it’s about ‘Oh let’s just reduce the risk, what are their rights?’ Its activism, it’s not about health. That’s why we shouldn’t just surrender our schools to left-wing, casual-sex activist groups.

Mefferd: I agree. I’m sure from what I read there’s this aspect of bullying. They love throwing that around, ‘We need to deal with the bullying issue and the gay bullying issue,’ even though bullying has been around since time immemorial for kids, from kids, for all sorts of reasons, not just the homosexual issue. But do they talk much about that? Are they framing it in terms of, ‘We got to talk about this stuff to stop the gay bullying’?

Cushman: Yes they do. In fact, I found that very interesting that they were titled sexually standards but they address bullying. I thought, now we’re just saying that bullying is sexualized now.

Mefferd: Wow.

Cushman: I really think that bullying should be its own category, not in sex-education. Bullying should be addressed as prevention, protecting all students no matter how they identify because they’re human beings, as I’ve explained many times before. So yeah, I found that an interesting part that they’re trying to mix those two, sex-education and bullying. But I think the reason they are mixing them is because they do have this agenda of inserting homosexuality promotion under the category of bullying and this is one way they go about that with these sexuality standards.
 

PFAW Foundation

ADF Slams New York City Over Comprehensive Sex Education

In a column today, The Alliance Defense Fund’s David Cortman called New York City’s comprehensive sex education plan a case of “inmates running the asylum.” The city is “encouraging schools to use two vetted, evidence-based, age-appropriate, comprehensive sex ed curricula: HealthSmart and Reducing the Risk,” which “are providing the curricula for free, and offering training and technical assistance to schools on the implementation process.” The programs teach abstinence, but since they also include lessons about safe sex, right-wing groups like the ADF are enraged. Cortman argues that the highly reputable program is essentially “an orchestrated public school porn push”:

Nearly every week, I come across an article where parents in some community are in an uproar over school districts promoting inappropriate sexual materials to our kids. Whether it’s related to homosexual behavior or other age-inappropriate sexual issues, there seem be school districts across the land intent on sexualizing our kids.

Honestly, it’s as if there’s an orchestrated public school porn push taking place.

This week’s example can be found in a New York Post article concerning New York City schools. Under a mandatory “sex ed” curriculum, the department of education wants middle and high school students taught their version of the birds and the bees.

And look at what else they want to teach our 11 and 12 year olds – the students will be given “risk cards” to rate the “safety” of several activities, which include intercourse with a condom, mutual masturbation, oral sex and anal sex. (Did I mention that this was for 11 and 12 year olds?)

What about teenagers in high school? It gets worse. They’ll be required to go to stores and study condoms – brands, prices and features. And they’ll be referred to wholesome resources like Columbia University’s Go Ask Alice web site, which includes discussions on different sexual positions, sadomasochism, phone sex, porn stars and bestiality. Not kidding.

The alleged “justification” for this porn push, I mean “sex ed,” is to curb unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Really? Since when does telling kids to have sex reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and STDs?

In reality, it appears to be just another vehicle the government can use to sexualize our children.

Unsurprisingly, Cortman’s column is more grounded in right-wing ideology than factual accuracy.

Natalie Ravitz of the New York City Department of Education writes, in response to a report in the New York Post, that teenagers aren’t referred to Go Ask Alice or that middle school students will receive “risk cards”:

For example, contrary to what The New York Post reported, the risk card activity that 11 and 12 year olds will supposedly be doing is actually one of the lessons we removed from HealthSmart because we didn't think it was age-appropriate.

Another error in their reporting -- New York City DOE does not refer teens to resources such as Columbia University's GoAskAlice.com website. GoAskAlice.com is listed in teacher materials as one of many in a list of possible resources that teachers can utilize for tips on answering questions on sexuality. We do not direct students to the website. But far be it for facts to get in the way of a good "XXX" headline.

Reducing the Risk is a research-based sex risk reduction curriculum that is shown to help delay the initiation of sexual intercourse, increase the use of contraception among teens who do initiate sexual intercourse, and increase parent-child communication about abstinence and contraception.

Both HealthSmart and Reducing the Risk emphasize that abstinence is the best way to avoid risk. Students are encouraged to talk to their families about these topics in the context of their family values. They both state that students should use protection correctly and consistently if they currently are or will choose to become sexually active later in their lives.

PFAW

CWA: Learning About Sexual Behavior Furthers The “Homosexual Agenda”

Janice Shaw Crouse of Concerned Women for America’s Beverly LaHaye Institute is outraged that the government is studying sexual behavior and the rate of sexually transmitted infections. In fact, Crouse is upset that the government is using the term “sexually transmitted infection (STI),” which the health community believes is the most accurate term since sexually transmitted diseases are infections that show symptoms. She is also upset that the terms “straight,” “gay,” and “lesbian” were included in the study.

Crouse is even angered that the survey found that, indeed, straight people contract STI’s and HIV. According to Crouse, any study of STI’s is part of a twisted plan concocted by the Obama Administration and the “homosexual lobby” to promote the “homosexual agenda”:

Note that, under the Obama administration, statisticians have adopted the use of STIs instead of STDs (sexually transmitted infections rather than sexually transmitted diseases). Representatives of Planned Parenthood and SEICUS told me, when I asked at a meeting about the difference between the two terms, that “infections” carry less of a stigma than a “disease,” because “anybody can get an infection, but a disease is more serious and carries a connotation of blame.”

While the focus ostensibly is on STIs, there are 10 graphs of same-sex attraction, sexual identity, sexual behavior, and sexual activity. All this attention produced evidence, not surprisingly, that 86 percent of HIV cases are acquired through sexual behavior (others acquire HIV through transmission from an infected spouse or partner, or from a pregnant mother to her baby) and that the cost of the 50,000 new cases of HIV each year is approximately $20,000 per person. Amazingly, (is this really necessary?) the study noted that, in addition to terms such as “heterosexual” and “homosexual,” they used the terms, “straight,” “gay” and “lesbian” so that respondents could easily “recognize” the meaning.

Clearly, the intent of this report is to document same-sex attraction, identification, behavior, and activity, rather than to report on sexually-transmitted diseases. Is this a sign of the times, or a calculated effort of the Obama administration to continue pushing the homosexual agenda? Or both? Is it really the federal government’s responsibility, and a good use of taxpayer money, to mine survey data to try to support the homosexual lobby’s claim that “we are everywhere” and “anybody can get HIV?”

Apparently Crouse has a problem with science: as this study documents, straight people are able to contract HIV, along with all other STI’s. While she says that the government should instead “report on sexually-transmitted diseases” (which it does), one of the best ways to learn about the transmission of STI’s is to learn about sexual behavior. Crouse could have learned this by reading the second sentence of the first paragraph of the study: “These behaviors and characteristics are relevant to birth and pregnancy rates, as well as the incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).”

Moreover, she believes the Obama Administration is responsible for this outrageous research, but the National Survey of Family Growth conducted it from 2006-2008, under the Bush Administration.

This demonstrates another example of shoddy reporting from CWA’s “resident expert.”

PFAW

WI Prosecutor Threatens Teachers With Arrest If They Follow State's New Sex Ed Curriculum

The Wisconsin State Journal reports that a Juneau County [WI] District Attorney Scott Southworth has sent a letter to local school districts that they could face arrest and jail if they teach the state's newly created sex ed curriculum that requires students to learn about birth control and avoiding sexually transmitted diseases on the grounds that they will be contributing to the delinquency of minors: 

A Wisconsin prosecutor is warning that teachers who teach the state's new sex education curriculum could be arrested and charged with contributing to the delinquency of children.

Juneau County District Attorney Scott Southworth told the Wisconsin State Journal that the state's sex education law, which was signed by Gov. Jim Doyle in February, is a "sick and shameful piece of legislation" that encourages illegal sex among minors. And he sent a letter to five school districts urging them to temporarily drop all sex education classes until the Legislature can repeal the law.

"Forcing our schools to instruct children on how to utilize contraceptives encourages our children to engage in sexual behavior, whether as a victim or an offender," Southworth wrote in the March 24 letter. "It is akin to teaching children about alcohol use, then instructing them on how to make mixed alcoholic drinks."

The new law requires schools that teach sex education to include curriculum about birth control and sexually transmitted diseases as part of comprehensive classes. But Southworth said it essentially forces school districts to "instruct children on sex-for-pleasure." And in his letter, he warned the law promotes the sexual assault of children, exposes teachers to possible criminal liability, undermines parental authority, requires districts to condone controversial sexual behavior, gives the contraceptive industry access to school children and may expose districts to civil litigation.

"This, in turn, will lead to more child sexual assaults," he said in the letter.

...

Southworth, a Republican, said teachers will be pushed into "encouragement and advocacy" that "could lead to criminal charges." And he said districts may be forced to teach about homosexuality as well as transgender and transsexual people. He also said the law will allow "health care providers" such as Planned Parenthood to effectively "market sexually-oriented products to our children."

A copy of the letter can be found here [PDF].

PFAW

Debating Sex Ed In Utah

Yesterday, Utah lawmakers spent two hours debating how to teach sex education in schools despite the fact that they didn't even have a bill to debate.   The proposed bill that would create two different tracks for sex education in Utah public schools - one that includes information about contraceptives, and one that teaches abstinence only - wasn't ready in time for the hearing, but that didn't stop Health and Human Services Committee Co-Chair Chris Buttars from holding the hearing anyway because he had already flown in a right-wing "expert" to testify against it:

[C]ommittee co-chairman Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, said during the meeting he was not aware there was no bill to present. He said afterward he decided to hold the discussion anyway because he had already flown in psychiatrist and author Miriam Grossman to talk about the topic on his own dime.

Grossman spent about a half hour talking about how not enough scientific facts are included in sex education and how the national Planned Parenthood promotes what she considers to be high-risk sexual behavior among teens.

"The primary goals of these organizations is not to fight disease," Grossman said. "It is to create a society that tolerates, indeed celebrates, any kind of sexual activity."

Grossman, who bills herself as "100% MD and 0% PC," is affiliated with the Claire Booth Luce Policy Institute and is the author of two books: "You're Teaching My Child What? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Education and How They Harm Your Child" and "Unprotected: A Campus Psychiatrist Reveals How Political Correctness Endangers Every Student." So it's not hard to see why someone like Buttars would use his own money to bring her in to testify.

But without an actual bill to debate, committee members ended up merely passing a motion on party lines that urges the legislature "to consider any person or organizations that promotes, recommends or teaches high-risk sexual behavior, Web sites, examples or talks" as inappropriate in public schools.  Because, as Buttars put it, while want our children to learn from knowledgeable people, the people who teach them about sex shouldn't be too knowledgeable

With no actual bill to debate, the discussion shifted to topics of morality. The group Planned Parenthood was accused of infiltrating schools to push their agenda. Nearly two hours into the debate, a surprise motion was proposed by Sen. David Hinkins, R-Emery County to "not consider any persons or organizations that promotes or recommends teaching extreme sexual acts."

"Are they being considered in the schools right now?" Sen. Pat Jones, D-Holladay, asked him. "I just want to know how this would change things?"

"I worry about using organizations in our public schools that have sites that go to these extreme measures," Rep. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, interjected. "There's got to be people that's knowledgeable that don't go that far."

PFAW
Filed under:

The Logical Result of Abstinence Education: Marry Younger!

About a week or so ago, I saw an article in Christianity Today called "The Case for Early Marriage" that argued, among other thing, that abstinence was the only acceptable option for young people, it was creating a dilemma when coupled with the fact that young people are simultaneously waiting longer before they get married.

Written by Mark Regnerus, author of "Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenager," the article's solution is for young people to just get married at an earlier age:

[O]ver 90 percent of American adults experience sexual intercourse before marrying. The percentage of evangelicals who do so is not much lower. In a nationally representative study of young adults, just under 80 percent of unmarried, church- going, conservative Protestants who are currently dating someone are having sex of some sort. I'm certainly not suggesting that they cannot abstain. I'm suggesting that in the domain of sex, most of them don't and won't.

What to do? Intensify the abstinence message even more? No. It won't work. The message must change, because our preoccupation with sex has unwittingly turned our attention away from the damage that Americans—including evangelicals—are doing to the institution of marriage by discouraging it and delaying it.

Without getting into the various arguments Regnerus makes in favor of his position, I just wanted to highlight this one section in which he claims that younger marriage is good for everyone, as it prevents young women from turning into a barren spinsters and makes young men "grow-up" faster:

The ratio of devoutly Christian young women to men is far from even. Among evangelical churchgoers, there are about three single women for every two single men. This is the elephant in the corner of almost every congregation—a shortage of young Christian men.

Try counting singles in your congregation next Sunday. Evangelicals make much of avoiding being unequally yoked, but the fact that there are far more spiritually mature young women out there than men makes this bit of advice difficult to follow. No congregational program or men's retreat in the Rocky Mountains will solve this. If she decides to marry, one in three women has no choice but to marry down in terms of Christian maturity. Many of the hopeful ones wait, watching their late 20s and early 30s arrive with no husband. When the persistent longing turns to deep disappointment, some decide that they didn't really want to marry after all.

Given this unfavorable ratio, and the plain fact that men are, on average, ready for sex earlier in relationships than women are, many young Christian women are being left with a dilemma: either commence a sexual relationship with a decent, marriage-minded man before she would prefer to—almost certainly before marriage—or risk the real possibility that, in holding out for a godly, chaste, uncommon man, she will wait a lot longer than she would like. Plenty will wait so long as to put their fertility in jeopardy. By that time, the pool of available men is hardly the cream of the crop—and rarely chaste. I know, I know: God has someone in mind for them, and it's just a matter of time before they meet. God does work miracles. But the fact remains that there just aren't as many serious Christian young men as there are women, and the men know it.

Men get the idea that they can indeed find the ideal woman if they are patient enough. Life expectancies nearing 80 years prompt many to dabble with relationships in their 20s rather than commit to a life of "the same thing" for such a long time. Men have few compelling reasons to mature quickly. Marriage seems an unnecessary risk to many of them, even Christians. Sex seldom requires such a steep commitment.

As a result, many men postpone growing up. Even their workplace performance is suffering: earnings for 25- to 34-year-old men have fallen by 20 percent since 1971, even after accounting for inflation. No wonder young women marry men who are on average at least two years older than they. Unfortunately, a key developmental institution for men—marriage—is the very thing being postponed, thus perpetuating their adolescence.

Apparently, the logic at work here is that young Christian men want to have sex and chaste Christian women don't, forcing the men into sexual relationships with not-chaste Christian women, thus postponing the development of their emotional maturity and ultimately narrowing the pool of eligible and acceptable marriage partners for women, leaving them to become childless, husband-less ascetics.

Thus, the obvious solution is just for people to get married at a younger age.

And that idea seems to be gaining traction among the Religious Right, judging by this recent Associated Press article:

Among evangelicals, there's a tendency to wait because many believe God "is going to deliver me a spouse right to my door," so they don't actively seek one, said Glenn Stanton, director of family formation studies for the evangelical ministry Focus on the Family, a young marriage promoter.

Then there's what Stanton calls the "eHarmony philosophy" — the belief God will deliver someone perfect.

Stanton doesn't blame the abstinence movement. "I don't think that it's so much to much focus on abstinence, but the silence on marriage makes the abstinence message sound so much louder," he said.

At Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., associate pastor Michael Lawrence emphasizes that marriage is a covenant, not a convenient arrangement, and offers advice to young couples on overcoming arguments over money, sex and family.

"We probably haven't served our young people well by on the one hand emphasizing abstinence, but on the other hand telling them to wait to get married," Lawrence said. "It seems to be setting them up to fail."

Like most proponents of young marriage, Lawrence does not set an arbitrary "right" age for marriage. Waiting until after college might be advisable if the alternative is crushing debt or dropping out, he said.

Supporters of abstinence programs promote them as both marriage-preparation tools and longer-term support systems for those who don't marry.

Jimmy Hester, co-founder of True Love Waits, part of the Southern Baptist Convention's LifeWay Christian Resources, disagreed with the argument that abstinence past a certain age is too much to ask.

"There are too many examples of people who have done it," he said. "And not out of their own strength, even, but out of a relationship with God who gives them strength."

 

PFAW
Syndicate content