Rapid City School Board Considers Pushing Homosexual Agenda

CG717The Rapid City School Board is pushing the homosexual agenda in their proposed amendment to the district’s nondiscrimination policy.  Not all members of the board are behind the change, but enough are that it could pass.

Last night the board met to discuss adding the words “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the policy. Word got out about the board’s plans and the South Dakota Family Policy Council and Citizens for Liberty had several of their members present at the meeting.   The SDFPC objects to this change on the basis of morality, public safety and the advancement of the homosexual agenda.  Citizens for Liberty objects primarily because it constitutes additional government and regulation.

Perhaps the school board expected easy passage of this change because for years most citizens have been by and large disengaged from the public arena, but that was not the case last night.  The room was filled with people who were outraged at this intrusion of the homosexual agenda in our public schools, and the Rapid City Journal reports it was a heated meeting.

“Our current policy must protect the rights of all students, not just special interest groups,” said local pastor Dale Bartscher, who is affiliated with the South Dakota Family Policy Council. “That includes fat, thin, short, if they have blue hair, whatever.”

A line of almost a dozen community members and legislators echoed the sentiment with personal stories of being bullied or bullying students for things that were not on the list – for having red hair, for being the new kid, for coming to school as a cowboy – smelling like the farm and the morning chores you just came from – as was Charles Kruse’s experience.

“Are you going to add cowboys?” he asked.

Until now, the nondiscrimination policy had included only innate, morally-neutral characteristics such as skin color, sex, religion, handicap and so on. But now many on the school board feel the need to advance the homosexual agenda by including an immoral, unhealthy sexual behavior as a protected class.

As it became clear that many on the board were determined to force this measure of legitimization of homosexual behavior on the public school system, a couple of state legislators who were present let it be known that their efforts could be resisted at the state level.

Rep. Don Kopp of Dist. 35 said he would consider drafting legislation at the state level to block the change.

Senator Gordon Howie of Dist. 30 said he would consider drafting legislation to cut education funding if the board insisted on pushing this.   While board member Wes Storm cut Howie off mid-sentenced with protests of a “blatant threat of power,” Howie’s “threat” has bearing on the issue.

Some who are pushing this policy change claim money is their motive, that the district might be sued if it doesn’t specifically spell out special protection for homosexuals.  If money is truly more important to the school board than the safety and moral fiber of the children in their charge, then perhaps the potential loss of taxpayer funding would motivate their interest back in the proper direction of protecting our children.

And if it is, as some are implying, that higher governmental authority is trying to force the school board to make this change, then it would seem that the school board is allowing another area of government to “bully” it.  Neither the school board nor the people should allow other governmental agencies to bully us into adopting a bad policy.

This issue is clearly over the subject of homosexual behavior, so it behooves us to examine that behavior and how it relates to something school children should be doing (they clearly shouldn’t, as most of them are underage) or should be taught is legitimate and acceptable.

Homosexual behavior is clearly unnatural. It is not the natural, normal behavior of human beings to act homosexually.  According to a study conducted by Hunter College and commissioned by the pro-homosexual group Human Rights campaign last year, only 2.9% of the population is homosexual. A behavior exhibited by only 2.9% of the population cannot reasonably be called “normal” or “natural.”

Homosexual behavior is also immoral according to the doctrines of every major religion in the world. Christianity, which is the religion ascribed to by more than 80% of Americans, teaches in both the Old and New Testaments that homosexual behavior is a violation of God’s design for the expression of human sexuality. It turns upside-down God’s design of heterosexual relations within the covenant of marriage, as well as distorts the symbolic picture of marriage as the relationship between Christ and His Church.

The homosexual lifestyle is also extremely unhealthy. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has found that the AIDS rate is 50x higher in homosexual men.  The CDC also issued a report which found the overwhelming majority of male AIDS cases (72%) are linked to homosexual behavior. A UCLA study found homosexuals end up seeking medical treatment for various ailments twice as often as the general population. A 2007 study published in the International Journal of STD & AIDS found homosexual men with AIDS are 90x more likely to develop anal cancer. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health published a study last year entitled “A Health Profile of Massachusetts Adults by Sexual Orientation Identity: Results from the 2001-2006 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Surveys” which found the odds of being a smoker in the homosexual community was 2.5x higher, bisexuals were 3.1x more likely to experience anxiety, lesbians were 2.2x more likely to be obese, and more. A study from Scotland last year found lesbians have a suicide rate 50x higher than normal.  A study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine found staph infection is 13x more likely among homosexuals.  Still other studies have found much higher risks among homosexuals for syphilis, gonorrhea, Herpes, HPV, hepatitis, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence. Studies in Canada and elsewhere have found on average a 20-year reduction in lifespan for homosexuals.  While many in the homosexual community continue to deny these very real dangers, a homosexual group in Canada has finally admitted them.

Do we really want our government school system telling or implying to our children, either directly or indirectly, that this dangerous behavior is legitimate and safe?

Homosexual behavior can be changed, and has been changed by thousands of people across the world and throughout history. It is a behavior born of complex factors and dysfunctions, but it is one that can be changed, and we should be doing everything we can to assure homosexuals that they can change, and to help them to change.

No student should be subjected to bullying, assaults or other harassment.  It doesn’t matter whether they are bullied because they are fat, skinny, have big ears, have curly hair, have red hair, don’t have nice clothes, talk funny, are a “tomboy,” are an effeminate boy, or have been misled into thinking they should act homosexually: none of these children should be called names or assaulted or in any way bullied.  School officials should protect them all from bullying activity.

At the same time, homosexual behavior should not be a protected class.  It is a behavior rather than an innate physical characteristic, but it is also a dangerous, immoral practice.  If a confused child is misled into this behavior and insists on practicing it away from the school, then there is nothing the school can do about that. But our school system should not send the message to these confused, hurting children that this behavior is legitimate or healthy; it is neither.  We warn children about the risks of smoking, alcohol and drug abuse, and more…and we should be doing everything we can to help them understand the dangers of this behavior, as well.

As for teachers who practice homosexual behavior, what they practice privately and out of sight of school children has little direct affect on their job performance–but what they expose school children to does. Teachers have traditionally been held to a higher moral standard because they work with, influence and have authority over our children who are still developing their moral compass. A teacher who is openly living an immoral lifestyle–whether homosexually or heterosexually–is an improper role model for our school children and should not be allowed to serve in that capacity.  Sacrificing our children’s moral foundation, along with their health and safety, is not worth it to make someone feel better about their immoral choices.

The proposed change simply makes no sense.  Unless the school board is ready to list every real or theoretical human difference in physical characteristic and behavior, singling out a particular sexual behavior for special protection is illogical.  This move is clearly just another goal of the homosexual agenda to advance legitimization and acceptance of this dangerous behavior, as similar adoptions in other communities have ended up a feather in the cap of homosexual activists to brag about as they move on to the next targeted community.

At last night’s meeting, Brent Swanson, Suzan NolanWes Storm, and Daphne Richards-Cook voted to advance the policy.  Douglas Kinniburgh, Sheryl Kirkeby, and Leah Lutheran voted against the measure.

The second reading of the policy will be at 5:30 pm on Jan. 7 at the City/School Administration Building at 6th and Omaha Streets.

Many supporters of the South Dakota Family Policy Council and Citizens for Liberty were notified a few days in advance of this meeting, and more than a few made it out to the meeting. Both groups plan to further educate and alert their supporters to this intent of the school board, and Citizens for Liberty plans to hold one or more town hall meetings to educate the public about the issue.  If the school board thought they faced some opposition in last night’s meeting, it will probably look like nothing at the next meeting.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Comments are closed.