By Micah Clark

The battle lines of the national Culture War have been redrawn to include Indiana. The recent adoption of gay rights ordinances in local political bodies such as the Lafayette and Bloomington Indiana city councils have unknowingly drafted millions of Hoosier families into a civil war of values.

The battlefield may soon include your child’s school.

Homosexual militants are attempting to draft children, teenagers and educators into their ideological war for the hearts and minds of Indiana policy makers.

Do these military metaphors sound extreme? Consider this, on Saturday, June 12, 1993 the Fourth Annual Indiana Gay Pride Celebration was held less than 100 yards from the IFI office in downtown Indianapolis. Several hundred people were on hand at University Park in the shadows of the Indiana War Memorial for the Gay Pride event.

The festival’s theme for 1993 was “A Family of Pride.” Ken Shay, one of the event’s Organizers welcomed participants, writing in the Gay Pride program, “Contrary to what you may hear from the ‘religious right’, it is love that makes a family. Today there will be special activities for those that are a big part of our lives — our children. We hope that you will be able to bring your children as we celebrate and express our pride.”

A casual observer walking through the park would have immediately noticed the presence of many young teens and preteen-aged children. The brightly colored Indianapolis Youth Group (NG) materials were prominently displayed and carried by these adolescents. The IYG booth had obviously been well attended.

The IYG is an Indiana based organization devoted to gay/lesbian and bisexual youth under the age of 21. The IYG’s toll-free youth hotline has received positive press coverage for their “counseling” efforts. The IYG has even been featured on ABC’s 20/20. In the two months following the story the IYG received 100,00 calls from across the country. Many conservatives have raised concerns that the IYG is in open recruitment center which actively enlists the youth of Indiana into the homosexual movement.

The presence of children, gay and lesbian parents, and the adoption of family themes was not a mere coincidence at the Indianapolis event. The lasting impression by an IFI observer of the Gay Pride event was not the presence of those in sadomasochistic attire. The lasting impression was not the open acts of homosexual contact. The most disturbing aspect of the Gay Pride event was the acceptance of homosexuality by hundreds of children and teenagers.

Syndicated columnist Mona Charen recently wrote, “according to the Washington Post, bisexuality and homosexuality have become the in thing among the high school and junior high school set. They sport pink ribbons, kiss members of the same sex in the hallways (to see what people will say) and tell reporters, ‘Everyone is bisexual, if you ask me.”

In the same column, Adrian Banard, an 18-year-old high school student told a Virginia newspaper, “Someone asked me what my sexual orientation was, and I found myself rather unable to tell them, I had just gone along assuming I’m heterosexual. Then I sat down to think about it and realized I could go either way.”

What would draw hundreds of youth to the Indiana Gay Pride event? What type of information could cause teenagers to adopt a lifestyle which promises a lifespan of less than 45 years and a host of diseases?

The answer to this question can be easily found in the sex education and multicultural classes offered in many schools. The April homosexual march on Washington D.C. included a list of seven demands prepared by the homosexual leadership. Demand number 4 stated, “We demand full and equal inclusion of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered people in the educational system, and inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, bisexual and Transgender studies in multicultural curricula. . .and information on abortion, AIDS/HIV, childcare and sexuality at all levels of education…”

To understand what is involved in this type of education and to inform parents what to look for, Robert Knight of the Family Research Council has described the ideal gay rights sex education curriculum. The ideal curriculum contains ten characteristics which when observed could explain why so many teens have adopted homosexuality or view it as an acceptable alternative.

Homosexual Curriculum

The ideal pro-homosexual sex education course would include many or all of the following ten characteristics.

First, the ideal course treats heterosexuality and homosexuality with fine impartiality. Both are deemed equally good, equally natural, equally healthy and equally desirable. It is important for young people to understand that anyone who believes otherwise is either bigoted or ignorant. If the program can teach a single lesson it is this: To make a value judgement in favor of heterosexuality is to engage in essentially the same kind of discrimination that lies at the heart of racism.

Second, students must be taught that sexual behavior is a right, and that any attempt to prohibit sex between consenting people is a violation of that right. It is important to note that the term “consenting people” was used rather than “consenting adults.” Gay rights sex educators as well as the followers of the Indiana Planned Parenthood affiliates, and the Bloomington, Indiana based Kinsey Institute are perfectly happy with he idea of sexually active minors.

Third, the ideal homosexual curriculum contains anecdotal materials that paint idealized portraits of homosexuals and their lives. In these images, examples, and narratives, the homosexual is healthy, happy, loving, law abiding, and productive. They are more talented than members of the heterosexual community and more open to the rich promises of life. The message promoted is: “it’s a great way of life, kids; you might want to try it.”

Fourth, their ideal sex education program would be exciting and explicit. If the purpose is to “get the kids into sex,” then the best way to do that is to expose them to erotic materials of all kinds.

But in offering erotic materials, the ideal homosexual program goes beyond the mere printed word. Often, there are audiotapes of both heterosexuals and homosexuals describing how it feels to have sex, emphasizing the pleasure and the self-fulfillment. Of course, in order to compensate for the heterosexual bias of society, these audiotapes present homosexuality as unambiguously satisfying, while revealing a small degree of frustration among heterosexuals.

Fifth, the ideal homosexual sex education course contains numerous scientific facts, pronouncements, citations, and statistics. Some of these fabrications include such declarations as: homosexuals comprise 10 percent of the population, there are homosexuals in every species in nature, homosexuality is a natural variant caused by genetic or hormonal factors, homosexuals are not as likely to molest children as heterosexuals, homosexuals are likely to crossdress than heterosexuals, homosexuals are just as likely as heterosexuals to settle down to long-term monogamous relationships, homosexuals are better parents than heterosexuals…

These “studies” are included in the ideal curriculum for a very important reason: They establish in the minds of students the “factuality” of the claim of special rights. Young people must learn that if their parents or religious leaders condemn homosexuality, they commit an act of treason against the decrees of science itself. Thousands, if not millions, of students over the past few years undoubtedly have come to believe that their parents are ignorant or bigoted as a consequence of these quasi-scientific pronouncements. Yet, virtually every statement the gay rights movement asserts to be true is a bone of contention to the scientific community.

The sixth characteristic of their ideal curriculum is inextricably linked to the fifth: Religion is treated as irrelevant or downright evil. Homosexual books, magazines, and newspapers are filled with bitter and often obscene denunciations of religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Seventh, this curriculum discusses AIDS as a disease for which homosexuals bear no responsibility. AIDS is not caused by people, they say, but by a virus – which is a little like saying John F. Kenncdy was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald but by a bullet. If these programs were serious about stopping AIDS they would start telling the truth about risky behaviors, the failure rates of condoms, and the high success rates of abstinence based programs.

The eighth ingredient of their ideal curriculum is the fostering of sympathy for AIDS victims. The over-emphasis on compassion is so disproportionate in “gay-friendly” curricula that its political purpose becomes all to clear: Concentrate on the suffering of the victims and you will forget to oppose the kind of conduct that leads to such a monstrous malady.

The ninth characteristic of the ideal homosexual program: It must actively promote sexual behavior among youngsters. Homosexual activists want to promote the flouting of traditional sexual prohibitions at the earliest possible age. If you can persuade young people to ignore parental and religious warnings against premarital sex, then you will have a much easier time of convincing them that condemnation of homo-sexuality is likewise a rule to be broken.

And tenth, their ideal sex education doesn’t merely stop at instruction. As with so many curricula, it is also a call to political and social action.

Parent’s need to know what type of sex education programs are being used in their child’s school. These curricula must be exposed for their inaccuracies and the dangerous risks they pose to children. If people think that this current generation of homosexual activists are boldly converting and recruiting teenagers into their lifestyle -wait until ten years from now after children have been indoctrinated. Recruitment will not be necessary for willing participants eager to enlist.

(The above material was published by INDIANA CITIZEN, September 1993)

Christian Information Network