Sunday, November 1, 2009

Mr. Delong's Promotion of Homosexuality in Classroom Should Backfire on HIm --even with the research itself.

From a blog article by Elizabeth Meyer, PhD at Psychology Today website:

Yesterday, Mr. Delong, a 10th and 12th grade Honors English teacher in Piasa, IL was suspended for assigning an article about homosexuality in the animal kingdom to his students. Should teachers ask their students to read about controversial topics? Should we allow parents veto power over the curriculum?

The local paper reporting this story quoted the teacher saying, "I have been suspended, but not without pay," Delong, of Carlinville, said Wednesday. "But I would rather not comment further until I speak with my union representative."

Mr. Delong is reportedly a married, heterosexual teacher who identifies as an ally of the GLBTQ community and clearly has the respect and admiration of his students. This is just one of many examples of how teachers are taught to be conservative and non-controversial and why GLBTQ youth don't feel safe in schools. If a school district considers teaching with a scientific article written by a professor at Stanford University and published in a popular science magazine as controversial and worthy of suspension - then how can we convince other educators to stand up and teach critically? In order to help students learn to become critical thinkers and active citizens in a participatory democracy, it is essential to have teachers encourage students to question normative thinking and learn to critically evaluate information for themselves -- particulary with respect to sex, gender, and sexuality.

Now, WHY with particularity toward sex, gender, and sexuality? Why are THESE the issues about which a student should question "normative thinking" and about which one should critically evaluate? These issues especially! Is this the greatest issue of our day about which we must learn to question normative thinking? I would say "evolution" is the issue. However, if we have begun to think normative thinking means "gay is good," then, yes, we had better critically evaluate info for ourselves.

NOW, WHAT IF THE TEACHER, AFTER THE ASSIGNMENT, ASKED THE STUDENTS THIS, for the sake of objective discussion and critical evaluation: If a behavior is found among the animals, does that make it healthy or good when humans do it???

The dog humping your leg is natural, and good people teach their dogs not to do that. Just as it may be "natural" to "get off" any way you can, doesn't mean it is GOOD or RIGHT to do so, now, does it? Finding homosexual behavior in nature doesn't mean homosexuality is good or immutable or inevitable.

Not everything animals do is good for humans. Some eat their young or their mates; many are polygamous or abandon their mates to raise the offspring alone --and some eat their own excrement and regurgitation. And many are dangerous and violent. And yes, some of these behaviors are found in humans, but we still have the good sense not to encourage them to our kids nor hold pride parades for them.

We assume that a teacher assigning such a paper hopes the students will CONCLUDE that homosexuality is good, natural, inevitable and immutable --just because homosexual behavior can be found in nature. Especially considering his membership in the GLBTQ organization. He is propagandizing with his assignment. And I'd be right down there in the principal's office wanting my kid to have a teacher who did not propagandize for homosexuality. Or I would at the very least equip my child to contradict the teacher's pro-gay agenda, if that, indeed, is what the teacher intended. Just as we equipped ours to combat the evolutionists' and gay dogma when THEY were students. And I'd make sure the teacher knew he could not say that all or any peculiar animalistic behavior is legitimate behavior for humans --just because it is "found in nature."

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible


mud_rake said...

It's good to see you back at your homophobia posting once again. For a while I thought you had been 'cured' but of course, that takes therapy and meds.

Thanks for leaving that paper bag of dog shit on my porch yesterday. Of course I did not open it [who would?] and it went straight to my DELETE bin.

I am curious why you continue to send me comments when you know I never read them. Perhaps severe OCD? Too bad a doctor doesn't 'see' you to advise mental health counselling.

Is there a doctor in the house?

Love one another. - Jesus

Barb said...

Mudrake, for readers who don't know, I did learn about Mr. Delong at your blog in a post by Mike. I see you follow my blog, too! Good for you!

Don't worry about my waste of time --my comment at your blog which you call a paper bag of doggy pooh was (as you know, because you read it)on this topic which was not posted by you --thus, not really for you --but for Mike. So I took the comment to my blog and his blog-where he said he would double post from now on so I could respond to him. Mike always asks, "What do you think?"

Mike and Chuck are comparative gentlemen regarding the right to dissent and comment in blogville. Learn from them. Not that they are warm and fuzzy to offensive opposition.

I realize that many liberal, atheist, agnostic bloggers ban all criticism of the gay agenda in order to demonstrate solidarity with gay people--or they will at least argue vehemently in their defense. If they can think of no rebuttal against logic and common sense for the public good, they ignore unwelcome guests --but YOU ban them.

I understand they are trying to be kind to homosexuals. But in doing so, they do gay people no real favors --because the best thing that could happen to our children is not gay proliferation, gay advocacy in education--and gay self-image or ID confusion leading to gay experimentation and high risk activities for STD's.

Your statement suggests paranoia, like I go to your blog to offend you personally. Hardly. If I don't have an opinion on what you say,I'll not bother to state libelous opinions about YOU --which you do here. I am always your topic. THAT is OCD. On your blog, I only comment if your opinion deserves rebuttal --namely the light of TRUTH. You write on homosexuality and evangelical Christians/"fundamentalists" --more than any other topic. Perhaps I do, as well. They are too very hot topics in Blogville and I'm concerned seriously about both.

If you want to prove to my small neighborhood of readers that what I put on your doorstep is mere horse manure, you'll start to print it --instead of coming here to make false allegations.

Granted, I do address you by your real name --knowing you won't publish. I can always drop that when you want to be brave and open your blog again.