Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

[Off topic:] NEA Proposal

arroba Email

I received this from from a political listserve to which I belong. Can anyone confirm this and provide more inside information? I’m interested in this because of what it may signify for textbooks related to ID.

National Education Association Set to Endorse Homosexual Marriage

Teacher’s union begins plans to promote homosexual marriage in public schools

The National Education Association is set to endorse homosexual marriage at their convention coming up in Orlando June 29 through July 6.

The new NEA proposal essentially says schools should support and actively promote homosexual marriage and other forms of marriage (two men and one woman, three women, two women and three men, etc.) in their local schools.

The new proposal, expected to pass overwhelmingly, is found under the B-8 Diversity paragraph:

  • The Association… believes in the importance of observances, programs and curricula that accurately portray and recognize the roles, contributions, cultures, and history of these diverse groups and individuals.
  • The Association believes that legal rights and responsibilities with regard to medical decisions, taxes, inheritance, adoption, legal immigration, domestic partnerships, and civil unions and/or marriage belong to all these diverse groups and individuals.

Translated, that means the NEA will promote homosexual marriage in every avenue they have available, including textbooks, to all children at all age levels and without the permission or knowledge of parents. Their plans will include every public school in America.


I realize now that the ads on this site are country-specific. I just saw an ad asking me in dutch whether I'm looking for God. So I take it then that the gay/lesbian wedding rings ad doesn't appear in the US.

So I take it then that the gay/lesbian wedding rings ad doesn't appear in the US. Yes, it does appear. Or did, when the blog article mentioned gays. These are "smart" ads from Google. The following is all done in real time, in the blink of an eye: the blog article is parsed for keywords that indicate the topic of the discussion then advertisers interested in readers of that topic are located and they bid money against each other on it if there is more than one. The highest bidder gets his ad inserted. When the number of ads he's willing to buy are used up the next highest bidder is inserted and so on. There are probably other factors as well. For instance I didn't know that the reader (you in this case) is factored into the equation so that you get an ad (if available) in your native language. Thanks for the information. I'll update my mental file on internet advertising accordingly. That was a interesting and important datum you provided. A big internet privacy concern is targeted ads. Google would like nothing better than to know more about you - age, income, address, likes/dislikes, surfing habits, etc. so that it can better personalize the selection of an ad for something you're statistically likely to buy. Advertisers pay more for better targeting. -ds Raevmo
"If we're designed, mistakes were not made on these issues." I certainly agree most forcefully that mistakes were not made in our design. However, it is living in a fairy tale land to pretend that all of the distortions and evils which occur in the world are simply a result of free-will choices in ONE lifetime. Everyone has had personal experience (probably) of children who were "off" somehow from their earliest years: difficult, intractable, cruel. These then grow up to be violent, even criminal human beings. Can we really argue that this all came about as a result of media, etc.? There are just far too many examples. I think your concept of what a 'soul' is differs dramatically from mine, otherwise you would not take exception to the idea that the soul is the location of the volitional component of man, and this the seat of evil as well. I think of the soul as a non-material body, which forms itself according to the volition of the person. When that person wills evil, the soul reflects this. You seem to like the example of pedaphilia, so lets go with it: you have someone who thinks in this way, and each time he thinks in this way, he increases the amount of that filth in his being, and in turn becomes an attraction point for other similar thoughts, which then burden him further and further, in a natural cyclic way, until at some point, he loses his capacity to get out from under such thoughts and they have become a "propensity", which is an active aspect of his soul life. Then, when he is born into flesh, he carries with him this propensity, which will be awakened through experiences in flesh. I think people live many lifetimes, and experience things both here and in the beyond, so for me, the idea that the soul is just some pure, uncluttered force or energy form doesn't work. Perhaps that is your belief, and that is why you think that evil doesn't come from there. Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree on these things. tinabrewer
Tina, The point about beatiality is that it exist. How do you account for this in the soul? It happens and by extension of complex issues that you represented with the soul being born in the wrong body so to speak I was expanding it to its logical conclusion. I do not believe you can account for such aberrant behavior, unless I'm missing something. Evolutionist do try to connect homo sapiens at one time mated with their distant cousins. But beastiality goes beyond even those lines. My point is there seems to be different lines of moral judgement people accept or not depending upon their desires, education, peer group, and in some ways, just how far they fall into physical lust with full abandon of any morals. Avocationist, I guess we'll agree to disagree, except its difficult to fully and scientifically pin down to any one area. Why do people change from homosexual to heterosexual? It happens daily. They leave the lifestyle, get married and live normal lives. Is there any such thing as deviant behavior? How do we define lines of sexual behavior if not by their acts and the physical gender? I also mentioned pedaphiles to ask why is their behavior then not related to the soul issues? I'm not sure how reincarnation addresses these issues. Also, important - bisexuals. They exist as well and desire of flesh is inconsistent and not based upon any gender. Its simply based upon orgasmic experiences directly related to pleasure of the differenst sexual acts, senses of touch and emotional release of adrenaline and dopamine levels delivered in any rush of orgasmic release. Its a wide open approach to experience these feelings with all people. Which leads to group sex. How do we account for group sex? This is behavior and choices, what one allows in their lives, not a forced expression. As to spiritual reasons, the Bible does say God will turn man over to his own desires if he continues to turn away from him. Another words, he'll allow humans to go full bore into their lustful desires and with disasterous results both emotionally and physically. As a result of not following an ordered life, based upon instruction of holy living, disorder will be sewn into the lives of those who allow lust to carry them away from sensible and rational behavior that is normal, reproductive and oriented to the family by natural means, not artificial. I only understand reincarnation at rudimentary levels, but do not believe in its basic concept of souls returning repeatedly to reach higher levels. I believe firmly we have one opportunity in this life. I do agree homosexualty is a very complex issue. Another study done by the same researcher I referenced to Eldinus attempted to show physical difference brought on by hormonal changes to explain homosexual behavior. Follow-up studies however all showed this as a result of the repeated action of homosexuals, not the original cause of homosexual lust. Another words symptoms are created, but no cause was found. Thus the research was flawed and mixing up data, observations and cause. I believe behavior and what we are taught, see in life influence us extremely. FADS come about because they're popular. Children, teens buy clothes, music, etc., based upon what is popular in their peer groups and societies current media frenzy. Why are children at younger ages performing sexual acts today that were uncommon only 5 years ago for 11, 12, 13yr olds? They're not getting it from normal parents and it has nothing to do with the soul. They're seeing it done on the internet, cell phones, TV, etc., and experimenting with what they see. Children copy their parents, their peers and the Media surrounding them. In our society today parents have great difficulty keeping extreme pornography from their children eyes. They're not just seeing some playboy images of naked women. Today they see the full sexual act displayed in vivid detail and video between both sexes with all forms of gender roles. Parents role in the affirmation of a good healthy sex life is being undercut by our own societies liberal openess of anything goes sexual revolution since the 60s. The fact that more people experiment means its not seen as taboo. But it does not lead one to the conclusion there are more or less homosexuals by design. This is the real problem. Societies thru history progress in all areas. What was once considered deviant behavior becomes acceptable. When leaders, teachers, and role models say its OK to experiment with different sexual partners, children listen, learn and then try it. This has nothing to do with how one is born and everything to do with encouraging sexual premissiveness in all levels of a society. Abnormal and aberrant behavior become acceptable and tolerated. But they're not genetic, nor are they related to the soul. Its related to what we see, hear and take into our bodies. This is my firm belief. If we're designed, mistakes were not made on these issues. We just have choices. And its up to us to decide what choice to make. Free will. If we talk about souls, from a biblical viewpoint, God condemned sexual promiscuity and gender cross boundaries openly and forcefully thru Sodom and Gomorah and other actions of wars against pagan nations. I realize this is a touchy subject and not for all. But just pointing out, if he is the Designer, then one might want to heed his words in this area. I believe He IS. Michaels7

Did I just see an advertisement for gay and lesbian wedding rings on this site or have I been watching too much soccer and drinking too much beer lately?

You're hallucinating. You probably think you saw the U.S. lose to China today too, right? -ds Raevmo
Michaels7: I am not sure what you were getting at about the men and the sheep...but the soul, (and this is NOT a traditional Christian perspective) incarnates where it must, and that "must" is a mix of karmic entanglements and its own basic composition. If the soul has a primarily masculine composition, then it will only be able to enter a developing male body. Vice versa for females. When, however, through the exercise of the free will, that uniquely human quality, an individual takes on characteristics of the opposite sex, then to the extent that these are strong and durable volitions, these will weave themselves into the fabric of the person's soul. This "new fabric" will then reincarnate potentially in a body of the opposite sex, since it now resonates to a certain extent with that sex. But never fully. Thus, the child experiences, from its earliest years, a sense of being "different", or not "fitting". Many studies have been done which demonstrate quite clearly that homosexuals of both sexes were observed to have marked characteristics of the opposite gender even as children. I think it is wishful thinking to insist that this characteristic is "picked up" or learned from the environment. The inherent tendency to be attracted to the opposite sex among heterosexuals is generally experienced as an urge so powerful that violating it is like violating incest prohibitions. Its just incredibly unlikely that anyone would be able to overcome these basic prohibitive feelings because of some ambient cultural noise encouraging them to do so. avocationist: in my opinion, the delicate process of development in utero could definitely "go awry", but that any demasculinization of the brain would never overwhelm the masculine basic inner nature of a soul incarnating in such a body. Perhaps this man would be inclined to process events in a more female way, etc. but this would not rise to the level of governing his whole gendered nature. The differences between male and female brains and bodies is getting greater and greater the more we find out. The differences between homosexual and heterosexual brains and bodies is very difficult to detect. On the issue of reincarnation and gender switching, it is something that definitely happens, but lots of things happen which are not harmonious. It comes down to what the nature of the soul/spirit is. Is the human spirit an androgyn? If so, then I would have to agree with you, Why not incarnate back and forth ,etc? On the other hand, if in our created basic inner nature we are EITHER female OR male, then it makes more sense that our incarnations should harmonize body and soul. tinabrewer
I wonder what some of the people here would say about homosexuality after reading a couple of books that go into research on brain development in utero, hormonal influence on brain development, and hormonal influence on sexual behaviors in animals. The male baby human builds his own brain with his testosterone. The process is complex and delicate. Complex, delicate processes go awry. In mice, the presence of sisters versus brothers lying next to each other, simply being bathed slightly closer to the hormones of one's siblings of either gender in utero, makes a permanent difference in the masculinity or femininity of the mice as adults. I am convinced that this is the major portion of the cause of homosexuality. And, just as I predict that ID will win out in research, so will this. If we reincarnate, why should we not switch genders? avocationist
Eldinus, Thanks for the information on the latest twin studies. I remember when some bogus research was announced long ago out of Boston I think and was quoted widely as proof of a gay gene in the MSM. I'll review the link you posted. Interesting issue lately with military... "The American Psychiatric Association, which publishes the diagnostic manual to classify psychiatric conditions, removed homosexuality from the manual in 1973. However, the president of a conservative military watchdog group told Cybercast News Service that the APA's 1973 decision was "political" and that homosexuality in the military "would interfere with good order and discipline." Suddenly in 1973 homosexuality is removed from classification as a mental disorder? Why? It serves no purpose that I can see even with regard to population control, I think thats a reach. It seems to be more prevalent in wealthy countries where marriage is no longer important, higher education with less issues of survival. But those countries all eventually faded or failed as general corruption in the populations set in. Tina, regarding homosexuality as a 'soul' issue. Biblically, its never accepted in old or new testaments that God made a mistake putting a women's soul in a man's body. I guess he could play some cruel joke? I do believe such activity effects the very core of a human being. But these are symptoms, not causes. The behavior is learned, not instinctual. We are vessels. What we allow into our mind, our bodies, in our social gatherings thru peer groups, our role models, TV, music, etc., molds our beliefs of acceptance and decisions regarding lifestyle choices. Otherwise, why are there bisexuals? Are there bisexual souls? Why are there sayings such as, "State name here: _________, where men are men and the sheep are scared?" Do men have sheep souls longing to run free in the country side with other sheep? Just trying to expand on this and see where it leads...... As a child growing up without a father I'm well aware of the issues encountered having no male role models dominantly in the home. Fortunately, I had an Uncle, my friends fathers, a coach. But my point is, as a kid the dominant influence in the house until I reached puberty and manhood was a woman's. I think to much is written off on this subject of learned behavior. We learn all sorts of behavior patterns in life. How to have good manners, to behave socially in all aspects of our lives. I believe nurture contributes largely to the issue of homosexual exploration, discovery of males unsure of themselves as children. I think as a society increases in number, in wealth, in the anything goes atmosphere of a Rome, Greece of yesterday or modern Europe today and USA, then these issues arise more and more precisely because survival, having children is less important and items of luxury including sex are more prevalent. What about pedaphilia? Is a man born with a pedaphile soul? I'm just trying to draw this out to a conclusion. Thinking or rather writing out loud. But its still classifiable as abnormal behavior based upon percentages of the population. We're lookint at possible 2% of the male population that are full time, experienced homosexuals who stay fully in the lifestyle without crossing over to heterosexual activity with females. Michaels7
"take away our tools and technology and the difference doesn't seem very vast to me"-ds. Although I disagree with this, I don't doubt the observations of Sheldrick about these wonderful animals. What she describes falls mainly under the rubric "emotion" which would be a definite characteristic of an animal soul. THe more evolved the animal, the more evolved its consciousness. As far as I know, no other animal than the human being leaps across the barrier of matter and has 'religion'. This, to me, is the fundamental distinction. It shows that within the human is an element which senses the limited nature of matter and seeks meaning in something higher. This characteristic pervades everything humans do: instead of being content in the existing forms of the substance of matter, humans seek (when they are not completely degenerate) to ennoble everything, bring it to a higher state, and almost never just use the things around them in a basic way. This includes almost everything we do: eating, drinking, building shelters, community life. We have 'cuisine', we decorate our homes, we arrange things harmoniously, we seek beauty. Above all, however, we seek what is fundamentally higher than the mere matter of our surroundings. This may all be the result of more brain cells, but it is nevertheless clearly a distinction in KIND of activity, not merely in amount. Ironically, this is also why only humans are truly capable of 'evil', which might be defined roughly as an inversion of this natural desire to uplift and ennoble. tinabrewer

How solid is the evidence really that homosexuality has a genetic basis? I mean, is there really significant genetic variation that correlates with homosexual tendencies? If so, one could do some interesting artificial selection experiments to try and increase the frequeny of gay animals. Of course one would have to force them to reproduce but that would not be hard to accomplish with, say, mice. I wonder how the ethics committee would react though.

If it turns out that there isn't that much genetic variation, then it's not so hard to understand why the trait has persisted for so long.

Death is not so hard to understand at all. Due to accidental death alone, deleterious traits that manifest themselves at old age are under weaker selection than traits that operate at an early age. Hence, genes that increase performance in young animals at the cost of worse performance at older ages can have a selective advantage and spread. This is the antagonistic pleiotropy theory of aging, and it has some experimental support (dunno refs from top of head, think Rose & Charlesworth 19??).

You're programmed to die if nothing else kills you first. The cells in your body will only divide a certain number of times then it's goodnight Louise. The individual means nothing. Species don't seem to mean much more as they all appear to become extinct sooner or later, they simply persist longer than their individual members. The only thing that seems to be important is the original cell line not dying. If the patterns we see in ontogenesis and phlyogenesis scale up one more level in time and space then the plan appears to be that what's important is life on earth makes it to younger planet and continues on while life on this planet dies off. It eventually will die off here. That's a guarantee. If not from the senescence that evidently kills off individuals and species after some length of time then the sun will turn the planet into a cinder and life here will end that way. I think life has a much larger/longer history than on this planet and the cycles of birth, reproduction, and death repeat on longer and larger time scales. Sort of like a fractal where the same pattern emerges over and over on different scales. In that view humanity's function in the big plan is provide the transportation to the next planet. There's no way that chance could ever move life from this planet to a suitable new one. Space is too vast and planets are too small in comparison. The move has to be targeted. Also in that view it doesn't matter how fast we use up the resources on this planet as long as we get to a new planet before this one is used up. That's the pattern writ on a larger scale. Once reproduction is accomplished the parent is excess baggage. -ds Raevmo
I'll agree with tinabrewer's comment above. It follows that causes of human homosexuality can have very complex causes. However, professional therapists (whose work I am familiar with) who have had success helping people change sexual orientation usually identify a frustrated need for affection/affirmation from one or both parents (the classic identity crisis) which at some point (often in childhood, tragically) becomes sexualized. by the way, pronounced heterosesxual promiscuity can have similar root causes. This view is certainly not in vogue in the mainstream scientific and psychiatric community, but we know that doesn't necessarily mean anything. kvwells

Actually, Dave, I think animals do have a soul. It is of a different consistency than the human spirit, and this difference is the cause of the VAST differences between human and animal culture. However, in the animal kingdom, which is not governed by the same spiritual laws, but rather by simpler, more material laws, it is entirely possible that disharmonious conditions in the physical environment, or even in the development of the physical body of animals could lead to the homosexual behavior which is observed. It also follows from this that the consequences of this behavior among animals has only an animistic or material manifestation; namely, the animal cannot reproduce. In humans, the consequences are far more grave: it is a well-known fact that homosexuals often experience terrifically painful emotional lives, and have higher rates of suicide, substance abuse, etc. The inability to reproduce is only the most superficial consequence for humans in this condition.

Actually I tend to agree with you that animals have a soul (at least inasmuch as humans have a soul but I'm far from convinced that a soul is anything more than imaginary). People and animals differ only in degree, not in kind, IMO. However, I did use the example of rats and penguins and there's a case of a higher degree of difference than if I'd mentioned, oh say, elephants. Before you go saying that human and animal cultural differences are all that vast you should read this: Elephants Never Forget - Spite in the Animal Kingdom Take away our tools and technology and the difference doesn't seem very vast to me. tinabrewer

I think Raevmo is approaching the truth on this one, although as a materialist, he leaves out the essential thing: the spirit. The homosexual condition evolves through the course of time, as the soul takes on characteristics of the opposite gender (for whatever reason) and then eventually finds itself compelled to incarnate in a body which "doesn't quite match". This results in a psychic confusion between the expected role/behavior and the inner sense of self. Since the law is quite simple (opposite charges attract, similar charges repel) then homosexuality only appears to violate this. A gay man is attracted to men because at some basic inner level, he is really NOT a man, but a woman. That basic inner level is his spiritual being. Once born into this condition, he can of course not "help" it. Only in the very long run, through re-embracing his actual created nature, can he hope to experience happier, more "fitting" incarnations. Just a theory.

Then by extension you must think rats and penguins have souls, spiritual being, and psychic confusion too. Pardon me for snickering. -ds tinabrewer

I find it hard to believe that some individuals are homosexual to save their species. In theory it could work of course, but between-species selection for self-sacrifice is much less efficient than within-species selection against it. And why not simply refrain from reproducing to save the species instead of copulating with others of the same sex, or commit suicide. The most plausible hypothesis IMO is that homosexuality is the result of something gone wrong during development. Wrong dose of the wrong hormone during the wrong time and oops you're in a male body with female brains or vice versa.

I find it hard to believe that a trait which results in no offspring could possibly survive in multiple species at least as long as recorded history. There has been a significant percentage of homosexual individuals in the human population since the dawn of civilization and recorded history. Likewise it is observed in many other mammal and even bird species in which there has not been a recent (in geological timespans) radical change in the way they live. If we observe it in both birds and mammals then barring convergent evolution it would be a very old trait inherited from a common ancestor. It has to have a benefit of some sort in order to have survived. There are other traits that persist in the individual in order to benefit the species. Death is the biggie in that regard. Death certainly doesn't benefit the individual but instead serves the species as a whole. Extinction performs the same function on a broader scale. The parallels between ontogenesis and phylogenesis are amazing if you stop to think about them. -ds Raevmo

"But what I would consider a legitimate claim of homosexuality among animals would be males who are indifferent to ovulating females, who not only mount but penetrate and have orgasm with other males while declining to bother said ready and willing females. Or females that, while ovulating, reject males and perhaps try to gain sexual satisfaction with other females."

That appears to be quite rare indeed, but does happen occasionally. For example, among king penguins some birds prefer same-sex mates even when unpaired birds of the opposite sex are available. There are more examples in "Biological Exuberance - Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity" by Bruce Bagemihl (1999), or so I'm told. Of course I didn't read the book myself. Come on.

Sure. Studies of rats in situations of overpopulation found that the number of individuals engaging in homosexual behavior greatly increases. It's a population control mechanism IMO. It has to be. Otherwise why would it still be around when it's the very definition of a trait that produces fewer offspring. If ever there was something that natural selection should quickly select out of a population it's a trait for preferring sex with partners where offspring are not possible. So it must be a species survival trait. Some individuals "take one for the team" as it were by not reproducing so the next generation is better matched to the food supply and is overall a healthier population. Not that I'm saying gays and lesbians are rats that would be better off not breeding. They're actually heroic individuals sacrificing their own genetic line so that related lines have a better chance of survival. Just keep in mind that while homosexuality has a genetic origin so too does homophobia. Gay haters are driven by nature just as much as gays themselves. Homosexuality unchecked would quickly kill a species so there has to be some powerful checks in place to make sure it doesn't become a dominant trait. Kind of unfortunate but mother nature can be a cruel mistress. -ds Raevmo
My last post sort of got cut in half, so here is the link to Bailey's website. http://www.psych.northwestern.edu/psych/people/faculty/bailey/research.html A link to his "most recent twin study" (the paper I quoted in my previous post) can be found at the bottom of the page. And finally, it seems that the concordance in the previous twin studies was higher due to sample bias. Instead of advertising in gay periodicles etc he picked a more "random" sample out of an Austrilian town registry for this most recent study. He even admits as much in the paper.. "This suggests that concordances from prior studies were inflated because of concordance-dependent ascertainment bias ( ).In those studies, twins deciding whether to participate in a study clearly related to homosexuality probably considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate. In contrast, both the more general focus of our study (i.e., on sexuality in general) and its anonymous response format made such considerations less likely. Kendler & Eaves, 1989" eldinus
Michael7 wrote... "Actually, its a perfect topic for ID vs Evolution and I’d be curious to see what evolutionist thoughts are on the topic of homosexual genes and how RM/NS accounts for such behavior. If its a beneficial trait and if not, why is it still a part of behavior? What in the genome accounts for it?" In the most recent twin study conducted by J Michael Bailey, they surveyed 27 pairs of monozygotic male twins where atleast one sibling per pair was gay. Only in 3 pairs were both twin siblings homosexual out of the total 27 pairs (20% prob and wise concordance). This would suggest that genetics aren't playing a significant role in their orientation considering the genetic similarity between monozygotic twins. Here is a link and quote from Bailey's most recent twin study paper... "The most striking difference between our results and those of past twin studies of sexual orientation concerns the probandwise concordance rates. In a recent review the lowest concordances for single-sex MZ samples were 47% and 48%, for men and women, respectively ( ). In contrast, our MZ concordances were 20% and 24%, respectively, for the strict criterion that is most similar to those used in prior studies. These rates are significantly lower than the respective rates for the two largest prior twin studies of sexual orientation: for men, 52% ( ), [chi] (1, = 550) = 8.2, eldinus
I've heard the claim that homosexuality is quite common behavior among animals. I do agree that there can be a significant amount of sex play and sexual dominance games, such as males mounting males. But what I would consider a legitimate claim of homosexuality among animals would be males who are indifferent to ovulating females, who not only mount but penetrate and have orgasm with other males while declining to bother said ready and willing females. Or females that, while ovulating, reject males and perhaps try to gain sexual satisfaction with other females. avocationist
Is homosexuality relevant to ID? It is actually quite common behavior among animals. Raevmo
ds wrote:
The indignation by parents that they would attempt such a thing is justified and there's nothing hyperbolic about being alarmed by it.
I thought I made it very clear that I am opposed to this. But I am no more alarmed than I am to hear that the ACLU is against prayer in the public schools. There is not much new here. This is a revised version of a resolution that the NEA first formed over a decade ago and it is not even the most egregious of their many and varied pronouncements. Despite the NEA's unfortunate influence in Washington, local schools are still largely under local control and I seriously doubt that anyone around here will be teaching any time soon that marriage between "two women and three men" is a good thing. Hyperbole is a figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect and I am questioning its effectiveness and appropriateness here. I think the text above is on the same level as the evo's claims that ID'ers want to destroy science and institute a theocracy in America. Such overblown rhetoric on both sides may be good at whipping the masses into a froth but I would suggest that it has little to contribute to reasoned discourse. sagebrush gardener
Actually, its a perfect topic for ID vs Evolution and I'd be curious to see what evolutionist thoughts are on the topic of homosexual genes and how RM/NS accounts for such behavior. If its a beneficial trait and if not, why is it still a part of behavior? What in the genome accounts for it? The cartoons and satire are endless on this subject, but I'll try to refrain. Michaels7
"Seed magazine just published an article saying that there is 450 animal species that can behave homosexually. Thus it's natural to have these inclinations, though by Rand we have a choice in it because we're volitional creatures. Imagine that... Instead of focusing on sexual selection hyperDarwinists should be studying Darwinism's lack of empirical evidence, how it's more a philosophy than science, and why ID will become the next paradigm. A Darwinist might look at the general theory of evo in terms of Aristotle's metaphysics. All animals have a common ancestry so one should be able to observe classification in the animal kingdom.(observation of causal events>hypo-deductive theory(H--D)>test>draw conclusions??????) Classification is a consequential condition arising from a test? It's not even science, worse it's bad philosophy. A Darwinist would be kicked out of the Lyceaum day one. idadvisors
Follow the money. NEA is one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, and also one of the largest democratic PACs. They are solidifying their base and seeking political contributions from a very wealthy segment of society. chunkdz
"Please don’t blame this on evolution. NDE would have eliminated any putative “gay genes” out of the gene pool a long time ago. NDE wouldn’t be sympathetic to any individuals that can’t reproduce. NDE doesn’t see any value to the species or society as a whole for individuals who can’t contribute to the gene pool. Comment by teleologist — June 20, 2006 @ 12:54 pm" Good point, teleologist! What evolution actually produces is not gays, lesbians and pro-abortion, family planning feminists, but large families of evangelical, homeschooling, conservative Christians who believe the biblical declaration that "children are a gift from God": http://www.duggarfamily.com/ ;) russ
This is only a fine example of how evolution, whether biological or social, is better at going down hill than at going up.
Please don’t blame this on evolution. NDE would have eliminated any putative “gay genes” out of the gene pool a long time ago. NDE wouldn’t be sympathetic to any individuals that can’t reproduce. NDE doesn’t see any value to the species or society as a whole for individuals who can’t contribute to the gene pool. teleologist

This site is clearly not about Science but rather about promoting a Conservative social agenda. Not arguing about those things, more power to ya! But, please stop pretending that you are discussing science. Be honest. It is clear that the people writing this "stuff" don't even believe what they are saying -- it is rhetorical "point making" at its worst.

Take the supposedly scientific comment about (I paraphrase) "signal to noise ratios and inablilty to pass on info to the genome." Oh, come on -- in Natural Selection??? There is no message to the genome about survivability? Are you confused or just a liar? And Natural selection isn't about the 'best' winning out, sometimes it is the worst! The precursor of what may have turned out to be the best may have lived on the side of a volcano that blew up, killing them all. I associate more and more, religious fundamentalim (Christian, Hindu, Muslim, whatever) with using any information as a cudgle in a vain attempt to keep their power. This is power/talk rhetoric on this site.

PS - On further reading, I see that resolution B-8, "Diversity", is much less inflammatory than resolution B-10 on "Racism, Sexism, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identification Discrimination". They should read that if they are looking for something to get worked up about. I guess B-8 is news because they are voting on a revision this year. sagebrush gardener

This does have some basis in truth. As pointed out by kjk, the actual resolution (which is a revision of an existing resolution) can be found here.

But if you compare this to the original 1995 version, which can be found here, it seems the new resolution is actually toned down considerably from what it used to be.

The original resolution called for:

a. Accurate portrayal of the roles and contributions of gay,
lesbian, and bisexual people throughout history, with
acknowledgment of their sexual orientation.

b. The acceptance of diverse sexual orientation and the awareness
of sexual stereotyping whenever sexuality and/or tolerance of
diversity is taught.

c. Elimination of sexual orientation name-calling and jokes in
the classroom.

d. Support for the celebration of a Lesbian and Gay History Month
as a means of acknowledging the contributions of lesbians, gays,
and bisexuals throughout history.

I'm against either version but I question whether this indignant and alarmist hyperbole really helps the conservative cause.

Public school is not meant to be a place to indoctrinate children with the socio-religious cultural mores of a majority of NEA members. The indignation by parents that they would attempt such a thing is justified and there's nothing hyperbolic about being alarmed by it. Buy a clue. -ds sagebrush gardener
In the last year or two I have received 15-20 emails that contained virulent anti-liberal content which when researched proved false or distorted. There seems to be an industry out there that generates these messages on both sides of the political spectrum with the objective of getting your blood to boil over untrue assertions. You should hear the nonsense my very liberal friends tell me when we ever get together. If in fact the NEA has made this endorsement then it would be a fantastic gift to the Republicans. It would be a gift in the sense they are the first or second biggest contributor to the Democratic Party and the blowback would be substantial. You want to see motivation to vote, then this would be it. There was another article that is more relevant to this site that appeared last week in the Boston Globe (nothing to do with this particular issue) but which announced that a platform of the Democrat party was to ensure the teaching of evolution in the schools. Here is the first part of the news article: "New Direction for America' platform June 15, 2006 Negotiate lower prescription-drug prices with pharmaceutical companies for Medicare's drug program. Fund stem cell research, increase access to healthcare. Increase science research, ensure the teaching of evolution, increase funding for community colleges. Cut student-loan interest rates by half." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/06/15/new_direction_for_america_platform/ However, I have been unable to find anything else on the internet that confirms this. jerry
Apologies all - I read too quickly (and my first post too...). The second quoted paragraph in Dr Dembski's post, regarding immigration, adoption, marriage etc is not in B-8 after all. The middle paragraphs are: "The Association also believes that education should foster the values of appreciation and acceptance of the various qualities that pertain to people as individuals and as members of diverse populations." "The Association further believes in the importance of observances, programs, and curricula that accurately portray and recognize the roles, contributions, cultures, and history of these diverse groups and individuals." Again, sorry about that. kjk
Here is the link to the current (adopted in 2005) resolutions document. I have not seen any of the current proposals. http://www.nea.org/handbook/images/resolutions.pdf the wonderer
Oh, fer cryin' out loud. “It almost seems like this is an internet hoax.” No doubt. Where are the hordes of people calling for marriage between two men and one woman? Or two women and three men? This does remind me, though, of a letter to the editor of the LA Times, right after the election of Gene Robinson as Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. Reader Owen Keavney wrote: "The actions taken by the New Hampshire Episcopalians are an affront to Christians everywhere. I am just thankful that the church's founder, Henry VIII, and his wife Catherine of Aragon, his wife Anne Boleyn, his wife Jane Seymour, his wife Anne of Cleves, his wife Catherine Howard and his wife Catherine Parr are no longer here to suffer through this assault on our 'traditional Christian marriage.'" Lutepisc
I am perhaps too dull this morning to understand how this might relate to textbooks and ID. Help... tinabrewer
"It almost seems like this is an internet hoax." As a Candadian, a member of one of the first "progressive" nations that has legalized gay marriage, I assure you that pretending that this mindset is no hoax. This is only a fine example of how evolution, whether biological or social, is better at going down hill than at going up. bFast
For what its worth, the quoted resolution B-8 appears to have been passed in 1995 then endorsed and/or revised in 2002. It is four paragraphs long, and starts with: "The National Education Association believes that a diverse society enriches all individuals. Similarities and differences among races, ethnicity, color, national origin, language, geographic location, religion, gender, sexual orientation/gender identification, age, physical ability, size, occupation, and marital, parental, or economic status form the fabric of a society." Then come the bulleted paragraphs in Dr Dembski's post, followed by the last paragraph: "The Association encourages affiliates and members to become part of programs and observances that may include cultural and heritage celebrations and/or history months." (see http://www2.nea.org/he/resolutions/heres-B8.html. I googled "B-8 Diversity", this was the first hit). kjk
It sounds too absurd to be true, and has the ring of a hoax, which makes me suspect that it is. I'd recommend folks make sure it's legit before getting too worked up. Deuce
When I bring these topics to my wife's attention, she often comments that just because the NEA advocates something does not mean it actually becomes something that teachers have to teach. E.g. they are a teacher's union, but they do not write and determine the curriculum. I wonder if anyone has discovered a cause-effect relationship between teacher's union positions and the school curriculum that is eventually taught. rmagruder
Tarring and feathering would make a comeback in the Round Rock ISD if any faculty tried to promote homosexuality in any manner. It almost seems like this is an internet hoax but sometimes my imagination fails me when it comes to imagining how misguided other parts of the nation can be. It isn't happening in Texas, of that you can be sure. On a lighter note. Speak of the devil: the Google Smart Ad under this post is now displaying an ad for gay and lesbian wedding rings. :roll: DaveScot
"How on earth do you ‘promote’ homosexual marriage in schools?" Let's see, you give the first graders a reader called "Dick and James". You bring in a guest "couple" to answer questions for the kids. How many ways can be thought of without trying? bFast
I’m interested in this because of what it may signify for textbooks related to ID. What does the NEA endorsing gay marriage have to do with textbooks related to ID? mjb99
Sickening... Dan
First you normalize it . . . TomG
How on earth do you 'promote' homosexual marriage in schools? Chris Hyland

Leave a Reply