Australian Family Association
The homosexual “anti-bullying” program for schools: an unconscionable strategem. - (AFA Journal Vol.32 No.2 2011 )
Rabbi Dr Shimon Cowen
Our society and societies around the world are in the grip of a major social struggle over whether society will accept and teach homosexual behaviour as normative – that is, to establish homosexual behaviour as culturally normative, like heterosexual sexual activity between married persons. The prohibition of homosexual behaviour goes back to the dawn of civilization and was reiterated at Sinai and is upheld by the great world religious traditions. The struggle is not only a struggle of ideas and values. It is a struggle for the practical legitimation of homosexual behaviour by legislation, judicial precedent and institutional regulation. The goal of its proponents is to make it not only normative, but an expression of the inherent dignity of the human being, to be reinforced by the punitive sanctions of the state, and taught in public and private institutions.
There is a great deal of sleight of hand in one of the more recent stratagems to bring this about. This is a movement which, in the name or pretext of preventing the bullying of school children with homosexual behaviours, is seeking to legitimate homosexual behaviour in the earliest stages of child education in public and private schools. The movement has found its way past Government ministries, press and public without being clearly noticed for what it is, as I shall argue in this paper: (1) unethical (2) unconstitutional (3) professionally fraudulent and (4) scientifically spurious. Its protagonists, however, have been willing to sacrifice integrity on all these counts in order to achieve a tactical goal: the teaching and validation of homosexual behaviour at the early stages of child education.
The ethics of the program
Whilst to all good and reasonable persons, it is totally and unmistakably clear that the bullying of a child on any grounds is reprehensible and must be stopped, this must be radically separated from the moral agenda of the homosexual “anti-bullying” program for schools. This program, which goes under many names, has the primary goal to teach, as mentioned above, that homosexual activity is normative alongside heterosexual activity.
As the result of a doctrinal putsch in the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, followed by the American Psychological Association in 1975, the human being was redrawn, and what was formerly understood to be an abnormal behaviour – homosexuality – became normal and co-normative with heterosexual behaviour. Since then defence of homosexual behaviour has become a pillar of political correctness. In terms reminiscent of the Stalinist placement of political dissidents into psychiatric hospitals, opposition to homosexual behaviour, not – as held by civilization for thousands of years – homosexual behaviour itself, has become an illness. It is called homophobia.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines a “phobia” as a “persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation...” In truth, popular parlance has mutated this use of the word “phobia” – which means “fear” – so that it now also connotes “hatred”. This is evident in the current stratagem, which focuses on bullying homosexually inclined children. The twin stratagem of the homosexual movement in the adult sphere was to protect what it regards as the inherent and unalienable dignity of homosexual behaviour, by defining a physical attack on a homosexual victim as a “hate” crime, requiring an extra penalty in addition to the penalty for the offense of assault itself. The implication is that bullies and louts are not afraid of their victims, they hate them. So opponents of homosexual behaviour are purported to be parties to bullying and hatred: their irrational “fear” has become an irrational “hatred”.
This paper speaks from the standpoint of the world faiths which acknowledge and accept both the Abrahamic precepts and the revelation at Sinai, at which the Ten Commandments – the core of the Bible – were given. That teaching understands every human being to be made in the image of G-d. What this means is that the human being has a soul, which is alive to the Divine and has a spark of the Divine. It is the mirror of G-d in the human being. It possesses in microcosm, the Divine attributes, and resonates with the basic values and norms which those attributes translate into proper conduct. These norms find their concrete expression in the shared basic laws of ethical human conduct, namely “Noahide” laws (after the name of Noah, the father of all humanity). They were practised by Abraham, father of the great world religions, and reiterated at Sinai.
The Abrahamic religious tradition respects the Divine image, the soul, in every human being and deplores violence against the physical body of the person, the bearer of that soul, unless there are specific grounds for it (such as in self-defence or in proper punishments of the State). The religious tradition knows the human soul is encased in a body, which is driven by many and diverse impulses and instincts. The soul – called by some the “conscience” of the human being – is the highest and the sovereign power within the person. It is not driven. Its task is rather to inform intellect how to discern amongst the many physical and emotional impulses in the human being: to say which are unacceptable and to check them; to say which are acceptable, and which need refinement and transformation. The person is a body, mind and soul (or conscience). The essential, spiritual person must muster and marshal body and mind to its directives.
A fundamental department of human ethical conduct has to do with sexual behaviour. Since Noah, Abraham and the revelation at Sinai (which took place over 3000 years ago), four categories of sexual behaviour have been prohibited: adultery, homosexuality, bestiality and incest. This paper is not here to present “reasons” for which each of these should be prohibited. The Creator, who fashioned the human being, excluded each of these as antithetical to the Divine image in the human being. He made the human being and he made laws for the actualisation of the human being in the Divine image. Accordingly man, in the Biblical verse, was enjoined “to leave his mother and father and cleave to his wife and become one flesh” (Gen 2.24; Mt 19.5; Eph 5.31). That one flesh is the child which expresses the union of husband and wife, and only the unions which can (theoretically at least) produce a child in a committed relationship are the Divinely sanctioned ones: not the union with another man’s wife, not the union of two men or two women, not the union of a human and an animal, and not the union of a human with (specifically defined) close relatives.
A human being is capable of impulses which run contrary to moral imperatives. Education and personal development have to do with checking, arbitrating and, where relevant, transforming impulse. However, it is a profoundly materialistic philosophy which says that the impulse is the person. Rather in the words of Viktor Frankl, the human being exists primarily in the heights of the human being, in the human spirit. This spirit is not ruled by impulse; it is the authentic “I” of the human being. A person can have homosexual impulses, adulterous impulses, incestuous impulses and bestial impulses. None of these make him or her a homosexual, an adulterer, incestuous or bestial, unless he or she chooses to act on that impulse. A thief is a person who steals, not a person who is merely tempted or who has a “drive” to steal. The human soul is not homosexual, adulterous, incestuous or bestial. It is free of all of these and knows all of these to be abnormalities by its own Divine template. The commonness or the intensity of drives which are contrary to a Divinely mandated morality do not sanitize or “sanctify” them. However common the “Oedipus complex” might be in childhood development, it cannot warrant incest as a moral permission. However common bestiality might be – the 1960s editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica tell us that between 40 and 50 per cent of boys growing up on farms in some parts of America have had sexual relations with animals – that will not constitute a moral permission for bestiality. However common the phenomenon of adultery – touted especially by the “celebrity” magazines – might be, that will not produce grounds for legitimating adultery. And however common or strong homosexual impulses may be in certain individuals, that will not make homosexual practice permissible.
The “audit” put out by the Safe Schools Coalition Victoria, which seeks to determine whether a school is safe against homosexual bullying, asks whether “diverse sexualities” are “celebrated” by the school, in its library collection, teaching curriculum and so on. Here, as part of its program, it requires schools to teach (“celebrate”) the acceptability of homosexual behaviour as a norm. By so doing, it flies in the face of over 3000 years of religious and cultural tradition since Sinai. In terms of the world religions and world civilization, it is teaching something which is a moral wrong and fundamentally unethical.
To bring in acceptance of a norm of homosexual behaviour under the rubric of “tolerance” is also false. Tolerance, as Viktor Frankl said, has to do with love and respect for people, not for their views or behaviours. It does not extend to a moral relativism which makes the unethical ethical.
The unconstitutionality of the homosexual school program
The doctrine of the separation of religion and state in the Australian and American constitutions provides that the State shall not establish a religion. It does not mean that religious values are prohibited expression in the public sphere. The State and public institutions may not of themselves prescribe (require) specific religious values and beliefs or proscribe (exclude) them. That is a restriction of religious liberty. Private institutions may wholly reflect the values of their constituencies. The “battle” of ideas and values is in the public square. Where generally the public square has a religious character, this may be reflected in its institutions, as evident in the prayers with which Parliament begins. This is not strange in a society in which 70 per cent of the population, according to the last census, identify with a traditional religion. Nevertheless, the State may neither prescribe nor proscribe religious expression, and individuals are therefore not compelled to participate in the prayers.
For the agents of the state and its institutions to prescribe values which negate religious belief, and for them to do so coercively, would be a contradiction to the constitutional doctrine of this country. Yet this is what the homosexual anti-bullying school program seeks to do. The explanation of this proceeds in two steps: (1) the teaching of this movement is essentially anti-traditional-religion and (2) it seeks to commandeer institutions of the state and impose this anti-traditional-religion upon the will and values of the citizens of this country.
Whilst there are those who have sought to validate homosexual practice, whilst professing a religious viewpoint, their religion is not traditional religion. Traditional religion carries forward an ancient tradition, which generally in the case of the Abrahamic religions, has its authoritative beginnings at Sinai, at which the Ten Commandments were given. Traditional religion goes back to revelation, it receives and spiritually ratifies, generation after generation, a morality given by G-d, not shifting values originated by humans amidst the currents of history. The template of traditional religion is that of universal ethics, common denominator values, which are objective and eternal, which resonate in the soul of the human being, because the soul of the human being was made in the image of the one eternal G-d. To employ an adage, “Fundamental values make society, it is not society which makes fundamental values”. Amongst the fundamental values, received through religious tradition, is the heterosexual norm within the bond of marriage.
The materialism of many proponents of the modern movement which drives to legitimate homosexual behaviour is a hedonistic materialism. Not the dialectical materialism of Communism, but the hedonistic materialism, which melds the instinct-based psychologism of Freud with its materialism. This is a view of the human being as a higher animal in the sentient commonwealth of nature with a program of instinctual gratification for all. It has driven out G-d from nature (including the small G-d – the soul – in the human being), and made animal nature, both in humanity and in the rest of nature, its absolute. Without the soul fixed on G-d to monitor human conduct according to an objective and universal morality, hedonistic materialism provides for the gratification of polymorphous and polymorphing instinct. The gratification of homosexual impulse is thus part of its ethic.
Acceptance of homosexual practice as an ethical norm of hedonistic materialism, according to the doctrine of the separation of religion and state, could not be a required teaching and code of state institutions. It would negate and proscribe religious beliefs. Nevertheless, the homosexual anti-bullying program requires a school to teach every child in the school acceptance of homosexual practice as co-normative with heterosexual practice. The approach is identical to the stratagem of “hate crime legislation”. Legislation and the courts must, according to proposed “hate crime legislation”, enshrine the principle that a crime committed with the extra factor of animosity towards homosexuality must incur an additional penalty, to teach society that homosexual behaviour is an element of the dignity and integrity of the human being. The right to homosexual practice thereby becomes encoded as a universal principle on a par with equality of all peoples, regardless of race. The problem here is that civilization endorses the equality of all humans in that they are all made in the image of G-d, with the same spiritual potentiality. It does not endorse homosexual behaviour, but a sleight of hand – a cultural manoeuvre – has tried to sanctify it.
The homosexual school program seeks coercively to impose its proscription (negation) of religious beliefs on an entire school population. The notion that every child in a school, of which a great many come from religious backgrounds which prohibit homosexual behaviour, must be taught in the school from infancy that homosexual behaviour is equally normative is coercive. State institutions – state schools – are being required by it to teach values, which override and negate the teachings of the traditional world religions and so infringe religious liberty, the liberty of the adherents of the traditional world religions. As such a hedonistic materialism is operating by fiat of the state and its public institutions – to indoctrinate all students with its own values. Proposed American congressional legislation of exactly the same kind – “The Safe Schools Improvement Act” – threatens to withhold state funding from schools in which bullying of homosexually disposed children occurs with the implicit requirement that school must teach the acceptability of homosexual behaviour to meet the grade and receive continued funding.
Not only does this practice of inculcating a specific norm into all students, contrary to the religious principles of very many Australians, violate religious liberty under the separation of religion and state. It is also a violation of international rights as set up in instruments of the United Nations. Specifically it is in violation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which in article 14 states:
1. States Parties shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
2. States Parties shall respect the rights and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.
3. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.
The homosexual school program, with its indoctrination of acceptability of homosexual practice from early child education violates every one of these articles, each of which entitles a child coming from a home in which religious belief prohibits homosexual behaviour, to preserve that belief. This includes the adherents of the great world religions for whom homosexual practice has also been prohibited.
The professional and psychological impropriety of the program
Setting aside the unethical and unconstitutional aspects of the program, there are several grounds on which the actual methodology of the project to stop bullying of children manifesting homosexual inclinations is either misguided or generative of fresh harm. These have to do with (1) the question of psychological validity of the program to combat bullying (2) the appeal to children to identify and confirm their sexual orientation and (3) the very focus of the program on sexuality and sexual behaviour of children itself.
Evelyn Field is one of the primary experts on dealing with bullying in schools (and other contexts), both here in Australia, and possibly also internationally. She has written books on the subject and also has a website (bullying.com.au). On a radio program which I hosted, she stated that the method of dealing with bullying of any kind is not to engage the issue which is the pretext for the bullying. If a child is being bullied because he or she is obese, there is no need to engage the bully or the school environment with a discussion of obesity, let alone to extol it. There is a methodology for “blocking” the bully. The methodology is not to engage in the issue for which the bully is bullying; not to get involved in the pretext or the subject of the bullying. If one teaches a child how to “block” a bully it doesn’t matter what the bully is saying or attacking, and the same bully-blocking strategy applies.
In a nutshell, if a child is being bullied because he or she is fat, the way to block the bully is to take the “wind out of his or her sails”, it is not necessarily to take up the pretext upon which the child is being bullied. By extrapolation from Ms Field’s words, if a child were being bullied because he or she had stolen items, the remedy would not necessarily be to take up the issue of theft. Bullying is something which is independent of the “cause” in which it is pursued. It is reprehensible in and of itself. It might be added that children can bully out of cruel and vindictive grounds. They could also bully out of morally defensive grounds – such as taunting a child who had a pattern of theft. The taunting and the bullying would be wrong. The grounds might have a moral content. Our civilization of thousands of years does not regard homosexual practice as normative, but as a moral wrong. The opposition to homosexual behaviour and the revulsion experienced against it has a moral basis. Violence, taunting and bullying does not. This further brings out the point, that the issue over which the bullying occurs is not relevant to the very act of bullying, and the attempt to connect the two can backfire on the blocking of bullying. It could wrongly be used to “justify” the bullying of a child who (and because he or she) steals.
However, the homosexual anti-bullying program, having violated this methodological principle, goes on to create circumstances of actual harm. By calling on children to identify themselves sexually at young age (to lock themselves into a sexual identity in early or pre-adolescence), they seize upon an as yet fluid and unformed sexual identity. There are cases where peer groups have labelled a child as homosexual, and the child has taken on the identity, only later to cast it off later amidst much suffering and much bad experience, when the child finally socializes into a normative heterosexual role. However, here it is not peers but social workers and academics who are working to freeze a child into a sexual identity – an explicitly homosexual identity at a young age. The New York Times, with its program of adolescents “coming out”, publicizes the manifestos of young children about their supposed homosexuality. The active acculturation of children – in an extremely fluid stage of their personal identity – into homosexuality is a profoundly disreputable professional practice.
The effect of this program is to cultivate homosexuality within a wide range of children who in the course of time and with the support of traditional values, could readily emerge from identity-uncertainty into traditional heterosexual roles. The American Pediatric Association (quoted below) notes that while up to 26 per cent of young children experience sexual identity uncertainty, only 2 to 3 per cent of the adult population settle into homosexual practices. This means that the homosexual school program potentially works to encourage the remaining 23 to 24 per cent to the position that homosexual lifestyles are an acceptable option. The present program, working upon the fluid sexual identity of children, can only be to cultivate and extend homosexual conduct amongst many children who would otherwise be socialized into normal heterosexual conduct.
There is finally the question of why there should be so much talk about sexuality in a curriculum, whether hetero- or homosexuality. Is this not itself an incitement or encouragement to sexual activity at an age at which it is wholly inappropriate? This is a highly sexualised society. No kind of sexual activity should be suggested or encouraged at the onset of puberty and adolescence. The present program is a contribution to the hyper-sexualization of society, starting with children. This is morally wrong; it is ostensibly bad for children’s own development and it can lead to pregnancies and feeds into a culture of abortion. It detaches moral responsibility and commitment from sexuality, since children at this age are clearly incapable and are not legally permitted to form committed relationships. It essentially pressures children into sexuality at an age where they are not psychologically or legally ready for it. It teaches sexual activity outside maturity and commitment. In short it is a driver to promiscuity, which has in certain countries taken the form of “educating” children in explicit homosexual devices and practices.
No legitimacy can be extended to this program “professionally” by the fact that university departments are involved with the program. University faculties and individual academics have ideological commitments like anyone else. It appears that the decision to continue the homosexual anti-bullying program of the “Safe School Coalition Victoria”, as well as the program’s continued funding, rests on an evaluation by Latrobe University’s Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. How can a body which is in partnership with the Safe School Coalition Victoria, and which itself ostensibly benefits from the same funding, be expected to provide an objective analysis? The “evaluation” must come also from bodies which do not have the university’s value pre-commitments.
The “science” and statistics of the program
In Victoria, it would appear that the Minister was moved to continue funding for the Safe Schools Coalition Victoria, through the persuasion of an MP who is reported in the Parliamentary record, Hansard, to have said:
I implore the minister to look at the figures on youth suicide and self-harm and to recognise that these kids struggling with sexual identity are overrepresented in these statistics. A staggering 25 per cent of 15-to-24-year-old gay and lesbian kids have suicidal thoughts, and 80 per cent of bullying behaviour of gay and lesbian kids occurs in schools.
The prompts to introduce the homosexual anti-bullying program are (a) the incidence (though this is unspecified) of bullying of homosexually inclined children (b) the presence of suicidal thoughts in children with homosexual tendencies and (c) the imputed association of bullying with the suicidal thoughts.
Whilst fully condemning the bullying of any child whether on grounds of obesity or homosexual behaviours or any other reason, let us look at the statement made in Parliament. First no absolute figures of bullying of homosexually inclined children are given. Undoubtedly there are some, but no absolute numbers are given, on the basis of which a universal program is mooted to teach the normativity of homosexual practice is schools. The same question arises in the comparable stratagem to introduce extra penalties for assaults on homosexuals under proposed “hate-crime” augmented penalties. What are the absolute figures of the instance? Again this will not be to exonerate or deny actual instances of violence, but we need to know the extent of the phenomenon for which such global “remedies” are proposed.
Secondly, the 25 per cent of homosexual persons with suicidal thoughts quoted refers to “kids between the ages of 15 to 24”. Within this bracket the only years relevant to a school population are the ages 15 to 18, and we are not told what percentage of this bracket have suicidal thoughts. Moreover the school program is also geared to children who are well beneath the age of 15. They may not have suicidal thoughts but they are, under the program, subjected to intensive homosexual acculturation programs.
The third question on the statistics: why do these children or young adults, with sexual identity confusion or homosexual leanings, have suicidal thoughts? Is it because of bullying or because of the essential malaise of confused identity? The president of the American College of Paediatricians has written:
Bullying has been linked to various negative outcomes among students; however, a direct link to suicide is less clear. Suicide most often occurs as a culmination of long term internal struggle and unrest. It is an irrational act of desperation that is often associated with the presence of long standing mental illness, depression, substance abuse, and isolation in its victims. More than 90 per cent of adolescent suicide victims met criteria for a psychiatric disorder before their death. Even suicide victim advocates caution the media against portraying bullying as the “cause” of suicide, stating that it ignores “the underlying mental illness issues that are present in 90 per cent of the people who die by suicide.” Some advocates for those expressing alternate sexual identities also caution against the claim “that bullying caused someone to die by suicide.” Their concern is that by oversimplifying an association, individuals sympathetic to a cause or group may commit copycat acts of suicide.2
Again to point out that 80 per cent of bullying of homosexuals goes on at schools does not contribute to the argument. Presumably 80 per cent or something of that order of bullying on all accounts and for all sorts of pretexts goes on at school. But if bullying is not essentially relevant to suicidal thoughts, then the “80 per cent” cannot be grounds to propel a global program of affirmation of homosexual practice in schools.
A fundamental tenet of the “science” of the homosexual movement is that homosexuality is “hardwired” into a segment of the population. From a religious standpoint, if a person felt an overwhelming homosexual impulse of the deepest nature, that would be viewed with compassion but it would not constitute permission to indulge homosexual activity in practice. It is an abnormality, which as far as possible should be treated. However, there is a wide spectrum of children and persons who experience sexual identity confusion and can yet prevail upon themselves to accept what for the world religious cultures is the normative model of heterosexual behaviour. The homosexual lobby has a stake in rejecting therapy and the idea that humans can change and take control of their impulses. Paradoxically, it can be argued, their attempt to block this change and drive children deeper into malaise is the potential cause of great suffering. Those who insist that a child is homosexual and should embrace a homosexual lifestyle can compound the psychological malaise. They compound an illness. The following is a letter from the President of the American College of Pediatricians, Tom Benton, to American School Superintendents on March 31, 2010
Dear School Superintendent,
The American College of Pediatricians shares with you, your staff, parents, and other professional organizations the common goal of providing a healthful environment for your students. We are increasingly concerned, however, that in many cases efforts to help students who exhibit same-sex attractions and/or gender confusion are based on incomplete or inaccurate information...
Adolescence is a time of upheaval and impermanence. Adolescents experience confusion about many things, including sexual orientation and gender identity, and they are particularly vulnerable to environmental influences.
Rigorous studies demonstrate that most adolescents who initially experience same-sex attraction, or are sexually confused, no longer experience such attractions by age 25... the majority of sexually-questioning youth ultimately adopt a heterosexual identity.
Even children with Gender Identity Disorder (when a child desires to be the opposite sex) will typically lose this desire by puberty, if the behavior is not reinforced. Researchers, Zucker and Bradley, also maintain that when parents or others allow or encourage a child to behave and be treated as the opposite sex, the confusion is reinforced and the child is conditioned for a life of unnecessary pain and suffering. Even when motivated by noble intentions, schools can ironically play a detrimental role if they reinforce this disorder.
In dealing with adolescents experiencing same-sex attraction, it is essential to understand there is no scientific evidence that an individual is born “gay” or “transgender.” Instead, the best available research points to multiple factors – primarily social and familial – that predispose children and adolescents to homosexual attraction and/or gender confusion. It is also critical to understand that these conditions can respond well to therapy. Dr. Francis Collins, former Director of the Genome Project, has stated that while homosexuality may be genetically influenced, it is “… not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations.” He also states [that] “…the prominent role[s] of individual free will choices [has] a profound effect on us.”
The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) recently released a landmark survey and analysis of 125 years of scientific studies and clinical experience dealing with homosexuality. This report, What Research Shows, draws three major conclusions: (1) individuals with unwanted same sex attraction often can be successfully treated; (2) there is no undue risk to patients from embarking on such therapy and (3), as a group, homosexuals experience significantly higher levels of mental and physical health problems compared to heterosexuals.
Among adolescents who claim a “gay” identity, the health risks include higher rates of sexually transmitted infections, alcoholism, substance abuse, anxiety, depression and suicide. Encouragingly, the longer students delay self-labeling as “gay,” the less likely they are to experience these health risks. In fact, for each year an adolescent delays, the risk of suicide alone decreases by 20 per cent.
In light of these facts, it is clear that when well-intentioned but misinformed school personnel encourage students to “come out as gay” and be “affirmed,” there is a serious risk of erroneously labeling students (who may merely be experiencing transient sexual confusion and/or engaging in sexual experimentation). Premature labeling may then lead some adolescents into harmful homosexual behaviors that they otherwise would not pursue.
Optimal health and respect for all students will only be achieved by first respecting the rights of students and parents to accurate information and to self-determination. It is the school’s legitimate role to provide a safe environment for respectful self-expression for all students. It is not the school’s role to diagnose and attempt to treat any student’s medical condition, and certainly not a school’s role to “affirm” a student’s perceived personal sexual orientation.
From the natural fluidity of sexual identity, which arouses doubts in the minds of 26 per cent of 12 year old children, but yet settles statistically to 2-3 per cent of adults, we see the profound danger in the attempt to persuade children of homosexual identity. Not only this – it is the persuasion to identify as homosexual which potentially increases suicidal thoughts. This is evident from the figures; the child is being driven by this program against its most natural identity.
The suggestion here is that the freezing of young children into homosexual identity may be a much greater contributing factor into depression and suicidal thoughts than bullying. The bullying must be stopped, but to use the bullying as a pretext to intensify the illness or confusion disorder is unconscionable. Secondly, and conversely, this movement closes the door on therapy. The difference between 26 per cent and 2-to-3 per cent indicates that therapy could help-out of identity confusion 23 or 24 per cent of those 26 per cent. In some parts of the world there are currently educational systems, running with the homosexual program, which encourage transgender identity in children of kindergarten age. How will this enlarge the present 26 per cent of gender confusion in 12 year-olds before the next step is taken to confirm them into homosexual practice.
The “science” behind the homosexual program for children in schools has gone beyond the putsch in the American Psychiatric Association in 1973, which declassified homosexuality as an abnormality. It seeks now to “grow” homosexuality from early childhood. The new “doctrine” of the human being which got its scientific imprimatur in 1973 has embarked upon a program of qualitative expansion.
Rabbi Dr Shimon Cowen is Founding Director of The Institute for Judaism and Civilization, and is an Associate in the School of Philosophical, Historical and international studies at Monash University. This article is an edited version of a recent address to members and supporters of LifeVote (www.lifevote.org.au).
1 © S. D. Cowen, 2011. Reprinted with the author’s permission.
2 “Bullying at School: Never Acceptable”, American College of Pediatricians, available at .