Group behind homosexual "day of silence" could expose schools to legal trouble

I made mention of the group GLSEN in my last post (which I jokingly referred to as the Gay Lesbian and Straight MisEducation Network).  With their annual "day of silence" coming up this Friday, today seems like a good day to expose GLSEN's true intentions for Indiana's vulnerable youth.  The Citizens for Community Values (IFI's counterpart in Ohio) has put together an excellent document which highlights the dangerous agenda of GLSEN and the legal liability issues that GLSEN's miseducation campaign could have on schools.  I am posting an excerpt below, but I highly encourage anyone who works in the field of education or has school age children to read the entire document. 

As I studied GLSEN's website and the different materials they offer to students, I was particularly interested in the document explaining how students can develop, "youth-adult partnerships."  This document seems to make a concerted effort to help confuse students as to the distinctions between being a "youth" or an "adult."  They claim that GLSEN considers a youth to be a k-12 student, yet they proceed to call attention to other "cultures, traditions and situations" in which youth as young as 13 are considered to be adults.  This seems to fall right in line with the liability issues CCV highlights below:

Schools Exposed to Civil Liability

Implied approval of child-adult sexual relationships is a frequent and usually positive theme in resources recommended by GLSEN and PFLAG. Beyond the fact that these liaisons often constitute criminal activity for which the adults could be prosecuted, the civil lawsuits schools could face are daunting.

One has only to look to the numerous claims recently made against the Catholic Church for its various roles in sexual abuse scandals involving priests to see the liability schools could face in similar situations. Out-of-court settlements paid for past offenses have totaled in the multiple millions of dollars thus far. It should be noted that a major component of this litigation has focused on the negligent failure of the church hierarchy to protect children from known risks.

It is difficult, if not impossible, for school officials to know whether the adults who want access to the children on their campuses have criminal intentions. But if those adults state their intentions in writing up front – in books and brochures approving of child-adult sex – school officials have a responsibility to keep them at a distance. Failure to do so when the school is aware of the potential danger will very likely result in culpability.

Based on the critical review of the resources provided to young people by groups like GLSEN and PFLAG, Harvey states,

School officials should be aware that many homosexual support groups for teens and their parents believe that sex between a young person and an adult is just an expected part of the growing up process. Numerous stories and episodes of adult-teen homosexual sex are found within the resources of these groups. Incidents are treated at times in a neutral fashion, or too often, in a positive light, as if such abusive relationships are natural, normal, and even an advantageous ‘coming of age’ step in the lives of ‘gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered’ youth.

Hat tip:  Patrick Mangan

Comments

[Don Sherfick]

Rayn, the basic thrust underlying the message of the "excellent document" from your sister organization in Ohio is that in the end, homosexuals are child molestors. Some time ago I asked Kurt Luidhardt if he believed that, and he replied that he didn't. Is he out of step with what VR appears to be promulgating?

[Ryan McCann]

Don,

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm not promoting materials that glorify inappropriate relationships between students and adults...GLSEN is.

[Micah Clark]

Don,

You should read the entire CCV liability documents. It goes far beyond underage homosexual sex. It addresses the numerous health, psychological and other risk factors associated with that behavior choice. It questions if schools could ever be liable for encouraging such behaviors among minors in the same way, for example, that tobacco lawsuits have been considered.

It is a thought provoking consideration in our highly litigious society where anyone can sue for any reason.