I think it depends on what we mean by ‘promoting.’ Does Planned Parenthood promote homosexuality as a preferable lifestyle? Probably not. Do they promote it as an acceptable lifestyle? Certainly so.
Personally, I think it’s interesting that people can get so upset over the term ‘pro-homosexual,’ and yet the blatantly inaccurate term ‘homophobic’ is in common use. (In fact, the Planned Parenthood website uses this term rather liberally.) Some people object to homosexuality, rightfully or wrongfully, but is this merely due to a pathological fear of homosexuals? I think that’s a rather untenable position to hold. (Additionally, the term ‘phobia’ is not synonymous with mere fear. It denotes a psychological disorder, and as such, should not be used lightly.)
Anyway, I don’t find pro-homosexual to be a very descriptive phrase, since it seems to be open to interpretation. What about pro-homosexual-rights? That would be a much better description for myself and many others.
Why does this argument remind me of the pro-choice/pro-abortion debate?
Not even then – at least, not in all circumstances. These organizations do believe that childbearing should be best done within a traditional family context. However, most, if not all, of these organizations recognize that it’s better to remain single than to marry the wrong person. So while they may say that getting married is preferable in general, they don’t go so far as to say that everybody with a child MUST get married.
No, they accept the rights of people who are homosexual or bisexual to be who they are. This is not identical to promoting it – as you appear elsewhere in this thread to recognize. But to me it seems worth spelling out.
The term “homosexual lifestyle” always strikes my jitter trigger. I do not consider that I have the same lifestyle as the L.A. kids who frequent singles bars and would not consider entering a church except out of allegiance to a friend who was having some life-transition event (marriage, baptism, funeral) occur there. Likewise, circuit boys and the Lesbian couple affiliated with our church (one attends; the other, who is Jewish, supports us but for obvious reasons doesn’t attend) who believe in celibacy outside marriage, are clearly part of different lifestyles. If the people who use this phrase would say what they mean, which to me seems generally to be “engaging in gay sex acts,” I’d be much happier.
As for “viable lifestyle,” nobody has died from being gay (albeit promiscuity, or having sex with a promiscuous partner, has led to A.I.D.S. in both heterosexuals and homosexuals) – so if it is a “lifestyle” it certainly is a viable one.
If, like pkbites, you mean that you feel it is immoral or personally repulsive to you, that’s an acceptable stance – assuming that you do not then feel that you have a right to regulate the lives of others based on your morality or taste.
But yes, I think that we can concede that Planned Parenthood is pro-gay in the sense you describe. I fail to see what is wrong with that – I much prefer an advocacy group who believes that driving teenagers to suicide is wrong to one who thinks that “true morality” calls for doing so. (Did you note their statistics on teen suicides? There’s a slight error in their definition (“suicides” for “suicide attempts”), but with that corrected they are accurate.
Someone asked for a different link. Again, as BobCos pointed out, I’m not sure if this is the same thing as the OP, since this refers to elementary school kids viewing a play, while the OP is about high school kids in health class.
I suspect that the themes may be similar (prior parental notification with an opt out clause), but perhaps someone else has more details?
Look, this is ridiculous. We’ve already seen examples which demonstrate that ‘pro-’ is not the same as ‘promoting.’ It simply means being on the same side as something, or sympathetic thereto. As for ‘viable lifestyle’, this doesn’t necessarily refer to whether life alone is possible. Rather, the term can be used in reference to the adequacy of such a lifestyle (e.g. morally), as evidenced by the much-used term ‘viable alternative.’
As for whether it’s right to be ‘pro-gay’ or not – that’s beside the point. The OP didn’t claim that being pro-gay was right or wrong. Rather, the question is whether Planned Parenthood should be speaking in schools about the morality and/or sinfulness of homosexuality.
It astounds me that some people people can exclaim “Schools have no business teaching morality!” when the subject of morality comes up, but then voice no complaint when Planned Parenthood speaks about the moral imperative to be accepting of one’s sexual lifestyle.
And you will not find anyone who has said they do not have that right, Poly.
The entire discussion arose because Jubilation had the unmitigated gall to say
That’s it. That’s the entirety of the quote, the validity of which you have affirmed. It was offered in response to a specific question asked by a previous poster.
Jiminy Whiz, folks, let’s not be so hyperdefensive.
This is so much crap that I’m going to need a laxative.
Pro-homosexual is used in the same way as pro-abortion. I’m not for people getting abortions, just in their right to be able to. I’m not for people being homosexuals, just in their right to be so.
You want to pussyfoot around and say pro-homosexual is a perfectly acceptable term? I bet for every single cite that you provide that uses it in a positive light, I can give you fifty that show it negatively. Just do a Google search on the term, and 99% of the hits are similar to this drivel. For those who prefer not to follow the link, this is the kind of crap that gets spewed by folks who use the term pro-homosexual:
“We may think that we take our children to church on Wednesdays or on Sundays and that our kids don’t need to know (about homosexuality), but it’s our kids’ friends that we need to begin to reach,” Haley said."
I’m not arguing whether or not they are promoting, advocating, whatever term you want to use.
I’m wondering, WHY?
Again, are that many people of a homosexual orientation worried about planning pregnancies? This would, in my opinion, be veering way off course of what their original mission was, which was to ensure all women had control over their reproduction and reproductive health, as verified on their own website.
Do they have to add the homosexuality verbiage in their new mission statement to ensure the funds will keep rolling in from the liberal wallets?
New York Times lists 12 hits under that, and Gay.com lists 21.
Please suggest an equally pithy alternative for “Approving of those with alternative sexual identities and their sexual activities, and opposed to all forms of discrimination of said persons or activities.”
Please insert whichever term you come up with in Jubilation’s second post.
I doubt it. I’d guess it’s “mission creep.” Probably the vast majority of PP staff are (“Approving of those with alternative sexual identities and their sexual activities, and opposed to all forms of discrimination of said persons or activities.”), and so at some point, perhaps after something like the Matthew Shepherd murder, somebody said “let’s start doing this too.” And it seemed like a good idea.
It happens in a lot of organizations, to the point where it can take over the primary mission. See “Major Universities, changing relationships with their sports programs.”
I have already done that, in this very thread, in fact. Please refer to my stance as pro-homosexual-rights, or if you want to cover a broader definition of my stance, you can just call me accepting.
While supporting or favoring is the definition of the prefix “pro”, many of the right-wing sources stick purely to the favoring definition (or make up their own). They certainly wouldn’t consider me “pro-family”, even though I’m perfectly supportive of families.
I don’t always agree with furt, but in this case, I think he is absolutely correct. If Gay.com makes a point of using the term ‘pro-gay,’ why should anyone get upset about the term ‘pro-homosexual’?
If anything, I think the so-called ‘homophobes’ have a much stronger case for complaints. After all, that term implies that the person is suffering from a severe psychological disorder, and yet this label is constantly applied without the benefit of professional diagnosis. Heck, I daresay that there’s seldom even a good-faith attempt to verify that the so-called ‘homophobe’ is indeed acting out of fear.
And once again, please note that the question is about whether Planned Parenthood DOES have a ‘pro-gay’ agenda. They clearly do, regardless of whether one approves of homosexuality or not.
He asked for an ‘equally pithy’ term. With all due respect, I think that ‘pro-gay’ is quite a bit more pithy than ‘pro-homosexual-rights’. In addition, I can imagine that some pro-gay advocates may decide against using the latter term, lest they be accused of subtly begging the question of ‘homosexual rights.’ (This would be analogous to the way some pro-life advocates choose to avoid describing the fetus as a ‘child’ in their debates.)
If PP had an equivalent sponsorship of a pro Jewish (or Catholic, or Pagan or…) performance troupe, then perhaps “pro Jewish” might be added to a description of their mission.
I’m not sure what “term” best describes the political stance PP is taking. Maybe “pro homosexual” or “pro gay” are not very clear terms. I do think that the earlier post suggesting that PP has specifically included this kind of education as part of their mission is accurate.
