U of MN official program calls for challenging white privilege, universal health care, abortion rights, living wages, and same sex marriage

Here's an email message put out by Anne Phibbs, Director of the GLBTA (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Ally) Programs Office at the University of Minnesota. The official pro-homosexual advocacy program of the University of Minnesota subsidized with our taxpayer dollars.

The tag line at the bottom of the statement, highlights the Leftist ideological bent of the group, e.g. "We recognize the intersections of gender and sexuality with race, ethnicity, class, ability, ability, age, culture, and all social systems; we are committed to holding ourselves ad others accountable for working against all forms of oppression." Oppression?

In her email letter, Ms. Phibbs calls for her and her fellow GLBTA allies to "Be out and proud and visible -- as a progressive queer/GLBTA movement..."

She notes that she's going to attend an Anti-Proposition 8 rally "as a representative of the thousands and millions of queer and GLBTA activists who understand that our agenda is as much about challenging white privilege, ending gender and sexual violence, creating access for people with disabilities, and ensuring universal health care, access to education, reproductive rights, and living wages - as it is about same sex marriage."

That's quite an agenda for an official program of the University of Minnesota.

"Challenging white oppression." Sounds like U of M President Bruininks might be in trouble.

"Ensuring universal health care"...by the government I'm sure. That's an expensive and controversial proposal.

"Reproductive rights." I didn't realize the University of Minnesota was taking sides in the abortion debate.

"Living wage." What would that mean for the millions of lower wage earners who would lose their jobs?

And of course, last but not least is "same sex marriage." This sounds like the University of Minnesota is in the vanguard of the sexual revolution.

With the state facing the prospect of a several billion dollar budget deficit and the University of Minnesota certain to call for more state tax dollars, I think the the legislature and the governor's office should take a closer look at how the University of Minnesota is spending the money it already receives from the state before making new legislative appropriations to the University of Minnesota.

GLBTA Programs Office" src="http://glbta.umn.edu/Images/GLBTAPO.png" nosend="1" width="282" height="164">GLBTA Programs Office" src="http://glbta.umn.edu/Images/Scroll/PhotoD.jpg" nosend="1" width="328" height="164">

GLBTA Programs Office E-Blast Friday, November 14, 2008 Bridging Our Communities Considering Tomorrow's Protests As many of you know by now, tomorrow will be a national day of action for GLBT rights, with protests planned across the country. Information about the protests planned for Minnesota are included at the end of this email. This day of action has grown out of anger and frustration over the passage of Proposition 8 in California and other anti-GLBT legislation in Arizona, Arkansas and Florida. Here at the U of M today, I have spoken with students, colleagues and community members who plan to attend the protests because they are angered by the loss of same sex marriage rights. And I have spoken with others who will not attend, in part because they are frustrated with an organized GLBTA movement that seems to take same sex marriage rights as the primary focal point of its political agenda. In weighing my options, I've decided to attend tomorrow both because I am angry about Proposition 8 and other measures around the country - and because I know that same sex marriage rights cannot be our focus as a movement. I want to attend tomorrow as a representative of the thousands and millions of queer and GLBTA activists who understand that our agenda is as much about challenging white privilege, ending gender and sexual violence, creating access for people with disabilities, and ensuring universal health care, access to education, reproductive rights, and living wages - as it is about same sex marriage. Now, more than ever, we need to be out and proud and visible - as a progressive queer/GLBTA movement that rejects the simplistic politics of separation and division. In support of that vision, I offer here some text from an open letter to the community by organizations involved in the No on 8 effort. This letter addresses some of the painful discussion that is occurring in our communities around who "caused" the defeat of Proposition 8. Please take a moment to read this letter, and to work against a simplistic analysis pitting "the GLBT community" against "the African American community." We are not two distinct communities, but one human community made up of many identities, faiths, beliefs and worldviews. It is my hope that the passage of Proposition 8 can serve as a catalyst - to get us sharing our stories and experiences with people we've not yet talked with. The full text can be found at: http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/take_action "It is natural to analyze what went wrong. But in recent days there has been a tendency to assign blame to specific communities, in particular, the African American community. The fact is, 52 percent of all Californians, the vast majority of whom were not African Americans, voted against us. In addition, the most recent analysis of the exit poll that drove much of this speculation determined that it was too small to draw any conclusion on the African American vote, and further polling shows that the margin was much closer than first reported. Most importantly, though, none of this discourse changes the outcome of the vote. It only serves to divide our community and hinder our ability to create a stronger and more diverse coalition to help us overturn Proposition 8 and restore full equality and human rights to LGBT people. It also deflects responsibility from the group that is responsible for this miscarriage of justice: The Yes on 8 campaign. They waged a deceitful and immoral campaign that brought about this violation of our human rights and dignity." In hope and struggle, Anne Phibbs Director, GLBTA Programs Office The following area protests are being staged on Saturday, November 15: • Minneapolis: 12:30 p.m. assembly at Hennepin County Government Center, 315 South 5th Street • Saint Paul: 3:00 p.m. assembly at State Capitol, 75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Boulevard • Duluth/Superior: 12:00 p.m. assembly at MN Power Plaza, Lake Avenue and Superior Street • Fargo/Moorhead: 12:00 p.m. assembly at Fargo (west) side of the Veterans Memorial Bridge on Main Avenue For more information: National Day of Action Minnesota Events Details About the GLBTA Programs Office The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Ally Programs Office is dedicated to improving campus climate for all University of Minnesota students, staff, faculty, alumni, and visitors by developing and supporting more inclusive understandings of gender and sexuality. We recognize the intersections of gender and sexuality with race, ethnicity, class, ability, age, culture, and all social systems; we are committed to holding ourselves and others accountable for working against all forms of oppression. The GLBTA Programs Office seeks to bridge and build communities that create affirming and welcoming environments in which people can be their whole selves and which honor all identities and experiences. To contact the GLBTA Programs Office, please call 612-625-0537, email us, or visit our website.

This e-mail was sent to ... by the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Ally Programs Office at the University of Minnesota, 138 Klaeber Court, 320 16th Ave SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455. To stop receiving this e-mail communication, click here to opt-out.

The ideology of the 60's sexual revolution is a cognitive STD

"Daddy, how many sex partners should I have?"

Apparently a majority of our state legislators think the answer should be, "as many as you like, but fewer is better, as long as you use ‘protection’ – none is safest, but we really don’t think you are capable of saying ‘No.’" That essentially is what they want to require schools throughout the state to teach children in grades 7 through 12.
Thanks to years of sex education with that convoluted message, the Center for Disease Control recently reported that one in four teenage girls are infected with a sexually transmitted disease (STD) – nearly 50% for African American girls.

One might ask, "How do we stop this epidemic?"

The answer, say comprehensive sex ed advocates, is mandatory comprehensive sex education that encourages children to engage in unhealthy sexual behaviors, giving them the illusion that using condoms makes it safe. In other words, mandating more of what has already produced alarming rates of STD’s among teens. Bills currently before the legislature, like SF 3349, deceptively named "Responsible Family Life and Sexuality Education Programs" promote condoms, dental dams and contraceptive use while encouraging acceptance of alternative sexual lifestyles and unhealthy behaviors such as anal sex and anal-oral sex.

How does that make you feel about your child or grandchild’s chances of avoiding infection?

That uneasy feeling in your gut is telling you that our sex education programs are not working. The reason, in this author’s humble opinion, is because they are driven by an unhealthy ideology. Sadly, however, most sex education advocates and parents are in denial that the ideology exists, allowing it to stalk the unprotected values of yet another generation.

We are still steeped in the ideology of the sexual revolution. It’s a cognitive STD.

When abortion rates go up, the tendency among many educators is to blame teaching abstinence. When a report shows a rise in STIs and STDs like Chlamydia, blame abstinence. An ideology that denies the notion of personal responsibility seeks to enable risky behavior with an illusion of safety. Rather than changing behavior, it attempts to remove consequence with condoms, dental dams, pills, vaccines and abortions.

Denial is a powerful mental defense mechanism that in this case obscures the failure of a sexual revolution that swapped abstinence-based values for the more enlightened partner of free sex. And now our kids are paying the price.
Denial is easy to identify if you’re not caught in its blissful delusion. Look for it every time you hear phrases like "facts based" or "technically accurate information" vs. "ideology founded on fear and misinformation." We should also look for it in the mirror.

A recent University of Minnesota poll revealed that 89 percent of parents polled favored a comprehensive approach to sex education versus 10 percent who favored an abstinence-based curriculum. 81 percent of the parents polled also agreed that taking a sex education class doesn’t make children more likely to engage in sex. Polls like these expose our desperate need for intervention. It shows that the majority are not aware of the specifics of what’s being taught to our children, or the documented consequences.

According to a review of comprehensive sex guidelines established by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, masturbation, sexual intercourse, cohabitation, oral and anal sex, and homosexuality are recommended as part of the curriculum.

We can no longer deny the results of a failed ideology, laid bare by a growing body of facts that proves the folly of reckless sexual behavior. We need to accept responsibility and stop deceiving ourselves into believing that what educators term a "comprehensive" approach, can be an effective surrogate for values taught at home and re-reinforced at school.

To the contrary, Brigid Riley, the executive director of the Minnesota Organization of Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention and Parenting (MOAPPP), is at the Capitol lobbying legislators to mandate "comprehensive" sex education. Riley, the consummate enabler, assures them that "Comprehensive sexuality education actually encourages young people to wait longer to start being sexually active," and goes on to say, "When they do become sexually active they’re more likely to use contraceptives and condoms. And they have fewer partners."

The facts don’t support the claims of the enablers. With 1 in 4 teen girls infected with STDs and teen pregnancy continuing to rise, the failure of the current sex-ed curriculum is obvious. Do you see the ideology? Can you hear the denial?

If not, then perhaps it time to look in the mirror and imagine your child asking you, "Mommy and Daddy, how many sex partners should I have?"

Defenders of Kinky sex materials at UM have a novel defense: It will save lives!

Andy Birkey of Minnesota Monitor has come up with a novel defense of disseminators of "kinky sex" how materials promoted by the University of Minnesota's student group "Kinky U": It will save lives. He points to a Rev. Gary Aldridge who died of from suffocation while engaging in bizarre sex practices. His "hands and feet were bound together behind his back, and they were attached to a nylon cord fastened around his neck...The body was dressed in a face mask with a single breathing vent, two wetsuits and was bound with cords and a belt, according to the report."

If only he'd been told how to do it "safely." Birkey says that " What killed him was a lack of understanding about the safety of the activities he enjoyed engaging in, a lack of information on kinky sex. That's all the students at the university are trying to do: make not-so-vanilla sex safer and "educate those interested about the risks involved."

This mindset is widespread among those who maintain a more libertine view of sexuality. The ultimate goal is human pleasure whatever form that takes. That's the high human value. So we should do all we can to reduce the risks of the inherently dangerous and harmful behavior. In fact, the government should do all it can to help facilitate whatever people want to do. (See massive government spending on contraceptive programs.) The only problem is it makes the problem worse because it sends the message that the underlying behavior is fine, so you have more folks engaging in it.

Compare this to the message communicated on smoking. It's bad for you. Don't do it. We don't encourage people to engage in efforts to merely minimize the dangerous side effects; we tell them to stop. The reason? You're more likely to reduce the number of people smoking if the message is clear, unequivocal and directed at the underlying behavior.

But when it comes to sexual behaviors that's a whole other story. Many people's lives and identities are tied up in their sexual behaviors and practices. To tell them to stop the underlying sexual behaviors or restrict them to a marriage relationship means they'll have to deny who they think they are and/or their passions. The result? Merely try and mitigate the damaging consequences of the behaviors. On the other hand, if we really wanted to protect more people we'd send a clear message discouraging the underlying behaviors. In the long run, more people would be saved.

So if the goal is to prevent dangerous consequences of dangerous behaviors, the most effective solution is discouraging the underlying activity. But that's where proponents of various bizarre sexual practices are not willing to go. They insist it's their right to engage in these activities and have other people subsidize them.

One last comment. Birkey accuses opponents of Kinky U of being "judgmental". It sounds like Mr. Birkey is being a bit judgmental in his assertion of judgmentalism. In their minds, the cultural Left is never judgmental; it's only those on the Right except of course when Mr. Birkey "judges" those on the Right.

Is the University of Minnesota becoming Kinky U? And what does this say about our society and culture and where are we going?

Katherine Kersten, conservative Star Tribune columnist, pointed out in a recent column what some students and student group are up to at our state's flag ship public institution of higher education, the University of Minnesota -- learning about and promoting all matters of bizarre and deviant sexual practices.

It's just another field of inquiry for the dedicated scholars at "Kinky U," a student fee-supported offshoot of the U of M's Queer Student Cultural Center (QSCC).

QSCC already sponsors groups that journey down every sexual side-road and identity bi-way imaginable. Its 14 member groups range from "Biversity" (for "bisexuals, pansexuals, omnnisexuals, and those who prefer no labels") to "Tranarchy" (for "those who identify as transgender, transsexual, genderqueer, intersex, or gender diverse.")

Yes, you might think there's already something for everyone at our flagship institution of higher learning.

But Kinky U aims to reach out to groups still not fully embraced (so to speak) by the university community. It's "a social and discussion group" for those interested in "all forms of kink, including roleplaying, leather, BDSM [bondage, discipline, dominance and submission, sadism and masochism], and much more," according to QSCC's website.

"The term 'kinky' can include anything from biting and scratching, 'which is pretty common,' to power exchanges and bondage," said the Minnesota Daily, quoting Michael Lent, the group's facilitator.

The moral bankruptcy of the University is articulated by comments from the University's vice provost for student affairs Jerry Rinehart who said:

"The purpose of groups funded by student fees, which are decided on by students themselves, is to help encourage a diverse array of ideas and perspectives...As long as the decision process is viewpoint neutral, the U cannot attempt to censor."

The typical bureacratic response. It's fine as long as it's view point neutral and we're here to encourage of "diverse array of ideas and perspectives."


It shows where the sexual revolution is leading us. Down, down, down. Once the Judeo-Christian perspective of sexuality and proper sexual perspective is jettisoned, e.g. sex between a man and a woman inside a marriage relationship, there's no stopping point. Not with cohabiting males and females, not with same sex couples, no it merely spins more and more out of control.

Why is this happening? Because we've lost the courage and the willingness to engage in moral discourse and call behaviors good and bad, right and wrong.

The consequence? Social anarchy. Sure, the actual practitioners of "Kinky U" sex are few in number but they're merely the vanguard the sexual revolution with lots of heterosexual promiscuity following in their wake. They, of course, aren't content to do their thing on their own but want recognition and endorsement of society through legal protection and sanction of their behaviors through anti-discrimination laws, public subsidies (Like student fees programs.) and in some cases redefinition of marriage for homosexuals.

Ultimately, the gold standard of a society and culture -- monogamous man and woman marriage is debased -- and that's the foundation of society. Cohabiting and out of wedlock births help create a social underclass which breeds criminal predators and general lawlessness in society. And of course this also feeds the social welfare system established to deal with all the resulting social problems.

Ultimately, this sort of thing affects us all.