So, it's been a long while since I've taken to the blog. I apologize. since now I am a full-time student as well as working full-time, I find it more difficult to sit down to write about my thoughts. I do, however, find many opportunities to do so in my various classes.
Recently, we had a speaker in my Sociology class. I found it interesting that God should put me in a classroom with a speaker from Planned Parenthood of all things. It would seem I had my opportunity to "put my money where my mouth is" considering my strong views. This was also a moment for me to challenge all of my own beliefs not only spiritually and morally, but from a perspective of being able to disagree with someone on such hot-button items while still maintaining dignity and respect. Could I do it? Could I actually follow through with all of the things I have espoused over the years? Or, would I become a coward and hide from any real questions or accountability? It was time to find out.
In the classroom, I took the position of listening to everything the speaker presented. After all, it was his viewpoint I disagreed with, right? He is still a person of Christ, of God, here on Earth to whom I should extend dignity. Regardless of his personal beliefs, I was called to show Christ in the way I chose to respond to him. So, I resolved to take thorough notes, mark items to question at the appropriately set-aside time and be open to hearing what he was saying rather than assuming it was all wrong or terrible.
Our speaker was Mr. Tommy Chesbro. He is the Vice President of Education at Planned Parenthood. His speech began with a little background on Planned Parenthood ("PP") and our teacher asked him to clarify that PP is NOT federally funding abortions. The federal funds go to other projects. They really wanted to point that out to the class. I took note of it, but remained silent on the issue considering the speech just began and we could be arguing almost right away.
I would like to note, here, however, that the media misrepresents the reasoning behind our disagreement with continuing to fund PP, as well. The fact remains that federal funding of PP allows its doors to remain open. Those are doors that invite women in crisis pregnancies in and counsel them on having abortions...they perform abortions. That fact makes moot the point of other services offered. Additionally, we now know that abortions are a HUGE cash cow for PP. So, why should my tax dollars go to an instituation that supports, allows, and encourages the destruction of human life? Mind you, not only the life of the child, but the life of the mother and father, as well? The media misrepresents it that way because it is easier to paint people like me as radicals who don't want women to have access to necessary healthcare and also, to assume I am uneducated in understanding how the funds are dispersed. Regardless of where the funding goes, specifically, the fact remains PP allows abortions. Keeping its doors open with my money allows more children to be murdered. I cannot nor will I accept that ... nor should I be forced to accept it.
Mr. Chesbro discussed human sexuality with our class and made various points. While I welcome his passion for the AIDS community and love that he is so committed to providing dignity to this population, I found that we disagreed on many other points. Mr. Chesbro is passionate about helping those who suffer from AIDS as well as other STDs and for that, I am grateful. It is in the method and morality counts where he and I will disagree. Abstinence is something that should be promoted more thoroughly as I have seen little to no evidence of the sex education mantra doing anything in way of slowing down, stopping or preventing the matters it was intended to "make better."
I noted questions during his speech and listened intently. Below, I am posting my paper written on his visit to my classroom. I hope you will read it and take note of the issues and points I have raised. It is imperative we never blindly accept what is presented to us as fact...we must ALWAYS be willing to seek the truth. Mr. Chesbro even conceded that the information he presented to us could (and is) be disputed. The fact that he thought to say this in response to my follow-up questions only further acknowledges to me that he knows his arguments and supporting data is flawed and easily broken down. I am unsure if this was noticed by any other students. I can hope and pray that it was, however.
For if Christ stands with us, who then can stand against us? Let the truth prevail.
SOCIOLOGY PAPER WRITTEN BY CHRISTINE MONTEITH, APRIL 12, 2011:
Guest Speaker: Tommy Chesbro
On April 7, 2011, our class welcomed a guest speaker from Planned Parenthood. His name is Tommy Chesbro and he is the Vice President for Education at Planned Parenthood. Mr. Chesbro spoke about the various services offered at Planned Parenthood including mentioning that most of its funding comes from private donations.
Mr. Chesbro brought up interesting facts (some specific to Oklahoma), regarding human sexuality. The first were statistics regarding teen pregnancy. In the Nation, Oklahoma ranks second among 18 and 19 year olds in teen pregnancy. We are fifth in the Nation among pregnant teens in general. He made mention that this appears to be the case in places like Oklahoma with high conservatism.
He broke down sexual diversity into various categories. They are as follows: anatomical, biological (genetic), gender identity, sexual orientation, gender role, and sexual behavior. Mr. Chesbro stated, “Sexuality is a complex interplay between biology and environment.” He further said, “Environment can, in fact, have an effect on a person’s sexuality.” Essentially, different people respond differently based upon their genetic makeup. I found this statement to be interesting as most people in favor of gay adoption, for instance, stand firmly on the opinion that gay couples raising children has no effect upon the sexuality of the children. This is not to say that heterosexual couples do not “turn out” gay children, either, I only found it interesting considering some arguments I have heard used.
Several times during Mr. Chesbro’s presentation, he mentioned that many cultures determine sexual orientation based upon gender roles differing instead of the “boxes” or stereotypes currently subscribed to in our own culture. He discussed that stereotypes fuel stigmas, as well. I asked him to elaborate on those cultures, specifically.
Mr. Chesbro made mention of several Native American cultures (prior to European contact) allowed for various genders. In many instances, he stated these people were revered. In some Asian cultures the people are friendlier toward transgendered individuals. He specifically talked about Thailand having a famous actress who is transgendered. Further, he discussed that some Pacific Islanders expect that young boys have sex with one another in order to become “men” and then, later, are still expected to have a family and produce offspring.
While I appreciate his historical information and discussion of these cultures, I could not help but think about the fact that his first example was about people who believed such things in the distant past. For me, this is not unlike the growth of many cultures where they find nothing wrong with certain taboos until they develop beyond them and realize their harm (i.e., slavery, abuse of children through grueling working expectations, women having no rights and viewed as property, the Aztecs believing human sacrifice was appropriate, etc.). Some Christians even believed in slavery, murdering those different from us, etc. However, none of those things are just, correct, or acceptable. Each is considered to be deviant behavior and not a part of the culture with good reason.
Mr. Chesbro’s second and third examples were of cultures that struggle with moral corruption of the highest degree (Thailand is one of the top places to experience sexual depravity – an “anything goes” culture). These examples were meant to illustrate how some cultures define deviance differently. I understand that point. However, it further pointed out (to me, personally) that because a culture finds something to be acceptable, it still does not make it socially or on any other level to be correct. I also cannot help but notice the utter poverty in which the people in these two examples exist and wonder if a study exists to review a possible link between that and the accepted social NORMS in those areas?
In my opinion, it is imperative we do not lose sight of those things that will serve only to further harm our society all in the name of wanting to be accepting and so-called fair. I believe our culture and many others continue to support the reality of right and wrong. Some rights and wrongs are not a matter of fitting into “boxes” or being relative to a particular culture. For instance, I cannot see a place or time where a man having sex with a boy (think NAMBLA) is acceptable nor should it be accepted. In other words, I cannot foresee a time when that act would not be considered deviant behavior. At times, yes, a thing is simply wrong and while we are called to respond with love, we are, nonetheless, called to respond.
No comments:
Post a Comment