Teacher’s Arrogant Admissions (Part 3)
Teacher’s Arrogant Admissions (Part 3)
Written By Laurie Higgins   |   08.20.13

Reading Time: 12 minutes

Today we present Part 3 of an email exchange between a homosexual activist, who unfortunately is also a public high school teacher and sponsor of the “gay-straight alliance” in a high school in Maine, and me. He initiated an email exchange in which he reveals his commitment to use his taxpayer funded job to promote “progressive” views of homosexuality and censor all views with which he disagrees. To learn more about this correspondence, please read Part 1 and Part 2.  

Laurie, you asked me why I didn’t address concerns about a child’s right to his/her biological parents. I’m not sure the word “right” is really the issue. I, for one believe that a child who is with a loving mother and father is the optimum for rearing. No argument there. Now, having said that please tell me how you or anyone can guarantee that every child will have his/her mother and father and in a loving supportive family? I don’t think there is any vehicle to insure that this will always be the case. You and I both know the various constructs for a child and his/her family. For me, I would rather not waste time bemoaning that which exists and cannot be changed. If the word right is applicable it is, for me, a child’s right to a loving parent(s). In those 40 years I have had more than a few students with a gay couple as parents; most kids were adopted; some but not all were loved and well adjusted. This is my experience.

I am thankful that you didn’t throw out the chestnut: shouldn’t a human be able to marry their dog. When I read that, I know the rest is drivel. As for polyamorous, brother-sister whatever, I can certainly in my own mind argue why these arrangements are counter-productive and, indeed, harmful to some member of the construct but, really, I see no correlation between these and gay marriage. For me the ideal in marriage is that two people commit in love to support and protect one another and any children they may have. This includes a gay couple. Now, if someone wants access to polyamorous or whatever marriage let them argue their case in a court of law. Again, I and you have reasons to argue against this but, for me, gay marriage in no way applies.

When I refer to objective facts they are as follows:

  • Homosexuality is not a choice.
  • Homosexuality is a sexuality.
  • Homosexuals are people.
  • Homosexuals are, by definition, sexual.
  • Homosexuality is not considered immoral by many nor the government. (Not objective, except that there are no enforceable laws that prohibit homosexuality.)
  • Many consider homosexuality immoral for religious reasons. (Again, not objective)
  • Marriage is a civil institution regulated by the state.
  • Civil, federal and SCOTUS have applied civil, federal (constitutional) considerations to rulings regarding the right of gays to access civil marriage. This is still a work in progress.
  • The net result is that civil gay marriage exists in some places in this country with all the state and federal protections contained therein.
  • Religious or any other uncivil considerations of the morality of homosexuality and gay marriage carry no constitutional muster as determined by SCOTUS. 
  • A gay kid knows that he can grow up, fall in love with another gay person and marry in this country.
  • A married gay couple will receive full recognition, rights and responsibilities as any other married couple in the United States.
  • Some Christians do not consider homosexuality and gay marriage as immoral. 

These are my facts that I believe to be true and that, in some cases, you seem to ignore as reality. Of course one man’s reality is another man’s delusion which is why it is so important that we are a nation of civil laws with judges to address them. 

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ R  


First, I find it alarming that you don’t or won’t acknowledge that children have a right to be raised by a mother and father, preferably their own biological mother and father. The fact that society can’t or doesn’t perfectly protect such a right doesn’t mean that no such right exists. We should certainly do a better job of protecting and preserving children’s right to be raised by a mother and father, preferably their own. How can you argue that children have a right to be raised by loving parents while denying they have a right to a relationship with their own parents? How do you rationally justify the deliberate creation of children to be motherless or fatherless? And why did President Obama claim in his Mother’s Day and Father’s Day proclamations that mothers and fathers are essential to their children’s lives? 

Second, it’s interesting that you dismiss sibling marriage while concomitantly asserting that “marriage is about two people who commit to love each other.” 

Third, you also dismiss plural unions, but offer no rational reason for their legal prohibition. If marriage is centrally or solely about love, why the magic number two? 

Fourth, concerning the “objective facts,” some of which, as you acknowledged, are not facts, here are the ones I have never ignored or with which I have never disagreed. Nor do they refute or undermine any of my claims: 

  • Homosexuality is not a choice.
  • Homosexuals are people.
  • Many people consider homosexuality immoral for religious reasons.
  • Civil, federal and SCOTUS have applied civil, federal (constitutional) considerations to rulings regarding the right of gays to access civil marriage. (I would use the word “misapplied.” Further, we know from history that that judges, including Supreme Court judges, don’t always get things right.)
  • A gay kid knows that he can grow up, fall in love with another gay person and marry in this country.
  • A married gay couple will receive full recognition, rights and responsibilities as any other married couple in the United States.
  • Some Christians do not consider homosexuality and gay marriage as immoral. 

I don’t know what you mean by “Homosexuality is a sexuality.” All sexual acts are by definition sexual. I would argue that the notion that homosexuality is ontologically analogous or equivalent to heterosexuality is neither factual nor true. 

Similarly, your claim that “Homosexuals are sexual” is a strange statement. All humans are sexual in that they reproduce sexually, and most humans experience sexual desires which are often misdirected to all sorts of inappropriate objects and activities. 

Your claim that “Homosexuality is not considered immoral by many” is neither an objective fact, nor true. Many, many people consider homosexuality immoral. If you don’t know that, you live a very insular life. Millions of people believe homosexuality is immoral. 


Laurie, I see myself as a realist and I see you and your compatriots as not. Adopted children, surrogate children, abandoned children, test-tube children, biologically sired children, all children have a right to expect that they will be loved and protected. You won’t get to me by suggesting that I would seek to deny a child his/her biological parents and it is beneath even you to suggest otherwise. This accusation is not now nor ever has been a motive of those of us who support marriage equality. I actually cringed when you mentioned Obama because I have suspected (and you confirmed) that no matter what he says, you will interpret it as anti-family. On Mother’s and Father’s Day, parents, no matter the origin of the parentage, are essential to their children’s lives. How can you question such a concept in light of the many children who simply need love, support and family? I think of the millions of adoptive parents (gay and straight) who would sneer at your arrogant presumption that they are not, truly, really parents. Your comment re: sibling marriage, ignores my previous response to you. As regards your suggestion that anyone who creates a child as motherless or fatherless is subjective. For me, the reality is that children are born via multiple arrangements. I know of no laws that prevent this so I won’t angst over it. What I will hope for is that all children will be loved, supported and raised in a family environment. Of course the sticking point is that you have only one concept of family. I accept the reality that there are more constructs to family and neither you nor I can change that. 

You and others of your persuasion have this need to push/support polyamorous, sibling, and other forms of marriage. In short, I see two consenting, loving and committed adults (gay or straight) as the ideal for a civil marriage construct. If others want a variant of this, and as I said in my earlier post, then they should seek redress through the courts. We are a nation of laws. Our nation’s laws support marriage for gay couples. If you want that extended to other constructs then pursue it legally. Reproduction, appropriate sexual positioning and complementarity of the sexual organs is not now nor ever has been a legal, civil requirement for marriage. But you know this and yet you and others insist that these are the prerequisites of marriage. Again, it is not realistic. It is not a legal consideration and I venture to say most would reject it. I get it. You and others want marriage to be about reproduction. I say good for you but, and again, the reality is that there is no legal prerequisite for reproduction. It simply doesn’t exist in any court or law in the United States. Logic tells us that this can never be the case as it would preclude millions from the civil right to marriage.  

When I say homosexuals are sexual, I mean that homosexuality can comprise sexual acts. I mean that they, by virtue of the shared gender of the homosexual couple can participate in sexual relations that are complementary to the two of them. The fact that you deem those actions as immoral are of no concern to me or the law of the land. Again, reality rears again…the consensual sexual actions of any couple are of no concern to me or the law. I said it earlier. It is amazing to so many people that so many of you are obsessed with the sexual relationships of other couples. Many will suggest that those of you who obsess over gay sexual relations are suspect. It simply does not seem healthy to be so focused on other people’s personal lives. 

I am intrigued that you are willing to accept so much of the reality of the existence of gay marriage. (The comment about SCOTUS reflects a hurt you have but is meaningless as regards established law. Your comment is one of the talking points of your group but, again, what impact does it have? A majority of the court made a decision; the decision is law whether you think it’s right or not.) Since you acknowledge the reality as present in my list, we are left with only this: you and I agree on plenty but your perception of what we agree upon is that it is immoral and mine is that it is not. I am comfortable with that because I don’t care about or share your moral proclivities.  

Your last comment that “‘Homosexuality is not considered immoral’ is neither an objective fact, nor true” is your weakest point in your post. Yes, I agree, many people consider homosexuality immoral. No argument there but here are the facts as I understand them: a majority of Americans believe gays should have the right to marry. An impressive majority of Catholics support marriage equality. Something like 75 to 80 % of millennials support marriage equality. A larger percentage of Jews support marriage equality than even Catholics. A large percentage of Americans believe gay marriage is inevitable. Three state populations voted to support their gay citizens and their right to marry. Legislative bodies in 10 states and DC voted for their constituents by supporting gay marriage. Federal Courts from coast to coast have found that anti-equality marriage initiatives are unconstitutional. Repeatedly, notable spokespersons opposed to gay marriage have reversed their stands. No one has done the opposite. I could go on but you know all this and I understand that it is frightening for you. You will counter with the canard that 31states have voted to deny marriage equality and I will counter that these votes are now part of an earlier mind-set. I believe that many have changed their minds and it is my belief that many now know a gay person, love a gay person, respect a gay person and want that gay person to have the opportunity to marry the person they love. Your only recourse seems to be to denigrate gays and scare straights. People are on to this and the messages aren’t selling. 



Your source of morality seems to be the law. It seems that whatever is legal is right in your view, which means that twenty years ago so-called “same-sex marriage” was not right because it was not legal. I, on the other hand, believe that sometimes our laws reflect truth and are, therefore, good laws, and sometimes our laws reflect error and are, therefore, bad laws. 

Of course, as a nation of laws (which Obama, Holder and some attorneys general seem to conveniently forget), we have an obligation to obey them. But that does not make them right. We have flawed foolish lawmakers, judges, and presidents who exercise poor reasoning. Laws are passed, repealed, and overturned. Although laws should reflect truth, they don’t always do that. 

 You said that homosexuals who seek to redefine marriage do not “seek to deny a child his/her biological parents.” Of course, they seek to deny children their right to be raised by their biological parents. Redefining marriage to eliminate any inherent connection between marriage and reproductive potential necessarily results in both a theoretical denial that children have such a right and the creation of deliberately motherless and fatherless children. Ideas have consequences, and one of the many consequences of this radical redefinition of marriage is to sever any connection between children and their biological parents.

When you claim that sexual acts between two people of the same sex are “complementary,” you reveal that you don’t know what “complementary” means.

When did I arrogantly sneer at or make any claim, presumptuous or otherwise, that adoptive parents are not really parents? That’s another warrantless assertion on your part. I said children have rights, central of which is to be raised whenever possible by their biological mother and father. I have never said, nor do I believe, that adoptive parents are not real parents. I think it is irresponsible, unethical, and lacking in compassion to deliberately create children to be motherless or fatherless. The fact that “no laws prevent this” has nothing to do with whether doing so is ethical—unless, of course, you believe that ever-shifting laws determine morality. 

I also did not say that Obama’s statements about Mother’s Day and Father’s Day are anti-family. I believe his Mother’s Day and Father’s Day proclamations are correct: children need mothers and fathers.  

My question about sibling marriage doesn’t ignore your response. Rather, I am pressing you for a defense of the view that although marriage is about love, siblings who love each other shouldn’t be permitted to marry. 

Similarly, I know you said that polyamorists can work toward legalization of plural unions, but you didn’t justify your claim that marriage is a union of two people. Are you saying that marriage has an inherent nature and one of its inherent features is “twoness”? Should the law reflect that truth? 

And why should marriage have anything to do with romantic/erotic love? If marriage is solely about who loves whom and has no inherent connection to reproductive potential, then why shouldn’t elderly sibling relationships or platonic friendships be legally recognized as “marriages”? 

You claim that “Reproduction, appropriate sexual positioning and complementarity of the sexual organs is not now nor ever has been a legal, civil requirement for marriage.” You’re wrong. The requirement regarding numbers of partners reflects the reality of two sexes, the sexual union of which is the type of union that naturally produces children (whether or not any particular couple can or chooses to is irrelevant). And historically marriages could be legally annulled if they were not sexually consummated. The legal language may not have replicated yours, but it embodied those realities. There would have been no need to replicate the language you used, because the concept of same-sex marriage would have been utterly absurd. It would have been absurd because marriage has a nature that we don’t create. 

There is a type of relationship that exists in the world, throughout history, and cross-culturally, which is a sexually complementary union that is reproductive in nature. That type of relationship is called “marriage.” There are other types of relationships that are homosexual and non-reproductive by nature. They’re not marriages. There has to be a linguistic term to identify these two very different types of unions. And it’s perfectly legitimate to assert that these very different types of relationships contribute different things to society. It’s also legitimate to treat them differently in the law as a result of their different inherent natures—particularly when true marriage respects the inherent needs and rights of children. 

When homosexuals claim they are only attracted to members of their same sex, they are acknowledging that men and women are inherently and significantly different. Further, they are acknowledging that those differences are not merely biological and anatomical. Therefore, a union composed of two people of the same sex is inherently and significantly different from a sexually complementary union. It’s legitimate for any society to recognize these differences and acknowledge that sexually complementary unions affect society in ways that are more important to the continued health of society and the needs and rights of children than are naturally sterile, homosexual unions. 

By the way, all laws reflect and embody moral beliefs—including your revisionist view of marriage. The revised legal definition embodies the belief that sexual complementarity is irrelevant to marriage, but “binariness” is relevant. 

Of course many in the culture are changing their views, but why? Is it some organic evolution in the direction of truth? Or could it be that for the last fifty years, “progressives” have been in charge of the academy and imposed an ideological monopoly, engaging in the kind of censorship that only a hoary communist could love? And could it be that our myth-making industry, Hollywood, dominated by shallow, puerile “progressives,” pump out stories that demagogue a culture about whom Neil Postman warned in Amusing Ourselves to Death? And could it be that the vitriol and epithets hurled by the left, and urged by Kirk and Madsen in After the Ball, have had their desired effect? 

The ideas we have been debating should be debated by students in public high schools. And their education should include as many resources that articulate conservative views as articulate what are laughingly called “progressive” views. The censorship of conservative resources represents either an astonishing hypocrisy and presumptuousness on the part of “progressive” “educators” or a fear that some students may be find conservative arguments persuasive. 


Coming Tomorrow: Part 4 in which this teacher reveals what he thinks about his role as a teacher and what he thinks about students being exposed to conservative ideas, including those of Princeton University Law Professor, Robert P. George.

Read more in this series:  Part 1        Part 2


Stand with us

Your support of our work and ministry is always much needed and greatly appreciated. Your prayers for our staff, families and work are coveted.  Also, the promotion of our articles on FacebookTwitter, your own email network is vital if we hope to spread the pro-family message.  And of course, your financial support is a huge part of our ability to be a strong voice for the here in the Land of Lincoln.

Please consider standing with us by giving a tax-deductible donation HERE, or by sending a gift to P.O. Box 88848, Carol Stream, IL  60188.




Laurie Higgins
Laurie Higgins was the Illinois Family Institute’s Cultural Affairs Writer in the fall of 2008 through early 2023. Prior to working for the IFI, Laurie worked full-time for eight years...
IFI Featured Video
The Problem of Gambling in Illinois
Get Our New App!