Posted on 01/29/2002 5:13:49 AM PST by simicyber
Traditional Values Coalition Opinion Editorial For publication on or after Facing The Truth About Homosexual Behavior By Rev. Louis P. Sheldon
Tuesday, January 29, 2002
Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition
Washington, DC – In 1987, a homosexual magazine called Guide published an article that laid out a detailed marketing plan for selling the normalization of homosexuality through the mass media. The article, "The Overhauling of Straight America,"* was eventually expanded into a full-length book called After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear & loathing of Gays in the 90’s.
Authors Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill, writing in the Guide article, note the following: "In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent—only later his unsightly derriere!" The objective has been to portray homosexuality as a fixed, unchangeable sexual identity—one that is determined at birth. This is untrue, but the propaganda campaign has largely succeeded.
The plan was—and still is—to present the controversy surrounding homosexuality as a civil rights issue—not about dangerous and unnatural homosexual behaviors. In addition, this marketing campaign includes an effort to portray homosexuals as victims of an intolerant society who need special legal protections. Kirk and Pill note: "In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector." Kirk and Pill also recommend smearing their enemies, comparing them to the KKK and Nazis. They write: "To be blunt, they must be vilified….we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types."
This marketing plan—designed to hide the facts about homosexual behavior, to portray homosexuals as victims, and to vilify their enemies—has been wildly successful. A compliant mainstream media has helped homosexuals accomplish many of these goals. One major newspaper syndicate, for example, has given homosexual activist Deb Price a weekly column to promote Kirk and Pill’s propaganda campaign.
Fortunately, there are still voices of sanity who are speaking out against the effort to portray homosexual behavior as normal and determined by birth. One such individual is Dr. A. Dean Byrd, vice president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Dr. Byrd authored "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis In Science." In it, he quotes a number of homosexual researchers and activists who admit that they can find no genetic basis for homosexual behavior.
One of those is Dean Hamer who tried to find a genetic cause for homosexuality by examining the DNA code at the end of the X chromosome. According to Hamer: "There is not a single master gene that makes people gay . . . . I don’t think we will be able to predict who will be gay."
The words of homosexual activist Camille Paglia are equally telling: "Homosexuality is not ‘normal.’ On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm . . . Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction . . . No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous . . . homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait."
Dr. Byrd’s article is must reading for anyone who wants to understand the true nature and origin of homosexual behaviors. It deserves to be widely distributed to educators, legislators, and to editors and reporters. It is available at: www.narth.com/docs/innate.html.
*To read "The Overhauling of Straight America," go to: Traditional Values Coalition is an interdenominational public policy organization representing more than 43,000 churches across the United States. For more information, contact Sharone Carmona at 202-547-8570. TVC's Web site is:
Can you come up with some new stupid remarks? Your old ones no longer are humorous.
So all who are spiritually enlightened, come to understand the need for compulsory funded public education?
Uhhh.... yeah, that must be it.
Yep. - My view is invalid because I don't know the elite. How droll.
Even small towns in Arkansas had high schools such as the one where I received an excellent education. BECAUSE I WANTED ONE.
Personal self puffery does nothing to prove your point.
There are many outstanding people educated by the public schools throughout our nation's history. Most of the attackers of public schools simply don't know what they are talking about. Millions of children are educated every year successfully by them. Could they be better? Sure. We should strive to make them better not wholesale lies and misconceptions about them. Or pretend there is a private alternative for the masses. There isn't.
I'm neither pretending, nor lying about them.
You, on the other hand, seem very stressed. Why is a privatized school system so threatening to you? --- Weird reaction.
You apparently believe that a literate population is a BAD thing.
Anyone who opposes public schools because the concept is immoral, is an unenlightened lunatic?
No, I believe that it is immoral for one segment of the population to rob another, to promote it's ideas.
I generally favor literacy.
Saying that I received an excellent high school education is "personal puffery"? This clearly indicates that you haven't met enough people if you think that is bragging. Some of us out there even have a college education and Masters Degrees. Imagine that.
Private schooling is no threat to me as I indicated my youngest son goes to one. So that is a stupid comment.
Unrealistic ideas are a threat to me, however, and the idea that private schooling is viable for the masses is totally unrealistic. Generally those holding such ideas are precisely those without much formal education.
Why do you think literacy was so limited before the institution of public schooling? And higher education even more limited?
You call things immoral but can have no accurate concept of morality since you don't believe in God. Without belief in God all things are possible since none can be condemned as wrong (evil).
What could you swear to if called to testify in court not "so help me God." How could one protect rights without swearing on a higher power? Man as the measure of all things is folly as shown by the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution and the Nazi revolution. Man acting to create justice based on God's laws and calling on God's help produces great things as shown by the American Revolution.
Is that really what you think comes from public schools--a literate population? Maybe back in the 60s. Barely in the 70s. But now?
Why do you assume that parents wouldn't want their kids to be literate, if there were no public schools?
If so, I have seen far worse posts from you.
However, I am aware that the growth of literacy is tied totally to the public education movement. And I am not silly enough to believe that most people can pay the costs of private education. When it is a burden for me with an income in the upper 20% how could it be expected that a family with household income less than the median could afford a private education? Those uneducated kids become a burden on society and lower the productivity of the entire society. This is nothing something which would affect just the uneducated individuals. Just as someone running around with the plague don't just affect themselves. There are social consequences of individual choices.
When someone educates themselves s/he also helps society as a whole.
I'm reminded of a debate I read between advocates of public and private schools. The public school advocate made the standard argument that education is too important to be left to the free market. His opponent countered that given government's track record of wastefulness and inefficiency, education is too important *not* to be provided by the free market.
Now that we have allowed the leftists to take it over and ruin parts of it we start to condemn what was formerly good (and still is in many areas.)
Rather than fight to take it back the haters of government propose unworkable alternatives or run away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.