Replies

My theoretical views are held without apology. While homosexuality is of several forms, I consider it overall to be a serious disorder marked by various forms of highly motivated thought process distortion which adherents, especially with the rise of the gay and lesbian movement, demand be found accepted, militantly proselytize, and forcefully inculcate, or in other cases transmit because it is the basic believed operating premise in their life and they know nothing else. Many gay personalities are characterized by instability with unpredictable and driven impulses which may be only transiently resisted or transiently oriented in direction. For this reason I am adamantly against homosexuals having access to, or being conferred legitimizing authority over, kids. It is ill-advised and imprudent to the point of violating a fiduciary responsibility to, and disregard of a reasonable or prudent standard of care for, the kids. The courts and other parts of the legal system, if they are not willing to recognize this fact, should at least allow parents or organizations entrusted with the care and maturing of children and teenagers the right to make such evaluation themselves and act accordingly—and in a free society the primacy of such rights supersedes the wishes being asserted by the homosexual world.

Are there vast psychodynamic differences between people who engage in homosexual acts with adults versus those who engage in homosexual acts with kids? It could be argued to be so, and is being so argued. Anything and any position can be argued. However, given the serious pathology of either condition I would doubt trustworthiness or stability of the distinction between the two. Don't expect any slack. Get your head straight before being allowed access to kids. In a free society I am allowed to hold that position and apply it in my own life. In a free society I am allowed to form associations with those of similar views and we have the right to apply those views within that association.

Competent, and that means COMPETENT, psychotherapy would in many cases relieve homosexuals of internal stresses they don't know they have while also relieving them of their condition. Whether they want to undergo that difficult process is their own decision. Whether they want to vehemently deny such possibility exists for purposes of defending biological/organic permission or other argued validities of homosexuality is also their decision.

Doing It For, and With, the Children

In 1973 the homosexual lobby was powerful enough to succeed in getting homosexuality removed from the list of mental disorders acknowledged by formal psychiatry despite the fact 70% of psychiatrists still considered it a disorder. This has since been celebrated by the gay and lesbian movement as uncontrovertable certification of non-pathological normality (which it wasn't) that has become both a social assertion and has also worked its way into being enforced under law. We are now at the point where reputable psychological journals are publishing papers describing sex between men and boys as benign "intergenerational intimacy." There was some apology after exposure and strong public criticism, but the demonstrated inclination by some journal editors was to view the position as acceptable enough to publish. The view is looked upon as too premature in terms of public acceptance rather than personally or scientifically objectionable. The view finds sympathy in some university departments training students and clinicians. Concurrently, I am seeing a campaign to marginalize any effects of adult homosexual activity with kids on the kids.

At the present rate, within a few years, prohibition of homosexual relationships with children will be overturned as a form of discrimination. This has already been facilitated by legal reasoning that considers activity only as a civil rights issue while skipping over pathological or consequence matters. There is nothing in recent laws or court decisions to prevent it while the logical consequents of laws and court decisions are easily applied in that direction, in some cases by deliberate strategic intention. The arguments are being marshaled with increasing boldness. This was well on its way to becoming de facto law with successful legal action against the Boy Scouts for discrimination against homosexuals with their refusal to let gays become scoutmasters. Lower court actions forcing gays into scout leadership were barely overturned by the United States Supreme Court in a five to four decision affirming Boy Scouts' constitutional right to freedom of association. With the change in one supreme court justice, the court will overturn the previous decision through employment of slightly changed suit wording and manipulation.

Here are excerpts from The Orange County Register, July 28, 2001. Authors: Greg Hardesty and Monica Valencia

Kenneth Teague, who abused as many as 15 boys, remains unremorseful.
Kenneth Eugene Teague, who testified that having sex with boys as young as 9 was therapeutic for them, did not speak at the sentencing, which ended a lurid trial in which the former computer consultant from Irvine acted as his own lawyer.
"I don't consider these to be criminal or bad acts," Teague, 43, said in a jailhouse interview. "I consider myself to be a political prisoner. I'm going to be imprisoned for what I believe, just like a lot of other folks have been." "I've just always had this capacity" for being sexually attracted to boys, Teague said.
In his defense he cited a 1999 study published by the American Psychological Association, the so-called Rind study that concluded child sexual abuse is not necessarily harmful — especially for males. "If done right, in my opinion, it can be a positive experience, a constructive experience," Teague said.
Teague said the activities were a successful way to break down communication barriers with boys and improve their grades in school. They also were acts of love, he said.

"If done right, in my opinion, it can be a positive experience, a constructive experience," Teague said. As Hillary Clinton would say, it's for the children.

It can be seen that various published studies and recent rationalizations have become integrated into his mentality and arguments. This has become a serious trend.

If Teague had not acted as his own attorney but had instead procured a clever civil rights lawyer, he would have stood a good chance of getting a similar ruling by an appeals court that Goins did through parallel rationale.

The present rationale consists of a pattern of leapfrogging over specific reality and important intermediate elements into bland or glittering abstraction. The abstract argument is made, and accepted by the courts, that a person is being persecuted for his beliefs or discriminated against merely for being different. The integrity, quality, rationality, or sane acceptability of those beliefs or differences is skipped over. The distinction between discrimination versus prudent observation and recognition has long sense become a lost concept since the construction of a pathological and sadistic language structure during the 60s. In response to legitimate parental criticism 30 and 35 years ago, a generation of radical or irresponsible brats retorted they were being persecuted for what they believed in. Now, the same illogic is in the court and educational systems.

The Right to a Child

The gay world wants free access to kids. One can argue about what personal investment and ultimate reason there is for their wanting that access. In all matters of human dispute and intent, a mask of insincere pretext can be synthesized and attempted to be substituted for true intention while both denying and ultimately obtaining that intention. In the field of international politics and negotiation, this tactic is a freely practiced expectation. It is now becoming standard procedure in various organized social movements who are hiring and otherwise employing the techniques of convoluted legal advocacy and public relations with increasing cleverness and strategic plan to obtain their goals.

It is either arguable, or deniable, that access to kids obtains the ultimate goal of providing homosexual elements with targets of opportunity for sexual practices. The underlying truth may be completely contradictory to the verbal assertions.

There is also the element of pathological evolution. A given form of pathology demanding to be accepted as healthy and normal receives criticism from the social environment. To defend themselves from this initial criticism various rationalizations are devised and superficial forms of behavioral changes may be adopted by the pathological. In response to still further observations and criticisms, further rationalizations and behavioral changes are interposed in defense. These rationalizations and changes were not a part of the original condition, but are subsequently adopted defenses to obscure, and deflect criticism of, the condition. They continue to be created and superficially adopted to plug holes in the dike. They become desperately held and take a pathological life; including a social, theoretical, and political life; of their own, and may even obscure the original condition from the people with that condition. As part of the evolving theoretical life of its own, there are lesbian professors at what are for practical purposes gay and lesbian departments at universities moving heaven and earth to prove lesbians make the best mothers, with students being expelled for doubting it. As the evolutionary process continues to develop and new layers are added to it, finding the real basis and purpose of anything becomes more difficult.

Pathological evolution is much like a person creating an onion around a self core. New layers of distortion are grown to protect the distorted core in response to external stresses and criticisms. There are assertions and attempts to believe in the layers by those creating them. Successive layers my not even agree with each other, but the outside most recently created layer takes precedence in the attempts to construct defenses.

The homosexual community wants to argue that they are healthy normal. To do so they are pursuing superficial imitation of normality in which heterosexual institutions are being mimicked and the trappings of participation in heterosexual activities will be strategically employed as both argument for, and verification of normality. Thus, although common usage and the dictionary define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, homosexuals demand their activity be called marriage also. Nothing less will do. Conformity to that demand is being imposed by law. For the same purpose homosexuals demand participation in normally heterosexual institutions involving kids. Forced certification of physical trust with children is part of the long term strategy legitimizing and enforcing an image of normality.

So the homosexual world has a number of vested interests in securing free access to kids, any of which may be denied. Anybody is, of course, allowed to disagree with what I've said here. Take your choice of what to believe.

At various homosexual demonstrations one hears the chant, "We're queer. We're here. We've come for your kids." Others in the gay and lesbian world say such people are too radical and don't represent the true gay and lesbian world. Make your own evaluation, sort out who's who, and believe what you will.

"The homosexual community wants to
argue that they are healthy normal."

Not a hate crime - 13-year-old Jesse Dirkhising

Jesse Dirkhising's deliverance

The Washington Post gets nasty

Guilty verdict in Dirkhising case

Media tune out torture death of Arkansas boy