Copy, paste, print and pass (or email) this information on to family and friends:
The Overhauling of Straight America
( www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/archives.php?id=8142838 )
The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game
( www.takebackmaryland.org/ASP/XcNewsPlus/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=23 )
Seven Steps to Recruit-proof Your Child
( www.scottlively.com/sevensteps/ )
Choice 4 Truth
( www.choice4truth.com )
National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
( www.narth.com )
Thought Reform and The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy
( www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/socarides.html )
Homosexual Activism in the APA and the Removal of Homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)
( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026551/posts?page=46#46 )
Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)
( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1026551/posts )
What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda
( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1076476/posts )
Gay priests cited in abuse of boys
By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published February 28, 2004
Eighty-one percent of sex crimes committed against children by Roman Catholic priests during the past 52 years were homosexual men preying on boys, according to a comprehensive study released yesterday on the church's sex abuse crisis.
WELCOME TO SODOM AND GOMORRAH, U.S.A.
GAYS' POLITICAL CLOUT FACING TEST
Genuine debate on gay union is over
The problem with the gay marriage issue
An excerpt from "PERSPECTIVE - IN WHOSE BEST INTEREST"
As a grim reminder of the strides the homosexual activists have made in just a few years, it becomes necessary, once again, to quote some of the ranting of Michael Swift, homosexual writer, who authored a well-known essay entitled, "For The Homoerotic Order" in the Boston Gay Community News, February 15-21, 1987. His essay is prefaced by the statement "This essay is outre, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor." Unbelievably, his mad fantasy has turned into tragic reality with consequences society refuses to face.
Here, in part, is what he wrote "We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms. . . . Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.
"All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. . . . If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer at us, we will stab you. . . . Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable. . . .
"We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. . . .
"The family unit--spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated, Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.
"All churches who condemn us will be closed. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks."
Well, today the heterosexual population is the "oppressed," and homosexual activists are seducing our sons and daughters in our schools, and they get the full support and blessing of the teachers' unions. Together, they have now set the machinery in motion to brainwash and socially engineer future generations in accordance with Michael Swift's mad fantasy of homosexual domination and oppression.
All laws curbing homosexuality have been revoked in Canada, and the government now recognizes and protects any kind of homosexual partnership. The passage of the hate-crime bill has established homosexuals as an elite group with special privileges and protection, and no one "dares cry faggot" or pervert anymore. Both homosexuality and bisexuality have become a fad in our society, and anyone showing distaste or disapproval is branded as a bigot or homophobe.
The family unit is constantly challenged in today's society, and recent court decisions have supported the unnatural conception of children through artificial insemination for subsequent adoption by homosexual couples. And parents who spank their children stand to have them taken away by the government, which may well place them in the foster care of adult homosexuals.
Should there be any doubt about the malignant pervasiveness of the homosexual movement in our schools and social infrastructure, look up http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/
With the attitude of our federal government and the teachers' unions, legalized pedophilia is just around the corner.
The links you have posted here fully document, line by line, Swift's essay.
Families of Lesbians-Gays Appalled; Congressional Subcomm. Stacks Deck to Promote Homophobic Agenda
Gay theologian thinks same-sex marriages are only the beginning!(Or, you ain't seen nothing, yet!)
Homosexuality and the Corruption of a Culture
The Mainstream Media Queers Marriage
When A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality was published last month, the book's publisher, InterVarsity Press, placed an advertisement for the book in the popular magazine Psychology Today.
Shortly after the ad appeared, a lesbian activist and psychotherapist named Betty Berzon contacted Psychology Today's editor Robert Epstein to express her outrage.
Berzon was incensed that the magazine would accept an advertisement for A Parent's Guide, a book which views homosexuality as a developmental condition rather than a core identity. Berzon claimed that Epstein's magazine should have refused to print the ad. She threatened to organize a boycott against the magazine, and then followed up by sending out a flurry of postings on gay and lesbian internet sites in order to gain support for an organized boycott...
A story about the conflict was published in the December 10th issue of the gay magazine The Advocate, by columnist Michelangelo Signorile.
"When the editor in chief of Psychology Today reveals his support for so-called conversion therapies to turn gays straight, what does that say about the state of American psychology?" asked Signorile"
Signorile then described Epstein and his work as editor of Psychology Today in unflattering terms. He said the editor was a publicity seeker who "might view such a position [advertising a non-gay-affirmative book] as an attention grabber."
However, Signorile warned, editor Epstein would do well to remember what the gay community had succeeded in doing not so long ago to Dr. Laura. In a series of acrimonious and very public protests, gay activists were instrumental in forcing Dr. Laura's television show off the air by flooding the airwaves, the print media, and the streets outside the TV studio with protests that frightened off her advertisers.
Dr. Epstein had published the advertisement for A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality, and expressed support for reorientation therapy for unwanted homosexuality, "perhaps not realizing," Signorile said, "that the last celebrity 'doctor' who stepped into the homosexuality debate with dubious assertions--Laura Schlessinger--soon saw her multi-million dollar career deflate, as gay activists supported successful advertiser boycotts of her show amid a bruising campaign against her."
While it may initially sound like paranoia, that is exactly what has been underway since 1985, when two homosexuals wrote "Waging Peace: A Gay Battle Plan to Persuade Straight America," in which they boldly admitted their intent to manipulate American sensibilities by using pro-homosexual propaganda.
Written for the now-defunct homosexual magazine Christopher Street by Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill, a pseudonym for Hunter Madsen, the article became a number one national bestselling book, After the Ball, four years later.
Considered ground-breaking back then, 16 years later one is amazed by the simple fact that its strategy has been adopted - explictly or implicitly - virtually across the board within the homosexual movement.
The tone of both the article and book was one of frustration with "the gay revolution in America," as the authors concluded that the revolution had failed. The momentum of those heady days following the movement's birth in 1969 during the Stonewall riots in New York City had dissipated, and activists were floundering for a plan to re-energize their community...
Changing the way the American mainstream looks at homosexuality is certainly a simple goal, but simple goals often require a complex approach, and Kirk and Madsen advocated a program that was ambitious to the nth degree. After the Ball called for the wholesale capture of the U.S. media, and the use of that media for the propagation of the homosexual agenda.
It didn't take long for activists to jump on the Kirk and Madsen bandwagon. In After the Ball, the authors gleefully reported that in 1988 - just two years after "Waging Peace" had been published - a "war conference" of 175 leading gay activists, representing organizations from across the country, gathered "to establish a four-point agenda for the gay movement."
Kirk and Madsen said the conference established as its top priority a nation-wide media campaign promoting a positive image of homosexuals. In its final statement the group said, "We must consider the media in every project we undertake. We must, in addition, take every advantage we can to include public service announcements and paid advertisments, and to cultivate reporters and editors of newspapers, radio, and television. To help facilitate this we need national media workshops to train our leaders. Our media efforts are fundamental to the full acceptance of us in American life..."
Noting he also works at a camp in Vermont, Behrman said some of the 13 and 14 year olds there also are exploring bisexuality.
Could this "camp in Vermont" actually be this "youth retreat?"
Homosexual Activists Solidify Hold on Schools
"...With a three-year grant worth $121,575 from the Vermont Department of Health, Outright targets middle and high school kids. Kathy Hoyt, Vermont Secretary of Administration, proudly asserted that Outright Vermont "developed a training program for public schools that was designed to support diversity and safe schools for Vermont’s gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth."
As in Massachusetts, however, "safety" has begun to bleed into "sex." That’s the serious charge leveled by Nancy Sheltra, a six-term state representative and founder of Vermont’s pro-family organization, Standing Together And Reclaiming the State (STARS). According to documents provided to AFA by STARS, Outright Vermont has gone lightyears beyond the simple purpose espoused by Hoyt.
For example, Outright used taxpayer money to provide "safer sex activities" and "parties" for teens. These events included, according to Outright’s own documents, "demonstrations, guided practice & skill evaluation" for the use of prophylactics, and the distribution of free condoms, lubricants for sexual intercourse between males, "dental dams" for oral sex between lesbians, and latex gloves for mutual masturbation.
The number of such items requested by Outright Vermont for distribution to teens was mind-boggling: 5,000 condoms, 750 dental dams, 750 latex gloves, and 2,000 packets of lubricant.
Outright also spent monies on youth retreats, including the "recruitment of youth participants," which utilized mailing lists and youth-related meetings to stir interest in the gatherings. Kids who expressed an interest in attending were transported - again using state money - to the retreat site, where youth and adult staff again taught kids how to engage in homosexual sex practices. Outright’s own quarterly report said, "All retreat participants practiced and were evaluated on their (prophylactic) barrier use skills and were given a variety of barriers to take home. Participants joined in role plays"..."
The Problem with Equivalence: "Pedophilia Chic" defended
In 'Pedophilia Chic Reconsidered,' Eberstadt raises questions about the mixed messages on appropriate sexual behavior for minors given out by the youth websites of many gay organizations. Eberstadt is concerned that these sites are encouraging young boys and girls to think sexually at ever younger ages. The parents disturbed by the Outright Vermont program agree. During the campaign, these parental groups complained loudly about graphic pictorial illustrations of, and instructions for, gay oral sex, fisting, and "rimming" ("mouth to ass," as the pamphlet describes it) made available to young people by Outright Vermont. Interestingly, supporters of Outright Vermont were, by their own account, "visibly shaken" by these attacks. What so shocked the partisans of Outright Vermont was that anyone could be horrified by the act of distributing to youngsters the sort of "safe sex" material gay organizations now ignore as commonplace.
The cultural fault line here is profound, and no aberration. The gay adults who operate gay-straight alliances and organizations like Outright Vermont seem to have a very different view than most heterosexual parents on the extent to which sexually explicit material ought to be made available to young people. And to be sure, explicit material about homosexual sex is even more disturbing to most parents than explicit material about heterosexual sex. With good reason. The most disquieting thing of all is that programs like Outright Vermont are now targeted at GLBTQ's. That's an acronym for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Questioning youth. A "questioning" youth, of course, is uncertain about his or her sexual orientation. But it's entirely commonplace for children who end up heterosexual to go through a youthful phase in which they question their own sexual orientation. Will these children now be told they have a gay gene, be handed a dental dam, and directed to an adult gay porn site?..."
To: rface; Alamo-Girl; marron; unspun; logos; xzins; lockeliberty; P-Marlowe; Vernon; restornu
We are watching attitudes change, one generation replacing another, in the direction of full acceptance of gay Americans. We're not there yet. But this time it's the conservatives pushing the most radical idea: a constitutional freeze on social change.
I dunno, but this line of reasoning appears quite specious to me. Ms. Goodman is espousing the "individual rights" argument, alleging that gay men and women are somehow being deprived of their constitutional rights. But this is a total canard.
First of all, the Constitution does not confer rights, it secures them where they already exist. And as far as, say, Thomas Jefferson was concerned (if we want to take the DoI seriously), rights are endued in humans by their Creator; they are not, nor can they be, grants of the state, national or otherwise.
Moreover, gays cannot show that they are being deprived of the right to marry, within the traditional definition of that term. They just choose not to do so.
What is the traditional definition of marriage? William Bennett, on the O'Reilly show last night, had the pithiest definition I have ever come across. He said the purpose of marriage was "to civilize men, protect women, and raise children." Indeed, this is marriage's natural purpose, having been established over some 40-plus millennia ago, and a common feature of human existential experience in all cultures, all places, and all times ever since. It goes without saying that marriage has had enormous "fitness" (survival) value for the human species over time, and continues to be the bedrock social institution of a civilized society.
Here we have a situation when roughly 5% of the American population -- that part of it self-described solely according to preferred sexual practices that have never been regarded anywhere as "natural" -- is agitating on the basis that the other 95% is depriving them of their individuals rights. Yet no one is telling gays how to live their lives, or what they may or may not choose to do in their private lives.
Marriage is a public institution in a way that homosexual relations are not. For homosexual liaisons (of whatever duration) are mainly about sexual gratification, erotic experience; they are not concerned with the public purposes that marriage serves: civilizing men, protecting women, raising children.
Personally, one wonders why gay folks want to get "married," really. Civil unions would give them equal benefits with married folk; but this is somehow not good enough: They must have the term itself.
And so one asks: Why? The more radical activists hate marriage because they believe it is a "sexist institution." For such people, that's quite sufficient reason -- all by itself -- to mow marriage down. For it offends one by its "sexism."
And so society is to be stood on its head, just to gratify the narcissism and aestheticism of a tiny minority of the population who have zero sympathy for families, the demands of child-rearing, or respect for the requirements of our rule of law. And the means to do this is to execute an end-run around the Will of the People, expressed through duly-constituted legislatures, and head straight to confused public officials and (ultimately) activist judges for "judge-made law."
This hardly looks to me like a case of tyranny against a minority being perpretrated by the majority. It would be much more accurate to say this is the case of a minority tyrannizing the majority. And it is judges and justices acting outside the scope of their constitutional authority which makes all this possible.
As we saw in the case of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's one-judge majority, ordering the state General Court to accommodate gay marriage in the Commonwealth -- after the Will of the People had already been expressed in a constitutional referendum. The people of the Commonwealth by a huge majority clearly said "NO." One judge said "YES"; and that's all that was needed to trump the will and wishes of society.
This sort of thing is practically the textbook definition of tyranny.
Weasel-worded Kerry is trying (as usual) to have it both ways. He's not in favor of a federal constitution amendment to protect marriage, but he IS up for Massachusetts attempting to pass an amendment to our state constitution. But this is so deceitful of him -- for well he knows that, absent a federal amendment, it's only a matter of time before the Article IV "Full Faith and Credit Clause" ends up getting litigated -- and thus the issue finds itself back in the hands of judges. (Kerry is such a hypocrit I could spit.)
Personally, I am chagrined that the issue of a federal constitutional amendment has even come up. I hate the idea of being driven to such measures by the progressive left which hates America and most Americans. But the fact is, a federal amendment is the only thing that can keep the "Full Faith and Credit" issue from rearing its head at some not far-off time....
Thanks for the post, rface!
20 posted on 03/04/2004 10:01:32 AM PST by betty boop (The purpose of marriage is to civilize men, protect women, and raise children. -- William Bennett)