| What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda |
|
|
| Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1) |
|
|
| Myth and Reality about Homosexuality--Sexual Orientation Section, Guide to Family Issues" |
Then many parents have been adrift from reality for the last 30 years.
No ... the consequences are absolutely intended by those developing and promoting sex education programs. They may be *surprising* consequences to parents, but they are not "unintentional."
Homosexual Agenda Ping.
I did read the whole thing and it is EXCELLENT. Reasoned in tone, no "gay bashing" here. Just the facts, and the facts tell the story.
Another MUST READ.
Let me and Its etc etc.
Ping
Ping
http://www.recallmontgomeryschoolboard.com/
Parents are trying to do something about it, but will probably get nowhere. Solution: pull kids from the public school system and let the school board know why.
First, the curriculum may present too much too soon... Simply stated, the earlier an adolescent is educated about sex, the earlier he is likely to engage in sex... Second, adolescents are not adults. There is a growing body of research which indicates that the adolescent mind is undergoing a huge renovation: from thinking concretely to thinking abstractly. During this renovation, however, research suggests that adolescents process their decision making in a highly emotional and impulsive manner.
An excerpt from "It's 1984 in Massachusetts – And Big Brother Is Gay"
"... A prominent psychiatrist says the sex-ed curricula at these schools can lower children "to the level of animals" and inflict lasting harm. "Massachusetts schools' systematic promotion of homosexuality and promiscuity fosters sexual confusion and experimentation," says Nathaniel S. Lehrman, former clinical director of the Kingsboro Psychiatric Center in New York. "They dilute and trivialize [the capacity for] faithful sexual passion which should [later] be the cement of these children's marriages. Unstable youngsters may become particularly vulnerable to homosexuals who actively recruit them."
There are teachers all over North America quietly mainstreaming homosexual behavior to children as young as 5 years old. As widely reported, on "Gay Days" classes are cancelled and students led to compulsory activities where homosexuals explain their "lifestyles." The mind-control techniques are straight from Soviet schools..."
Do you have a link for this article?
Excerpt from: David Blakeslee: Name-calling undermines search for truth in gay marriage debate:
Saturday, March 20, 2004
DAVID BLAKESLEE
Recent articles, news stories and letters to the editor have often been supportive of gay marriage. Those who disagree with that point of view are often discredited as bigots or religious zealots. Twenty years ago, courageous members of the Gay Rights movement embraced their most derogatory description, "faggot" and "fairy," in order to get their message out. Calling people names is a way to control the discussion of important social issues. The issue of gay marriage is too important for such tactics because our ultimate decision has wider ramifications for our society.
The argument for gay marriage is rooted in three popularized false propositions: 1) that same sex attraction is biologically determined; 2) that the challenges facing gays are primarily due to society's oppression of gays, and 3) gay relationships are essentially the same as heterosexual relationships. A recent book by professor J. Michael Bailey, Ph.D. ("The Man Who Would Be Queen") debunks these arguments, exposing them as myths of the politically correct. His book has been called, "Absolutely splendid," by preeminent gay researcher, Simon LeVay.
Before any analysis of the data is begun it is important to understand gay researchers dominate the research on gays. Bailey suggests that gays make up about 50% of the researchers in this field (whereas gays make up between 2-4% of the general population). We should look with skepticism on their results when they lead to conclusions that gays are no different than heterosexuals. It is sort of like Louisiana Pacific doing studies on the benefits of clear-cutting on wildlife habitat: their results may be true, but we should be skeptical because the research agenda can be easily dominated by bias. If Louisiana Pacific found the oppositewell, that would be quite another thing. The research in gay genetics and behavior is beginning to point in the opposite direction we would expect given the field's dominance by gay
researchers. -snip
...as in the beginning of paragraph four, I think the same logic applies in the anti-drug programs, like DARE. They give too much too soon in the mistaken idea that it wll curb illegal drug use, but instead contributes too it through early introduction.