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:
I never argued that homosexuality was a crime. Engaging in male/male anal sex in public places is a community health threat. The disease bred in homosexual behavior is a health threat to us all with ramifications that have and will continue to affect people who have never engaged in homosexual acts. It is a problem we can not ignore no matter how much we want to say that it is a matter concerning the bedroom only.
I have made no secret of the fact that I am not a "conservative" (whatever that happens to be this week). Do you think this is some kind of great revelation?
I have no obligation to sit idly by while objectivists try to hijack conservatism.
I don't know if I'd consider myself an objectivist, but I certainly value much of the philosophy. What this has to do with "hijacking conservatism" I don't know. I pretty much figured that everyone here were big boys and girls, and they could actually weigh the value of ideas for themselves. But I'm sure they appreciate your efforts to save them from nasty 'ole me. (do you get the impression I think you're being a bit melodramatic?)
Shall we also discuss the pretty thought held in common by Margaret Sanger and Ayn Rand that charity is cruelty?
I have no idea who Margaret Sanger is, but as for Rand, it was not actually charity in the traditional sense, but altruism (state institutionalization of charity) which she opposed. I share her distaste for altruism, and in fact all things collectivist.
You may start a thread.
Gee, that's mighty nice of you. When did you purchase FR?
What you may not do is control all sides of the discussion.
How does one go about "controlling all sides of a discussion" on a website which encourages the free exchange of ideas? Are you suggesting that I have some kind of inside advantage?
I would like you to make an honest revelation as to the totality of your belief structure so that your fellow posters may see it all. I cannot compel you. Mine is Roman Catholicism. Am I a witch doctor, therefore? And, what's your agenda?????
I am fundamentally libertarian from a philosophical standpoint. I recognize the initiation of force or fraud as immoral under all circumstances, and oppose such, whether perpetrated by individuals, or by state. My libertarian philosophical foundation is well known on FR.
I'm not sure what you think you're "exposing", but I think you look kinda silly in doing it.
Get off your lazy ass and petition the govt to get every bull s..., unconstitutional law off the books.
While you've been sittng on your lazy ass, spouting unrealistic goals....this government has run you down with your eyes wide open. Making every freedom and liberty in this country subject to 'lockup'. As long as that legislation is in place, you have nothing but unrealistic ideals to offer.
Now...how about you getting off your lazy ass and DO something for a change?
It is a mark of progress, however, that OWK has yet to publicly admit Randianism on this thread. It must not be much of a badge of honor anymore.
I guess I'm a bit confused as to why you don't share an equal disdain for heterosexual promiscuity in public places, or heterosexual pedophiles, or open displays of heterosexuality.
Aren't these things equally worthy of condemnation?
Isn't it pedophilia, public sexuality, and public promiscuity you oppose?
Regardless of whether the perpetrator is heterosexual or homosexual?
If not, why not?
What the hell is a Randian?
And why do you think that I am one?
And why do you presume to speak upon matters you could not possibly know unless I told you (namely my opinion).
Intellectual honesty requires that you allow your adversary the courtesy of stating his own opinion, rather than stating your profoundly flawed misunderstanding of it as fact. (not that I would expect intellectual honesty of you, given your current performance)
When you say "dealing with [me] in person", that could mean many things, but it's sufficiently vague that it could be perceived as a threat.
I am not a homosexual. If your statement was intended to mean that you would not have difficulty in treating me as you would wish to be treated (as in "dealing with me as a person") should you ever encounter me personally (as opposed to the anonymous message-trading that goes on in this forum), I would certainly hope that that kind of behavior could be expected of you at all times and in all places, regardless of what you think you perceive of my, or anyone else's, orientation.
Just trying to make sure that I understand you.
I devote every available moment to the task. Do you?
While you've been sittng on your lazy ass, spouting unrealistic goals....this government has run you down with your eyes wide open.
And you're the one driving.
Making every freedom and liberty in this country subject to 'lockup'. As long as that legislation is in place, you have nothing but unrealistic ideals to offer.
I have offered liberty, and absolute respect for the rights of individuals as solutions to the problems you see before you. The fact that these things are now recognized universally (even by people claiming to be conservative) as "unrealistic ideals", is profoundly sad.
Now...how about you getting off your lazy ass and DO something for a change?
You have no idea.
So do countless other communicable diseases.
Next.
But what you have left unsaid is: and were going to make ALL the residents pay for it.
So the Libertine Gestapo marches, and burns out this "statist cell," eh?
Bad analogy. It's the state itself, with its overwhelming firepower, which curbs dissent. Why do you agrue in favor of indoctrination, which is the inevitable tendancy of state run schools ?
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.