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:
It's not fair for you to insist on thinking things through logically instead of just giving the usual human, knee-jerk, emotional response.
Almost everyone else here does; what's your problem? ;-)
OK, let's take what you do confess. The mantra about non-initiation of force sounds very nice in college bull sessions. With each passing year, it becomes ever more obvious that libertarianism does not lead to a society where we all sit around smoking good weed and getting laid as often as we might like (with the help of a consenting other) but rather to a society where some people actually resent charity (not welfare, mind you, but charity) or altrusim.
If I choose to be charitable or altruistic for no better reason in the imagination of the libertarian than that I feel a religious compulsion to give to others though they have not earned that charity, I should be free to do so. No???? After all, it is my money or whatever. I have earned it. Ownership of what I earn gives me the right to dispose of it. If I don't compel you ar anyone else to join me in giving, that is my libertarian right. If you disapprove of what I choose to do with my property, that is your right so long as you do not initiate force against me. If I despise homosexuality, promiscuity, or whatever, that is also my business. I have no desire to jail homosexuals or fine them or legally sanction them in any way. Nor adulterers.
With abortion, the rubber meets the road because we are talking about a different human being's rights. I have no desire to debate abortion here nor the time since I have obligations to attend to off the internet.
When I was captivated by libertarian works as a student, I found interesting the concept of shunning or neighborhood disapproval to be an interesting alternative to government action. We have passed that point when homosexual activists seek the right not to be criticized or shunned and that has nothing to do with taxes or benefits. In Canada, there are laws threatening jail to those who engage in "homophobic" "hate speech." Some politicians have threatened to try and have JP II jailed if he speaks out against homosexuality while visiting Canada. Not terribly likely to happen but not because of a lack of law.
Libertarians are a fifth column who undermine conservatism. They have every right to try and conservatives have every right to resist their efforts. At least you are honest enough to admit that you are not conservative.
Karl Marx breathed oxygen, OWK breathes oxygen therefore OWK is a Marxist.
Such a logician. One can tell you avoided schools at every opportunity.
OWK, I knew you wouldn't come clean. Don't let him fool ya BlackElk, he definitely likes cheese.
Ok, for the entertainment of you, and for that of the many.
The original quote:
...something in the human psyche gets triggered to convince the poor soul to run around chasing after rumps instead of nice loamy woman thighs.
Or, the poor soul could simply chase after the woman's loamy rump. Ha!
Send all complaints, curses, flames, and phone numbers (if you're female) to: helmsman@laughshisassoff.org
hehehe...
If you see that as being the ultimate goal of libertarianism, then you appear, to me, to be one very confused (or maybe just ignorant) individual.
Fortunately, neither state needs to be a permanent condition.
However, homosexuality has become an issue because homosexuals are not content to practice their abberations in private. They parade them in the street, they demand the right to marry, to adopt children, in short, to have their abnormal sexual practices condoned and approved by normal society at large.
As a biological organism, the primary function of a human being's biological equipment is to reproduce the species. You can't get offspring from two males or two females, hence homosexuality is a biological dead-end, a genetic or social abberration which could lead to the extinction of the species.
Homosexuality is not normal and is the product of defective genes or the societal programming of a normal individual by abberrant role models.
If homsexuals REALLY wanted to be free of any discrimination, they would crawl back into the closet where they belong.
I always fight for vouchers and promote homeschooling. I have no use for public schools. The agenda they push sickens me. But that's OK, you go assume what you like, you always do.
As I stated it is very difficult to find enough competent math or science teachers even in the public schools with decent salaries. Halve the salaries and watch the quality of teaching decline precipitously. There are expected to be tremendous shortages in all subjects within the next few years.
There are many ways to improve the public school system without destroying it. It is the sheerest fantasy to believe it can be replaced with private schooling. Sounds good, like all pie-in-the-sky schemes but collapses in the face of serious analysis.
Does it seem odd that the same people who vote in the politicians we all love to hate would be the same ones making choices about private schooling yet, better choices are expected? That is a laughable idea if ever there was one.
Amen.
I have been saying that for years to anyone who will listen, and the number is quite small. I ask people who rail on this subject why it is that they never include promiscuity as a problem. Most times they never answer at all, the rest mumble something like "OH yeah, thats bad too" and then return to their crusade against certain sins.
If homosexuality were practiced privately among consenting adults then we wouldn't have an activist movement, would we?
The fact that we are discussing the issue means that it is not a private matter between consenting adults. Therefore, since those suffering from Same-sex Attraction Disorder (SAD) have brought the issue into the public arena, then we have the obligation, not the opportunity, to remind everyone that it is not a normal or desirable trait and belongs back in the closet.
Shalom.
Confess? I don't confess it. I state it openly, and with pride and emphasis. I hold the inalienable rights of individuals human beings as the highest political ideal.
The mantra about non-initiation of force sounds very nice in college bull sessions.
Maybe you gave up the idea of inalienable rights when you left college, but I can assure you, I still hold it very tightly, at the core of my philosophy. (and for the record, I did not attend college)
With each passing year, it becomes ever more obvious that libertarianism does not lead to a society where we all sit around smoking good weed and getting laid as often as we might like (with the help of a consenting other) but rather to a society where some people actually resent charity (not welfare, mind you, but charity) or altrusim.
Tell me oh enlightened one, how precisely does this "become ever more obvious with each passing year"? You seem think that your tendency for making grand unsubstantiated pronouncements is somehow a substitute for rational discourse. Simply declaring absurdities in the absence of support may make you feel good, but it does nothing to advance your position.
If I choose to be charitable or altruistic for no better reason in the imagination of the libertarian than that I feel a religious compulsion to give to others though they have not earned that charity, I should be free to do so. No????
Absolutely. I myself make charitable contributions all the time. But I do so because I value the actions of the charity, greater than I value the money. There's not a thing wrong with that. What I oppose, is government seizing my property at gunpoint, for redistribution to individuals who have not earned it. Can you understand the difference?
After all, it is my money or whatever. I have earned it. Ownership of what I earn gives me the right to dispose of it.
Of course it does. Why on earth would you think otherwise? (once again I fear you have fallen into the trap of believing your own mischaracterizations of my position, rather than simply asking me what I believe).
If I don't compel you ar anyone else to join me in giving, that is my libertarian right. If you disapprove of what I choose to do with my property, that is your right so long as you do not initiate force against me.
Absolutely so. I have never even hinted otherwise.
If I despise homosexuality, promiscuity, or whatever, that is also my business. I have no desire to jail homosexuals or fine them or legally sanction them in any way. Nor adulterers.
I agree completely (and have stated so emphatically many times already on this thread).
With abortion, the rubber meets the road because we are talking about a different human being's rights. I have no desire to debate abortion here nor the time since I have obligations to attend to off the internet.
You'll find no debate from me. I stand 100% and vehemently in the pro-life corner, and favor the protection of the lives of unborn children by law.
When I was captivated by libertarian works as a student, I found interesting the concept of shunning or neighborhood disapproval to be an interesting alternative to government action.
The fact that you describe your early political explorations as "captivating" and "youthful fancies" is quite a window into your psyche.
We have passed that point when homosexual activists seek the right not to be criticized or shunned and that has nothing to do with taxes or benefits. In Canada, there are laws threatening jail to those who engage in "homophobic" "hate speech." Some politicians have threatened to try and have JP II jailed if he speaks out against homosexuality while visiting Canada. Not terribly likely to happen but not because of a lack of law.
Hate crimes laws, are ridiculous on their face. In fact, anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action laws, laws seeking to force unwanted associations on men, are all ridiculous affronts to the concept of inalienable human rights. I have already said so a dozen times on this thread (which you would know had you bothered to read it, instead of creating fictional mischaracterizations of my position).
Libertarians are a fifth column who undermine conservatism.
Libertarians are advocates of inalienable rights, who oppose primarily the political left, but also the political right if they happen to be the ones subjugating rights on that particular issue.
They have every right to try and conservatives have every right to resist their efforts. At least you are honest enough to admit that you are not conservative.
I have never pretended otherwise. That was a product of your fevered imagination (as are most of the things you have said).
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.