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:
Encouraged in what way and by whom?
So that which is disadvantageous, must be prohibited by law?
Is that your point?
I'm really trying to understand your position, but I'm not getting it.
I think he's curious as to how you define "help".
Helping someone against their will isn't help at all.
Unless you believe in the old "Hi, I'm from the government, and I'm here to help you" line.
Are you so profound a dullard, that you cannot comprehend that it matters?
You are correct, there is disadvantageous heterosexual behavior. That should also be discouraged. In fact, any sexual activity outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage should be discouraged.
Shalom.
Discouraged how?
Prison?
The problem as I see it is thus:
You ostensibly argue for complete equality with respect to society's acceptance or tolerance of heterosexual and homosexual behavior. Presumably it is based on a general a priori principle/assumption of the right to equality of homosexuals v. heterosexuals.
The truth is that others are unwilling to accept, emotionally, and often intellectually that gays should have rights equal to heterosexuals.
I will give you two examples to support this point.
First, imagine that an expeditionary group of students had spent a year isolated from families and loved ones in Antarctica and upon their return they were met by a proud group of supporters at the dock or airport. I feel fairly certain that you wouldn’t seek to oppose a boyfriend / girlfriend or husband wife from kissing on the lips in front of the group. Neither would heterosexuals or homosexuals be dsiturbed by such a display
On the other hand, I believe you fully realize, and perhaps even agree, that such a display in front of the families attending the arrival ceremony, by two homosexuals, for the identical display of affection (i.e. a prolonged kiss on the lips) would, or even should, not be perceived with the same tolerance.
Similarly, family TV shows, as for example the Cosby show, regularly stage displays of affection between husbands and wives without any moral indigestion, yet the identical display by say Ellen Degeneris with a "lifetime partner" would evoke strong negative feelings amongst most heterosexual individuals, including many if not most liberals, and particulary from those with children.
Why is this?
On the one hand we have been inculcated with the notion that we should treat everyone equally, and to not do so is an abrogation of that individuals basic rights, yet in our hearts, we feel that there is not true equivalence. Something about two guys kissing in prime time just isn't right, no matter how hard we try to make it so, and no matter how hard homosexuals attempt to convince us otherwise.
Even if we are not able to put the reasons for such feelings into words, we nevertheless experience them. Perhaps the reason is nothing more than an innate understanding of the unnaturalness of homosexual behavior. It is difficult to ignore the fact that a penis and a rectum were not made for each other- and never will be, no matter how many liberals think otherwise. In a very real sense, such behavior must at the very least be termed unnatual or a deviation from the norm.
But you say, much worse things than two homosexuals kissing are shown in prime time. True, however such displays (murder, violence etc) are not choreographed so as to legitimatize them or to suggest normalcy.
No, whatever else homosexual behavior is, it is not natural and regretably despite any desire for metaphysical egalitarianism, it is not normal, and as such should not be legitimized and therefore can not be made normal.
A - I don't want laws to enforce anything, I want the gay-les community to police itself, with the understanding that societies have the right to defend their standards (IMHO the only one of my rights I want the government to defend is my right to live my life without government interference, everything I can handle on my own thanks).
B - The behavior I'm objecting to is only related to homosexuality in that straight people don't do it. It's not that they can't, it's that they don't. There's no rule I've found that says only gays are allowed to walk around in nothing more than thong underware and chaps. The fact is that only gays, and a small percentage at that, chose to do so.
C - As soon as we have people running around without pants getting broadcast into my living room while I thought I was watching the evening new, we've got problems, those people need to put on some GD clothes and start acting normal. I don't care who they plook or with what, but when your butt is in my living room it better stop and it better stop quick.
See I really don't care what goes on in a person's life. I've been friends with gays and lesbians most of my life and by and large they're very nice people largely indistinguishable from everybody else. The problem is there's a radical subsection, the so called "loud and proud" gays and lesbians that aren't nice people. They're not expressing "love" as you so eloquently put it, they're flaunting the moral standards of our society in ways that already border on the criminal (we do have public decency laws in most of this country you know). Polite society doesn't do that stuff.
Here's a fun link, I realize it's an onion article and therefore a spoof, but look at those picture. Those aren't fake pictures, that's real stuff from real gay pride marches and if you've ever caught the coverage of those events you've probably seen much worse. People that will dress like that and march down the street have no place in polite society. Gay, straight or celebate doesn't matter, those people need to put some damn clothes on and stop scaring the horses.
Of course, ALL the residents will get to have a voice in the debate, and to vote on it.
Psst. It's a new fad that's been sweeping the nation since about 1700 or so. It's called "democracy."
I'm straining to make a point. That there is a certain subsection of the homosexual crowd who's public behavior is beyond the pale and would be regardless of their sexual orientation. The normal homosexuals need to reign these people in because they're making the whole subculture look not just bad but down right threatening to normal civilized culture.
Of course it is not normal. Nor am I suggesting that it be accepted or tolerated by others, in terms of their private associations.
In a society which values rights, men are free to accept or reject homosexuals as they see fit. If they do not wish to engage in commerce with homosexuals, the state has no business forcing them to. If they do not wish to allow homosexuals access to their clubs, homes, or businesses, that is their right. If they believe homosexuality is evil, they are well within their rights to state so emphatically, and to protest against homosexuality.
What they are NOT within their rights to do, is to prevail upon government to restrain the private sexuality of consenting adults at gunpoint.
I sure wish people would read the thread so I didn't have to type the same thing over and over.
Oh, yeah. Because everyone knows that people who do not seek a government seal-of-approval for their relationship (i.e. marriage) could not possibly be responsible people and should, under no circumstances, be having sex *gasp*
Yes, countless.
As it alread is encouraged. Primarily socially. I happen to agree with tax incentives and contractual rules, but I understand the argument against such and think it's an interesting debate.
Shalom.
Be sure and let us all know when you decide whether or not to imprison them.
Hmmm. So, by reverting to sarcasm does that mean that you no longer have any arguments?
Obviously I don't have the authority to establish such policy on my own. But I presume I am allowed an opinion, no?
Shalom.
There are other ways to discourage something other than prohibiting it by law. That is one method, but there are others.
I'm really trying to understand your position, but I'm not getting it.
In the past I have strongly questioned that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt once again.
Shalom
So, by reverting to sarcasm are you making the point that you can no longer argue your position?
Shalom.
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.