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:
Of course they can, although it is unusual. But you did not make any point with your sarcasm other than admitting you didn't understand mine.
The culture should not accept any sexual behavior as "normative" outside of a monagomous homosexual marriage.
Shalom.
FIRST and most importantly, it is not the responsibility of a government to educate the citizens...unless of course your a descendant of Lenin or have an agenda you would want to push on others then the public education vehicle is obviously the best route to take.
Secondly, attendance laws and state controll of homeschooling defeats the entire purpose. I don't have to prove to you that I can spell. I don't have to prove to the president that I can spell. My education is mine alone.
Third, a public school 70K salary does not mean the education is good, you seem to be concerned about teacher salaries, teachers know what they are getting into when they start their job. If they don't like it then they had better choose another field. Could it be some don't MIND working for "peanuts". In continuation, private schools are not likely to force a potential teacher to go to college for an education degree(as the feel good types in the NEA were the pioneers of the "education" degree). Instead, they can pursue a degree in Math, Science or Government. Imagine, a teacher teaching in a subject they know well and enjoy! What a thought!!
Remember, not everyone is going to make an awesome living and just because working for peanuts is an unappealling idea to you (and me) that it does not mean that there are not people out there willing to do it.
better?
I never did either. But I guess a fair amount of females like it if the stories are true. Seems a tad gross to me, and I'm not a prude either.
That's a valid argument and an interesting one ... for a different thread. If we move off onto the libertarian fallicy we will lose the focus of SAD.
Shalom.
Huh?
Your apples and oranges are spilling all over the floor.
That'll never happen. The controlling elitists fear that such an action would roll back the entire civil rights movement. They can choose to associate with their own set in the Upper West Side, and vacation on Martha's Vinny, but you and me gotta live in the communal dog-run and like it.
So then, what exactly is so magical about the act of marriage that sexual behavior inside of marriage should be considered "normal" and outside of it "abnormal"?
Surely you have much a different definition of "normal" and "unusual" then the overwhelming majority of Americans and, I'm quite certain, Freepers.
Or maybe you should get out more.
As such does it or does it not justify censorship of such displays (by homosexuals) in public?
Of course it is different. It is also abnormal. But does difference and abnormality constitute a morally justifiable reason to apply government restraining force at gunpoint? That is the question.
And I think the answer is somewhat dependent on the question of definitions of public and private. I think all too often the two are confused. Is a department store public? I would argue not. It is the property of the business owner, and he (not state) is therefore entitled to establish the terms and conditions for access to his property.
If he wishes to restrict either homosexual, or heterosexual (or all) displays of affection on his property, he is morally entitled to do so. Likewise if he wishes to allow them, he may do that also. Those unstaisfied with the terms of access, are free to choose not to enter. But ultimately, it is his property, and he (and not state, or the majority of neighbors) is entitled to establish the terms of access.
Now when you're talking about truly public property (which I as a libertarian oppose as a matter of principle) the public (being the theoretical owner) are entitled to establish the terms and conditions of use. But "the public" (as recognized and manifest in the state) is also bound by the responsibility to recognize all as equal before the law. Hence if the public wishes to prohibit public displays of affection, it must do so indiscriminately.
I do not wish to think of you as evasive hence I hope you will declare where you stand on this issue.
I'm generally not an evasive guy, and will do my best to answer any question put to me in good faith, provided it is asked in good faith. I apologize for my earlier hostility. I did not recognize the intent of your question, and I was a bit exhasperated.
Could you please direct me to that department? I may be willing to stand in line for that particular program.
This sounds like you're advocating mob rule. I'm sure you realize this type of government is not moral, and is certainly not what our founders intended.
I understand. I can always hope for common sense to return, can't I? Hope and pray, that is.
Shalom.
That would not upset me in the least. History has shown which definition is better for the survival of a culture.
I will admit that most people seem to get very upset at the idea that they should exercise self-control with respect to their sex drives.
Shalom.
And likewise others get very upset when asked to exercise self-control with respect to their impulse to nanny over the private sex lives of others.
One more time -- what is so magical about the act of marriage that those who are not married but engage in monogamous sexual relationships should be discouraged from doing so and should not be considered "normal" (your words)?
Actually, having sex constitutes marriage from a religious point of view. When you have sex with someone you marry them. Legally, there are specific contractual obligations that strengthen the family unit creating a foundation for our social constructions.
However, I have known people who are common-law married and it works for them. It can be done without law. But that is unusual.
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.