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 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.
"Anal...The Other (T)ight Meat"
I really have to wonder why I'm being given so many openings...oops, um, never mind...
WILL CONTRIBUTE MEANINGFULLY LATER
Seems to me, somebody ought to be suing the NEA for racking up hundreds of millions of dollars in aids bills/research etc.
This is one of the reasons my child will NEVER be part of the public school system!
Civilization of a higher order requires that provision be made for the education of the future citizens. These costs are far too great to rely on the private citizen's abilities to pay or we return to those days when only the wealthy could be assured of a chance at an education.
Republics require an educated citizenry and without it degenerate into mob rule or tyranny. When huge numbers of the lower classes are uneducated the entire nation suffers from their ignorance and lack of skills. Our nation's rise to greatness owes a great deal to its public education system. All other nations understand this as well. This is why the OWK approach is universally rejected. Only one willing to ignore history and embrace a lie calls for entirely private schooling.
My child's tuition and costs are $6,000 +. How do you propose the lower class parents pay such costs? I don't want one of your typical stupid comments about entitlements but a practical answer? How will the poor educate their young if there is no public schooling? Should be simple, lets hear it.
See URL: http://www.queensu.ca/dsao/hro/2Anti_Hetero_Main.htm
We live in a time where a male student, identified as “transgendered” by the office listed above, can successfully cry “bigotry” and force the same university to allow him to change in the women’s locker area because, as he claims, he is “a man trapped in a woman’s body”. And no I did not make that up either.
What, you say, is the relevance of these two intriguing anecdotes? The point is that tolerance, while normally healthy, can occasionally give rise to abominations. So, from Queen’s University’s office of Equity urging tolerance, to the annual gay parades where totally naked men walk down Main Street every June in Toronto (and you guessed it I didn't make that up either), may be a smaller step than some libertarians ever dreamed. In any event, thank you for your responses. You have your hands full so I will bother you no more.
In a free market, what is appropriate is what the market will bear.
Further, the existence of government schools (and cost to each property owner out of pocket) artificially inflate the costs and artificially deflate the spending power of individuals.
In a free market place, where there is a need, a provider will be found. Just as there are some grocery stores that cater to high-end, chi-chi products (and price accordingly) there are also grocery stores which provide staple items at substantial discounts.
Civilization of a higher order requires that provision be made for the education of the future citizens.
Sounds like: "Freedom is a precious commodity. So precious it must be rationed."
I'll pass, thank you.
Many State constitutions explicitly claim the right to provide for the education of its citizens. These are not socialist documents but often predated Marx. They came from the recognition that the private system failed because it left the poor unable to afford an education with disastrous results for them and the rest of the citizenry. You may not be aware of the fact but ignorance has a very high cost particularly when the ignorant can vote.
I never mentioned homeschooling and don't consider it a viable alternative for most people because of the extremely high opportunity cost of indulging in it and its inability to tackle the deepest subjects.
I never said that a 70K salary ensures good instruction. However, why would you believe education is immune from the laws of economics or the maxim that you get what you pay for? Lower salaries means lower ability in the teacher pool and poor educational opportunity.
I never mentioned requiring education degrees or even courses though private schools do as well as public. So that is a straw man unrelated to my concerns.
No, but working for peanuts while very young or inexperienced soon becomes the reason to leave the teaching field when responsibilities and needs increase. This drains away many of the best and most experienced teachers and worsens the educational difficulties. My hat is off to most teachers for putting up with what they do and trying to do their best.
Not only do they bust their asses for little reward but generally bear the brunt of attacks by the ignorant criticizing when they best be silent. Normally, those least educated think themselves the greatest experts on the subject.
This issue is not about "controlling the private behavior of consenting adults in their own bedrooms," OWK. Private behavior is private behavior -- until and unless people try to make it as public as possible. Personally, I have no problem with the former being left in peace, so to speak; but I do have a problem with the latter. And that would hold whether the behavior in question were "gay" or "straight."
The real issue boils down to whether society must afford special recognition and protections for any self-selected class of people who raise a big enough stink. This is a blatantly coercive strategy for "social change." Most gay activists, I gather, would distinctly disagree with Ms. Paglia's quite reasonable remarks, above (she, after all, is an empiricist, not an ideologue with an ax to grind).
This society is about "equal justice under law" -- not special privileges for some. Unless you think that "the squeaky wheels gets the grease" is a good foundation for the rule of law in a civil society.
All my best -- bb.
You say this:
Overall I'm pretty mellow.
But you preface that with this:
(ostrasizing works pretty well, some people just don't get the point though and require the use of Louisville Sluggers, one beat down teaches a lot of people though).
Are you seriously advocating the use of Louisville Sluggers if mere ostracism doesn't do what you would consider to be an adequate job of discouraging public displays of affection between homosexuals?
Please, say "no".
The only reason my "rules" effect homosexuals at all is that there's a bunch of them that trample all over these rules at every gay pride march.
I have to take your word for it that what goes on in public during "gay pride" marches is beyond the bounds of acceptable public behavior, because I've never watched a "gay pride" parade. Assuming you are correct, we agree that they are getting away with public behavior that would be equally unacceptable in heterosexuals.
But I have come to realize that some heterosexuals object to behavior in homosexuals that would be perfectly acceptable in heterosexuals, i.e., the placing of a photograph of a loved one on one's desk at the workplace, for example. For some, that's way more "gay pride" than they're willing to tolerate. Like you say, what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.
I belong to a church where the theology clearly teaches that homosexual behavior leads to an eternal loss of blessings and chance for progression. I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. But I believe that it is even more morally wrong to deny the freedom of choice to other individuals. You can preach, teach and exhort your fellow man to righteous works all the day long, and proclaim that God will discriminate between homo- and heterosexuals in the afterlife because he has prohibited such behavior here, but to carry out that discrimination is God's job, in the afterlife, and not ours. To give government that power in this life is for government to usurp God's authority. At least, that's the way I see it.
Wouldn't it be cool to turn on your TV find out their covering the latest gay pride march and see nothing but well dressed men and women behaving in a civilized fashion?
Yup, it would.
It is clear that the states which created public school systems became more prosperous than those which did not. How can the market accurately price an output whose quality may not be known for decades? Student evaluations? Standardized tests? Parental approval of the curriculum?
Markets do not properly price externalities nor provide for charging the free rider. This is not new economic theory. Nor do they function well when the assumption of free disposal is violated nor when monopolists control the markets (generally only with government assistance.) Markets cannot control the courts, nor the military nor the educational system if excellence is desired.
In fact, these are some of the major reasons governments are created in the first place. In reality there has never been truly free markets only those with more or less government control.
Hey, Beast, I think your spell-checker needs an overhaul. I agree with you, but I think where you have "interterest" you meant to type "rabid zealotry." But I appreciate the kind words from you (#159) and Happygal.
There IS evidence that sexual orientation is influenced by genetics. There is no evidence that a single "gay gene" paints sexual preference in black and white. And regardless of how far philosophical debate wanders all over the map, I do what I can to make sure that the hard facts (like simple single-gene dominance) are not misstated.
I don't really have a horse in the sex race, but I am left-handed. I was doing some reading a few weeks ago when I realized the similarities between hand dominance and sexual orientation. It seemed an easy parallel to draw, and hand preference doesn't come with as much religious baggage as sex. Of course, we southpaws have dealt with our share of religious persecution in the past. But that is no longer in vogue, it seems. In fact, many of my religious friends haven't referred to me as a "sinistral" for several months.
It is possible that the university is forced to give in to the cry of "bigotry" because the university is receiving taxpayer money? If the university is not on the receiving end of taxpayer funding, the university has every right to tell the "transgendered" student to go pound sand.
Yes, when I think "excellence" I think government.
* Hurm. Cough. *
Or San Francisco's annual pre-Halloweeen public, adults-only costume party, whatever it's called.
Seems like you're an advocate for the tyranny of the majority. Let me ask you again: Why do you favor state control of education which inevatably ends up being the agent for indoctrinating students in the state approved way of thinking ?
No of course not. Affection isn't on my gripe list (at least as long as that affect is not displayed in a way that would garner a PG-13 or worse if it were in a movie... like serious tonsil hockey, gay or straight that's got no business occuring in public), those that are keeping their public displays of affection (PDAs as my old McDs boss called them) strictly G or PG don't even need to be ostrisized. But if things are getting hot and heavy, and kids might stumble upon this activity people need to get a room, I don't care if they're gay or straight, sex-ed shouldn't happen on Broadway; if they won't get a room the situation will have to be judged individually. Now if somebody tried to hand a small child that was in my protection an R rated candy the kid gloves come off. If you want to give your kid smutty candy in your house it's your problem, my kid on the streets I have a duty to protect them.
I have to take your word for it that what goes on in public during "gay pride" marches is beyond the bounds of acceptable public behavior, because I've never watched a "gay pride" parade. Assuming you are correct, we agree that they are getting away with public behavior that would be equally unacceptable in heterosexuals.
I'm sure the majority of the marchers are perfectly A-OK. But they never seem to get any camera time. I'll never forget the first time I saw Stonewall coverage on the nightly news, I was at a fairly tender age and the stuff I saw led to a lot of explaining by my mother. That's just not right.
But I have come to realize that some heterosexuals object to behavior in homosexuals that would be perfectly acceptable in heterosexuals, i.e., the placing of a photograph of a loved one on one's desk at the workplace, for example. For some, that's way more "gay pride" than they're willing to tolerate. Like you say, what's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.
You mean the whack jobs. Yeah, I seriously wonder about them. I think when the topic comes up you can see a lot of a person's hidden desires in what they object to. Clearly it's not against some rule for men to have pictures of men in their office; fathers, brothers, sons, childhood best friends they're all fine in everybody's book. Oh but if the person displaying the picture and the person in the picture ever fornicated it's only OK if they're of opposite genders?! That's so bogus. I've always wondered: what if one of my ex's had a sex change operation long after we split up but we stayed friends, would it be OK for me to have his picture? It's fun to throw these kind of questions at that kind of person, the react a lot like the robots in Star Trek.
I belong to a church where the theology clearly teaches that homosexual behavior leads to an eternal loss of blessings and chance for progression. I believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. But I believe that it is even more morally wrong to deny the freedom of choice to other individuals. You can preach, teach and exhort your fellow man to righteous works all the day long, and proclaim that God will discriminate between homo- and heterosexuals in the afterlife because he has prohibited such behavior here, but to carry out that discrimination is God's job, in the afterlife, and not ours. To give government that power in this life is for government to usurp God's authority. At least, that's the way I see it.
Hate the sin love the sinner. It's harder than most people think, sounds like you're doing a pretty good job. One way or the other never get the government involved. Societal standards are best defended by the society not by it's government. Societies greatest defenses are ostrisizing and banishment, a lot of bad behavior can be corrected just by those. Problems arise when the societal standard changes but nobody remembered to change the law. A co-worker of mine used a great tool to teach his nephes to pick up after themselves. If they left stuff lieing around he'd call them back in the room, when they got there he'd point at he trash and stare them in the eyes. Doesn't sound like much but it's amazingly effective. Society has very similar tool built right into it.
Yup, it would.
Who'd a thunk OWK could be a peace maker.
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.