Your Dream World
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:
What you say of your family is also true of the Jewish people as a whole but what about those whose family backgrounds place no such value on education? Won't our entire nation suffer when those children are not acceptably educated?
My background is from the deep south where education was not valued. Should I therefore have been denied an education because my parents could/would not pay for it (there were 7 sons in my family, my mom had an 8th grade education)? We must look beyond our individual self (and even self interest) when making decisions that affect society as a whole.
Taxation is not theft when imposed by lawful means.
Wrong. There is nothing in the Consitition or Bill of Rights that gives one the right to not be offended.
You are holding the had of someone you love and plan to marry. Romance between a man and a woman does not need to be defended. Ever. Although there are boundaries as to how far such affectionate displays can go in public places. What has that got to do with homosexuals?
I'm no Biblical scholar such as yourself, but somewhere in the Bible it says that every word spoken will be accounted for.
BWAAAHAHAHAHA!!!
Well, DUH! In the 1790s, most of the country "outside the Eastern states and Virginia" was still dominated by the Amerinds (or, if you prefer, "Native Americans").
Yea I know. It was refering to FreeRepublic when it was written.
Yeah, I acknowledged that the article I linked to didn't say the guy was a roommate. Could have sworn that I saw that it one story about it but can't point to it.
...no "living room" in which sex was witnessed by a roommate or any other third person...
Hello? The article does refer to the third persion who witnessed it! That's the guy who called the whole thing in to the police.
...no "open door" through which the police entered.
Hello again? Re-read post #417, please. It clearly states that the police entered through an open door!
You want privacy? Keep third parties out of it and close the damn door!
Let's ask a general question just to get started. If there's an act we all agree is immoral and unacceptable when done by an individual, does that act become moral and acceptable when done collectively, namely by government?In the article that I read some time ago, he used this as an example of how you could never make rape acceptable, even if you passed a Constitutional Amendment saying it was. This also applies to theft, including theft by the Federal Government under the guise of income taxes.You say, "Williams, that's a bit too esoteric; would you break it down?"
OK, here's a for-instance. If we deem rape as immoral and unacceptable when done by an individual, does rape become moral and acceptable when done collectively? What if we vote to rape someone. Does that make rape morally acceptable? I'm hoping that all of my fellow Americans will answer: Neither a majority consensus nor collective action necessarily establishes what's moral or immoral.
But nothing in either article indicates that anyone (including the third party who, according to the article you linked, was in the apartment earlier that evening) was subjected to any untoward display.
The thought of these guys being arrested inside the apartment for consensual sex is still creepy. Isn't it? Or is it okay because, you know, you can only be arrested in Texas for having the wrong kind of sex in your apartment? That should allow most of us to breathe easy. No police state worries for us!
Nope. But when you see a male coworker with the picture of a male "friend" on his desk, instead of a "wife and kids" photo, what goes through your mind?
The point, which obviously went way over your head, was to hold a "straight pride" parade. What better way to make the point than by having the wife and kids there with you?
Your concept of forcing parents to provide for their children's education was partially behind the movement to public schools. It was much more effective to force them to educate their children by requiring attendence at private or public schools than by other more cumbersome and intrusive methods.
Civilization is impossible without some degree of "collectivism" which I would call social control, social responsibility and social concern. That is part of the Golden Rule and all the religious strictures on charity imposed by the Judeo/Christian ethic this civilization is based upon. Strange as it may seem much of government flows from the attempt to "Love thy neighbor."
Radical individualism, libertarianism and objectivism all are outside this ethic. One of the reasons they seem to have little appeal.
Individual rights don't even exist outside of a social setting for it is that setting which allows the concept of a right to be defined. In the state of nature where every man is King there are no real rights since nothing stops a man's action. Rights are defined by conflict. Conflict with other men, conflict with groups, and conflict between groups. Once again government steps in to resolve these conflicts between rights. The more rights claimed the bigger the government. Don't those societies with the most rights have the largest governments?
The identification of taxation with theft is shallow rhetoric and not a serious point of controversy. In a representative government holding such a simple-minded and deceptive view is indicative of serious misunderstanding of that form of government.
Your Dream World
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.