High school gays get a harsh lesson

Chicago Tribune ^ | March 13 | Dahleen Glanton

[metalmanx2j]

Kerry Pacer was used to the whispering behind her back, the name-calling and the snickering when she walked down the hall. But when almost the entire student body at White County High School booed as she accepted a rose from a female friend during a Valentine's Day (news - web sites) program last month, she knew it was time to do something.

[EdReform]

While I don't much FEEL impinged upon by homosexuals, when I think about it, I realize that they affect my life considerably -- and often for the worse.

An excerpt from "The radical homosexual agenda and the destruction of standards"

"The BGLTSA, as a wing of the radical homosexual movement, is looking to broaden the definition of normality to include deviant behavior. They're not looking for passive tolerance. They're looking for active acceptance. Now, ignoring homosexuality is no longer allowable; we must instead champion it, equating it with heterosexuality. In fact, homosexuality must be prized over heterosexuality; an open homosexual may proclaim to his heart's content that "dreams can come true -- you can find a same-sex partner," but an open heterosexual may not state that marriage constitutes "having it all."

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted such a broad societal trend toward normalizing the deviant as early as 1993, when he coined the term "defining deviancy down." He posited that "the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can 'afford to recognize' and that, accordingly, we have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the 'normal' level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard."

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer pointed out that alongside the movement to "define deviancy down," there was a concurrent movement to "define deviancy up": "As part of the vast social project of moral leveling, it is not enough for the deviant to be normalized," Krauthammer wrote. "The normal must be found to be deviant." One of the agendas of the "defining deviancy up" movement, Krauthammer noted, was promoting "an underlying ideology about the inherent aberrancy of all heterosexual relationships."

The Moynihan-Krauthammer prediction has come to pass. Straight men and women may no longer consider themselves normal, unless they also consider homosexuality normal. The rage against "heteronormalism" is rage against traditional societal standards as a whole. Exclusive morality has always offended the immoral. The only difference is that now offensiveness receives a stiffer societal sentence than blatant immorality. This is what political correctness -- the "live and let live" societal model -- has wrought.

The rise of the homosexual movement is a textbook example of societal amorality devolving into societal immorality. The rationale behind societal amorality is the myopic question: "How does my immoral behavior hurt you?" The answer is: It may not, in the short term. But when society sanctions your immoral behavior, that does hurt me. If millions of people accept the deviant as normal, that reshapes society in vastly destructive ways. Your moral self-destruction may have no consequences for me, but destruction of societal standards always has consequences.

When the stigma left single motherhood, society felt the sting in rising rates of single motherhood and juvenile crime. When the stigma left sexual licentiousness, society felt the sting in rising rates of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, emotional emptiness and nihilism. Your immoral personal behavior may not affect me, but exempting your immoral behavior from societal scrutiny certainly does. A society without standards is an unhappy, unhealthy society -- a society with no future. And all of us have to live in that society.

The BGLTSA isn't asking for tolerance on a person-to-person level. Instead, they're asking us to continue lowering societal standards. If we must choose between alienating the immoral and ravaging societal standards for the personal comfort of the immoral, then choosing the former is the only rational decision. "

See also:

Culture of Vice - ( excerpt posted here )

You're Imposing Your Morality On Everyone Else

The Stamp of Normality

Special Class Protections for Self-Alleged Gays: A Question of "Orientation" and Consequences - A Public Policy Analysis

An excerpt from "The radical homosexual agenda and the destruction of standards"

"The BGLTSA, as a wing of the radical homosexual movement, is looking to broaden the definition of normality to include deviant behavior. They're not looking for passive tolerance. They're looking for active acceptance. Now, ignoring homosexuality is no longer allowable; we must instead champion it, equating it with heterosexuality. In fact, homosexuality must be prized over heterosexuality; an open homosexual may proclaim to his heart's content that "dreams can come true -- you can find a same-sex partner," but an open heterosexual may not state that marriage constitutes "having it all."

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted such a broad societal trend toward normalizing the deviant as early as 1993, when he coined the term "defining deviancy down." He posited that "the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can 'afford to recognize' and that, accordingly, we have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the 'normal' level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard."

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer pointed out that alongside the movement to "define deviancy down," there was a concurrent movement to "define deviancy up": "As part of the vast social project of moral leveling, it is not enough for the deviant to be normalized," Krauthammer wrote. "The normal must be found to be deviant." One of the agendas of the "defining deviancy up" movement, Krauthammer noted, was promoting "an underlying ideology about the inherent aberrancy of all heterosexual relationships."

The Moynihan-Krauthammer prediction has come to pass. Straight men and women may no longer consider themselves normal, unless they also consider homosexuality normal. The rage against "heteronormalism" is rage against traditional societal standards as a whole. Exclusive morality has always offended the immoral. The only difference is that now offensiveness receives a stiffer societal sentence than blatant immorality. This is what political correctness -- the "live and let live" societal model -- has wrought.

The rise of the homosexual movement is a textbook example of societal amorality devolving into societal immorality. The rationale behind societal amorality is the myopic question: "How does my immoral behavior hurt you?" The answer is: It may not, in the short term. But when society sanctions your immoral behavior, that does hurt me. If millions of people accept the deviant as normal, that reshapes society in vastly destructive ways. Your moral self-destruction may have no consequences for me, but destruction of societal standards always has consequences.

When the stigma left single motherhood, society felt the sting in rising rates of single motherhood and juvenile crime. When the stigma left sexual licentiousness, society felt the sting in rising rates of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, emotional emptiness and nihilism. Your immoral personal behavior may not affect me, but exempting your immoral behavior from societal scrutiny certainly does. A society without standards is an unhappy, unhealthy society -- a society with no future. And all of us have to live in that society.

The BGLTSA isn't asking for tolerance on a person-to-person level. Instead, they're asking us to continue lowering societal standards. If we must choose between alienating the immoral and ravaging societal standards for the personal comfort of the immoral, then choosing the former is the only rational decision. "

An excerpt from "The radical homosexual agenda and the destruction of standards"

"The BGLTSA, as a wing of the radical homosexual movement, is looking to broaden the definition of normality to include deviant behavior. They're not looking for passive tolerance. They're looking for active acceptance. Now, ignoring homosexuality is no longer allowable; we must instead champion it, equating it with heterosexuality. In fact, homosexuality must be prized over heterosexuality; an open homosexual may proclaim to his heart's content that "dreams can come true -- you can find a same-sex partner," but an open heterosexual may not state that marriage constitutes "having it all."

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted such a broad societal trend toward normalizing the deviant as early as 1993, when he coined the term "defining deviancy down." He posited that "the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can 'afford to recognize' and that, accordingly, we have been re-defining deviancy so as to exempt much conduct previously stigmatized, and also quietly raising the 'normal' level in categories where behavior is now abnormal by any earlier standard."

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer pointed out that alongside the movement to "define deviancy down," there was a concurrent movement to "define deviancy up": "As part of the vast social project of moral leveling, it is not enough for the deviant to be normalized," Krauthammer wrote. "The normal must be found to be deviant." One of the agendas of the "defining deviancy up" movement, Krauthammer noted, was promoting "an underlying ideology about the inherent aberrancy of all heterosexual relationships."

The Moynihan-Krauthammer prediction has come to pass. Straight men and women may no longer consider themselves normal, unless they also consider homosexuality normal. The rage against "heteronormalism" is rage against traditional societal standards as a whole. Exclusive morality has always offended the immoral. The only difference is that now offensiveness receives a stiffer societal sentence than blatant immorality. This is what political correctness -- the "live and let live" societal model -- has wrought.

The rise of the homosexual movement is a textbook example of societal amorality devolving into societal immorality. The rationale behind societal amorality is the myopic question: "How does my immoral behavior hurt you?" The answer is: It may not, in the short term. But when society sanctions your immoral behavior, that does hurt me. If millions of people accept the deviant as normal, that reshapes society in vastly destructive ways. Your moral self-destruction may have no consequences for me, but destruction of societal standards always has consequences.

When the stigma left single motherhood, society felt the sting in rising rates of single motherhood and juvenile crime. When the stigma left sexual licentiousness, society felt the sting in rising rates of teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, emotional emptiness and nihilism. Your immoral personal behavior may not affect me, but exempting your immoral behavior from societal scrutiny certainly does. A society without standards is an unhappy, unhealthy society -- a society with no future. And all of us have to live in that society.

The BGLTSA isn't asking for tolerance on a person-to-person level. Instead, they're asking us to continue lowering societal standards. If we must choose between alienating the immoral and ravaging societal standards for the personal comfort of the immoral, then choosing the former is the only rational decision. "

[longtermmemmory]

I think we get many so called uber religious as fake posts in order to make the opposition to children being recruited by homosexuals as merely religious.

Most homosexuals assume the only opposition to their deviance or access to children is based on some religious believe. This is inccorrect. Opposition to homosexual access to children is very non-religious.

Homosexuality is ONLY about recreational sex. NOTHING else.

This girl is pushing her underage recreational sex onto the student body. Her orgasms are not for any school. A GSA (sex club) is not for school. If homosexuals want to have a sex club for children they should coordinate with the local police so they can make the arrests go more smoothly. Seriously any mother or father who allows their CHILD into a "Gay" Straight Alliance sex club should be arrested for sexual pandering or contributing to the sexual delinquency of a minor.

[Stellar Dendrite]

That IS sick!!! I had no idea!! One can only hope that these sick, degenerate f*cks can't get away with this for much longer. The downfall of the MSM will lead to many good things, the next target is the public education system. At the upper levels, Ward Churchill and other anti-american professors are being exposed every day. On top of that, David Horowitz is leading a crusade with the Students For Academic freedom. I hope our PC culture will fall just like the berlin wall...and SOON, before it's too late....

[Peach]

Stellar - my post wasn't meant AT you but to the newer freeper.

[DBeers]

The Natural Laws Can Not Be Denied
- Resistance Is Futile!

[farmer18th]

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

More than you might think.

[B-Chan]

Antoninius, I know I need not quote the Catechism to you, but for the benefit of others on this thread I am going to. The following paragraphs sum up my position on this issue:

"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." [2357]

"Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices." [2396]

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition." [2358]

"Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection." [2359]

That is it. That is what we Catholics must believe and practice. We cannot cherry-pick the parts that suit us and ignore others. If we believe that homosexual acts are objectively sinful and of grave depravity (as I do), we must also honor the injunction that homosexuals must be "accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity", and that "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

I find homosexuality to be disgusting, unnatural, and wrong. My homosexual friends and relatives are well aware that I am Catholic and that I believe this. If the topic comes up, I always make it very plain that homosexuality is immoral, intrinsically evil, unnatural, and that I disapprove of it. However, I see no benefit in condemning them as "children of the devil" when I myself stab the Sacred Heart of Jesus with my own sins on a daily basis. They know what they are doing is wrong. They don't need me -- a fellow sinner -- to hammer them with that fact every time I see them.

St. Polycarp had the right to call someone a "child of the devil", because Polycarp was a saint of God and was blessed with that charism. I am not. Therefore, I'll leave that sort of thing to the real saints out there.

Everyone who sins is a "child of the devil". We all sin. The Lord offers us forgiveness, but that forgiveness does not give us the right to condemn our fellow sinners.

I'm self-righteous as it is. I refuse to become any more of a Pharisee than I already am. If that refusal makes of me an effeminate wuss, I'll just have to bear the shame of that title.

[mowkeka]

The MSM looking out for its "values."

[B-Chan]

You are the viper, the white-washed tomb. The blood of this generation will be on your head for refusing to call sin what it is. Paul and Jesus and Peter never showed the sort of self-serving, hypocritical "mercy" that you show, because they were not cowards. Remember when the disciples were wringing their hands over perceived slights the Lord showed the Pharisees? That is your present state. Consider it.

Whatever you say, Pope Farmer18th.

[Heyworth]

Anyone reprobate enough to embrace witchcraft knew what they were in for, and they knew they deserved it.

Give me a break. Here's the Catch 22 of the witch trials--once accused, you could either confess or not. If you confessed, it meant that you were no longer under the devil's power. You'd be sent to jail and your property seized, but you wouldn't be hanged. If you didn't confess (because you were, say, innocent), you'd be tried, convicted on the basis of "spectral evidence" (your hysterical teenage accuser telling everyone that she could see demons floating around you), your property seized and then you'd be hanged. If you didn't plead one way or the other (as in the case of Giles Corey) you'd be pressed to death (a door laid on you and piled with rocks until you suffocated). But they could't seize your property.

For the record, even the people of Salem realized that they'd hanged innocent people once the hysteria died down. They tried to spin it that they'd been doing God's work even if a few eggs had gotten broken, but they knew they'd been had.

[Lindykim]

snip...And I still can't understand why the high mortality rate, suicide rates, and higher drug abuse problems associate with the homosexual lifestyle aren't worthy of consideration when the MSM talks about gays, esp. with respect to young people at the age where then might choose to go this way.


Uh oh Joe.....you just commited "common sensism," one of the most egregious forms of hate speech in America! Keep a sharp eye out for the "thought and speech police" ok?

[farmer18th]

St. Polycarp had the right to call someone a "child of the devil", because Polycarp was a saint of God and was blessed with that charism. I am not. Therefore, I'll leave that sort of thing to the real saints out there.

I doubt it. You'd be one of the ones stoning the prophets and turning in the disciples. You are a coward masquerading as the orthodox.

[DBeers]

"every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

Try this on for size --just discrimination:

Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons

II. Applications

10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," No. 3) and evokes moral concern.

11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

[B-Chan]

I doubt it. You'd be one of the ones stoning the prophets and turning in the disciples. You are a coward masquerading as the orthodox.

Of course I am, Your Holiness. Any further ex cathedra pronouncements, O great Pope Farmer18th?

[farmer18th]

There were abuses, grave abuses, in the Salem incident, but arguing about penalties for witchcraft with someone who doesn't thing witchcraft is both a sin and a crime, is futile.

[farmer18th]

Mockery was also one of the characteristics of the Pharisees. You wear it well.

[B-Chan]

The Catechism says that unjust discrimination towards homsexuals is to be avoided. There is no injustice in refusing to acknowledge the "right" of homosexuals to call their relationships marriages, nor in refusng to acknowledge the existence of any other chimeral rights.

I strongly oppose any attempt to normalize sexual perversion of any sort. I also oppose treating my fellow sinners as if I personally am somehow more righteous or holy than they are. Treating human beings like shit is a tactic of the other team. I refuse to play by their rules.

[B-Chan]

Mockery was also one of the characteristics of the Pharisees. You wear it well

Guilty as charged, O great and holy Pope. I am both Mod and Rocker.

[Paul C. Jesup]

No child should suffer physical abuse. However, if you raise kids in a phony, wussy environment, they're going to get eaten alive when they enter the real world.

So, I take it you are againt homeschooling, because that takes the kids from a verbal (and physical) abusive environment (Public School) and teaches them at home.