Reflections on the Gay-Agenda

By Bob Stapler

 

The holidays are a time for family gatherings and, for me, usually an occasion for confronting the liberal biases of my relatives and in-laws.   This past Thanksgiving was no exception.  Despite my best efforts to tread lightly, someone always blurts some ignorant-of-reality-remark that does not bear suffering.  On this occasion, it was the oft cited charge of ‘homophobia’ respecting all who dare dispute the validity of the gay agenda that got me going.   Not all were adamantine in their judgment (or equally condemnatory), so I had a long, civil dialog with my one liberal-in-law capable of dispassionate debate (once the others had retired safely to the big screen TV football game).   For some reason that eludes me, however, I am the only one held culpable (by at least 3 out of 8) as having ‘started it’!   In my defense, I took great pains to avoid starting anything even as the lib-in-laws blathered away in unison regarding the victory-all-but-realized, but also to side-stepping feelings while making a reasoned (if passionate) defense of my fellow straight-folks against staggering odds (only one other conservative in attendance, and he was mostly keeping mum).  

 

As often happens in these exchanges, many of the details I’ve accumulated over the years (and needed just then) are not actually stored in my brain; requiring a more fulsome rebuttal in ink.   Also, due to my neuralgia, I am at a distinct disadvantage in verbal combat; so I tend to compensate in writing.   On rereading my replies, I decided they had the makings of a good article, but did not have the time and energy to devote to a rewrite.   Then, I realized a simple preface and conclusion would suffice.  What follows are the results of my subsequent, post-holiday email exchange with him.  The points I respond to were those raised by various clan members, but, for simplicity, attribute all to the one liberal-in-law.   So, rather than rewrite the whole thing, I will simply repost my two replies to my liberal-in-law on the subject (minor embellishments only for clarity and anonymity) and let you be the judge of the result.   I give my apologies in advance to those whom I will offend simply because it is in our natures to take offense.

 

Liberal assertions made at table:

1.       Gays are still victims of discrimination

2.       Gay is not a choice but a genetic-predisposition

3.       Gay is an identifiably discriminated group subject to the same considerations as blacks, women, &c

4.       Opposing gay indoctrination is homophobic

5.       Gays opposed to the gay-agenda are an aberration, rarity, irrational and irrelevant

6.       There is no gay-agenda

 

I trust you catch the irony of assertions 4, 5 & 6.

 

Reply #1 (the day after)

 

Below is a link to the article I mentioned last night.  As you will see reading it, the author is such an honest and thoughtful writer he pierces the sensibilities of even us ‘heartless homophobes’.   I found his personal account very moving, yet amazed it corroborates what I have long believed to be true – that there is much BS surrounding gay culture and its radicalized agenda that the propaganda cannot be trusted.  Rarely do we get to glimpse, as here, behind the smokescreen.   As the writer counsels, ignore what gays say of themselves and, rather, pay attention to their behaviors.   He appears about as honest an authority as we are apt to find on this subject; one who admits even he fell for the line for many years and abetted the collective silence (thereby depriving straights of an informed opinion): http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3650

 

A big part of the lie centers on hetero-society being that which prevents gays from forming stable monogamous relationships; and, to that end, hetero-society must be knocked on its head, churches disintegrated/reintegrated, dogma revised, marriage debased, heterosexuality despised, monogamy delegitimized, children conditioned into believing gay is cool rather than learning/realizing it is mostly a mix of narcissism and emptiness.  The dark-side of this is, the undermining of culture using our own children against us and as carriers for the replacement culture, with or without our consent.   Not entirely without our consent, because far too many parents relinquish responsibility to others.  Most have been lulled into handing over their children to teachers, who, in turn, hand them over to gays parading as ‘sex-education consultants’.  These bogus consultants have been allowed to hijack classrooms and ‘train’ teachers in the methods of diversity, resulting in schoolrooms turned into gay laboratories and incubators.   The consequence is an explosion of sexually-confused, sexually-enabled kids recruited to the gay lifestyle, seemingly ‘proving’ the gay contention that the ‘true’ number of ‘natural’ gays has been unnaturally suppressed; while all that has really occurred is most such recruits are seduced into a gay preference (as pedophiles have done for millennia), who are thereafter too confused and guilty to seek normalcy.

 

Most of these kids (and I suspect Xxxxx’s [name redacted] friend of belonging to this category of budding gays), begin self-identifying as gays without giving heterosexuality a real chance, simply because they are encouraged to ‘experiment’, because there is no longer any ban against it, and because they are struggling as heteros.   Remember what you were like as a teen (awkward, not-all-that-popular, confused, and randy)?  Does that mean you were ‘latently gay’, or just overwhelmed by feelings for which you had no reference and in need of trustworthy adult guidance.  Then ask yourself, how hard might it have been for some unscrupulous gay-recruiter, abetted by an trusted schoolteacher to step into that role and convince you to give the gay-life a tumble; then, saw to it everything went ‘blissfully’ for you from there on … at least until after graduation; by which point you are ‘too old’ to be of ‘further interest’ and politically worthless.  He/she found you a partner and was there through all the usual (and unusual) ups and downs of any relationship.  When you broke up, he (or another) was there finding you ‘dates’ so that the fiction of gay bliss might continue (no such assist for the equally inept hetero-teen struggling to get dates).  In college too, there was a support system to keep you from learning the full story or from leaving the fold, but pretty soon the mask starts coming off.  Maybe you fall for the latest ‘counselor’, who shacks up with you for a time.  Pretty soon, your fellow gay classmates see you as ‘meat’ and ‘good-times’; but little else because … hey, this is a dead-end, Sport.  So, whom do you blame for this?  Certainly not yourself, because … well, after all, you ‘can’t help being gay’ (or so you’ve been told).  And, certainly not your gay-counselors whom you still revere as guides.   Therefore, it can only have been those awful ‘homophobes’, without whom there’d be no stigma to being gay.  How this relates to your fellow gays treating you as so much easy-virtue is irrelevant; you have something and someone to blame.  To my mind, this is not ‘teaching tolerance’, it is failing a sacred trust to shield children from sexual-predators of whatever stripe, and failing to teach them greater respect for themselves and others.

 

You should look into what is now taught in our schools to small children (starts in 3^rd grade and pushing toward kindergarten) with a blatant disregard for child welfare and with the intent of recruiting children to both the gay cause and the gay and/or promiscuous lifestyle (even a straight but promiscuous culture serves the purpose of radical-gays, because the promiscuous-straight turns a blind eye to the still more promiscuous-gay, pedophile, and deviant lifestyles).   I guarantee you will be shocked.  While you may endorse our kids being taught to accept homosexuals, do you really endorse children (some as young as 6 or 7) being taught to ‘embrace’ the gay-life without their parents knowing that is taught?  Are you really that comfortable with children being taught to accept homosexuality and not just simple tolerance for the homosexual person as a person?   We began by allowing tolerance-training in our schools, only to discover the agenda has been pushed way beyond simple tolerance – (and rapidly).   There is far more to this whole business of sex-education and the way it is taught in our schools that is given a blind-eye simply because well-meaning people are scared to death of appearing politically-incorrect.  Kids today are being drilled in what to do when confronted by a ‘homophobe’ (i.e., anyone who objects to the agenda), to reject parental values, taught to feel bad about misgivings they may have, proper condom installation on a cucumber, the intricacies of copulation and masturbation, intimacy with a partner, an irrational over-reliance on condoms and other means for protecting themselves against AIDS and STDs, &c.  Meanwhile, the only certain means of preventing the spread of diseases and pregnancy (abstinence, which is pretty good advice for adults too BTW) is actively discouraged.  While abstinence may not be foolproof, the historical record shows it nearly twice as effective in preventing pre-marital pregnancy and 5-6 times more effective in preventing STD spread.  Rather than teaching tolerance, all we are really accomplishing is stigma transfer, a greater spread of venereal disease, and group-think ignorance.  When do we wake up to such dangerous nonsense?

 

additional reading: (you may not agree with all of it, but if even a fraction is true …)

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420

http://www.crosswalk.com/1168926/

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0049.html

http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/marco.html

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=412 – “…even among stable homosexual partnerships, men have an average of eight partners per year outside their ‘monogamous’ relationship.  In short, gay marriage will change marriage more than it [marriage] will change gays.”   You may want to poll your monogamous gay acquaintances how true/false this one is (e.g., ‘baloney, I never have more than three lovers in any given year’).  One problem I see for gay men in maintaining such exclusivity is the relative promiscuity of men generally, gay or otherwise.  A man in a stable relation with a woman can’t easily hit on his wife’s pals and is disinterested in his own (male) pals.  But, among gay-male couples, the S.O.’s pals are also your pals; and they are a horny and obliging bunch.

 

http://www.massresistance.org/media/video/brainwashing.html - Ask yourself, while not necessarily different than what many parents teach their children, is it really appropriate this is taught without regard to and without consulting parents that it is okay?   What if some few parents strongly object?  Does their parental authority still have any meaning, or must that be sacrificed to the opinion of the majority (assuming it is a majority and not masquerading as one)?  Having established the ‘right of the majority’ to supersede the rights of a parent or an individual, what happens when you next find yourself (or your values) in the crosshairs?  The Founders spoke against the ‘tyranny of the majority’, and this is a clear case of it.  Compare this also to the indoctrination of young children by the Nazis, turning them against parental values so as to neutralize value-based objections to their program.  Then, too, the majority opinion was first shaped and then imposed.  Whether benign or not, the precedent alone should be enough to give any thinking person pause.  This tyranny of the majority applies to gays also, with narcissistic-gays setting the agenda for the rest and denying moderate-gays a dissenting voice.

 

While I admit there is such a thing as a ‘naturally inclined gay’ male, he is a relative rarity even amongst gays (this is also the view of at least some clinicians and research).   I will not speculate on the gay-female, because I will not presume to extrapolate that far.  The typical gay-male, is someone who for whatever reason, ‘chose’ gay over the usual lifestyle.  Possibly, he was rebelling against parental values.  Maybe, an older man, say, a relative got him started.  For many, if not most, this is simply a means to bypass commitment and children altogether without sacrificing sex (narcissistic-gays, the type the article mostly describes).  To this type of gay, it is far less important the flesh is of the same sex than that it is: a) available, b) without strings, c) nonjudgmental, and d) highly attractive.   I encountered a large number this type in San Francisco, the Mecca of the gay-life.  For a smaller, but still significant group of men, gay is simply an alternative to loneliness (ugly-duck syndrome) or rejection (hate/distrust of opposite sex [misogyny/misandry], ergo I’ll get what I need from my own sex).  For both these types, the gay lifestyle is fraught with delusion, disappointment, betrayal, abuse, self-loathing and, for many, anguish and mental-suffering.  Yet, these are precisely the types who most often seek the ever-elusive, stable, monogamous relationship to avoid all that.  This is more often ‘escaping from’ the harsh lifestyle than one of fulfillment, as is the norm for hetero-couplings.

 

I have no doubt there are many people who, at some point, feel a physical attraction to someone of their own sex.  But, that does not make them ‘naturally’ homosexual.  All that really means is we are creatures of the flesh, not saints.  The mature person does not yield to every passing fancy or craving.  Rather, he/she steps back to consider how that will play out, is that really where we want to go or who become.   Most will shake themselves from the temporary attraction and move forward.  A few are more impulsive; only to find themselves without any means of retracting those steps.  They, then, construct for themselves a narrative this is who they are and must forever remain, and that they are relatively happy for it.   Maybe they are, and maybe not; but from all I’ve seen and read of gays, I doubt it.   Today, we have a double quandary resulting from a culture that unconcernedly entices youth into it with no real understanding of that to what they condemn or liberate; and indifferent to this would more reasonably be deferred to adulthood.

 

While, it may be perfectly reasonable for gays to form stable relations, the deck is stacked against it; and not because of the much vilified ‘heterosexual homophobe’ holding them apart.   By comparison, heterosexual pairings need few external props to make them work; with even many unmarried straights settling into stable relationships that elude most gays of either sex.   Children provide a great deal of stability in hetero-relations, and it is for that reason many gays want to adopt; never quite realizing that having children to ‘save a shaky relationship’ has no more validity for gays than for straights, and ends in broken families just the same and with children the obvious casualties.   I understand the desire to be ‘normal’, to be thought normal, and am not without some empathy; but no amount of wishful thinking, bashing straights as ‘homophobes’, and misappropriating the sacrament of marriage will make that come true.  You will succeed only in suppressing the human inclination in one generation, only to see it reassert in the next.

 

Reply #2 (two weeks later and I am still at it; they don’t call me ‘Old Relentless’ for nothing)

 

As a follow up to my earlier exposition, I urge you read the following additional links concerning the ‘homophobia’ charge as smear tactic. 

 

[Note: I distinguish between gays and radical-gays, even if I don’t always make clear the distinction.  So, assume I mean radical-gays wherever I am discussing ‘the agenda’ (i.e., those pushing sweeping changes without concern for consequences and/or whom they offend).]

 

http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/pdf/LetterfromDrByrd.pdf, clinical psychologist disputing the validity and appropriateness of terms used to promote homosexuality, demote heterosexuals, and sow gender confusion in Montgomery County schools. “Homophobia is a social constructed term with no grounding in science.  As a construct, homophobia may be used to describe fear or disapproval but it is also a politically correct term used for name-calling, to intimidate, to discourage dialogue … the risk of suicide decreases by 20% for each year that a young person delays homosexual or bisexual self-labeling … No service is done to our children by offering them lifestyle options before they are properly able to make informed choices about them.” The occasion was an effort by a grassroots group frustrated by officials from getting representation on the local school board for the traditional view.  More on this at: http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/resources_crc_specific_material.shtml.  It should be noted homosexual suicide, though real, is controversial and may be overstated.

 

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/04/explosive-the-not-safe-for-school-reading-list-of-the-safe-schools-czar/?print=1 – schools and internet used extensively (by GLSEN, et. al.) to recruit, exploit, prostitute, and manipulate gay-teens

 

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/issues/fistgate/index.html - warning, may shock you to learn what is taught in some schools; Kevin Jennings (founder of GLSEN) is now our ‘Safe-Schools’ czar and Martha Coakley has been mentioned as a possible replacement for Ted Kennedy.  Coakley has also been prominent in a number of legal cases connected to this issue.  This link is from the one above, but I wanted to be sure you’d see it.

 

http://www.ncfamily.org/PolicyPapers/Findings%200905-Connecting%20Dots.pdf – “In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable; that is to jam with shame and [any] self-righteous pride that would ordinarily accompany and reward their antigay belligerence, and to lay ground­work for the process of conversion by helping straights identify with gays and sympathize with their underdog status” - Kirk and Madsen (gay movement writer/activists), After the Ball.

 

It wasn’t so long ago radical-gays were proclaiming to anyone who would listen it was not a simple matter of civil-rights denial, but one of turning the world on its head, of “queering America”.   They envision an America where the ‘heterosexual myth’ is shattered, replaced by the new, ‘gay reality’.  Some were/are convinced ‘gay’ will (and should) become the new ‘normal’, with hetero relegated to the societal dust-heap.  Certainly, civil-rights was ‘an issue’, but it was not ‘the issue’ it had been for blacks.  Gays have always been able to vote and only suffered abuse to the degree they publicized.  Regardless, that battle has been fought and conceded.  But, movements are amorphous, and what begins as a reasonable complaint grows to greater demands, and the unreasonable only cloaks itself in rationality as a form of misdirection.  So it was, gays took to portraying themselves the victim-class, falsely accusing straights as being ‘the problem’, when the real issue has always been one of clashing wants.  The majority straight community wants to feel gays are suitably confined within boundaries safeguarding children and public decorum, whereas radical-gays want a less confining environment in which to indulge outrageous, often dissolute, proclivities.  To the majority of straights, strictures on gays come down to keeping these more egregious behaviors in check (though the methods/reactions are, admittedly, sometimes extreme).  This is the ‘victimization’ at the core of the gay complaint, not that gays are regularly strung up, beaten, killed or denied due process, but that they are deterred from engaging openly in antics we’d no more tolerate in straights.  I see this abuse as more reciprocal, only with gays the more aggressive because outnumbered.  If this were a question of nuisance gamblers, prostitutes, drug-users/traffickers, or gang-bangers intruding themselves into every layer of public and private life while similarly feigning theirs is an unavoidable ‘genetic-manifestation’ with privileged victim status; it would be dismissed as willful nonsense.  Yet, gays have succeeded in persuading a significant number this behavior warrants special protection and consideration we would not accord similar scofflaws.

 

Tony Marco posted (http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc-toc.html) what I believe to be a comprehensive and reasonable analysis of the gay agenda, activism, impacts and public policy from the straight-Christian perspective; long read but covers all the bases.  Obviously, this is a defense of Biblical mores in response to gay allegations, but is well-reasoned and, therefore, worthy of consideration.   One chapter, in particular (http://www.leaderu.com/marco/special/spc36.html) makes the valid observation gay education deliberately undermines biblical teachings (i.e., assertion bible contains no sex ethic, only a love ethic).  Though the author is defending the Christian bible, this applies equally to Jewish teachings and law.  Essentially, gay radicals have distorted Judeo-Christian ethics by emphasizing ‘brotherly love’ while dismissing equally valid biblical taboos in an effort to convince people (especially children) there are no moral barriers to extramarital-sex or same-sex pairings.  This is dangerous nonsense and the deliberate lure of a pedophile.

 

Especially note the smearing of heterosexuals in the "Gay and Lesbian Youth Tools for Educators" sampling.  Question asked of teachers engaged in sex- education: “The majority of child molesters are heterosexuals. Do you really consider it safe to expose children to heterosexual teachers?” 

 

We know questions of this type and meaning are regularly posed to students as well as teachers.   Obviously, the writer is turning the tables on the usually logic.  I have to wonder, then, how the straight-male high-school teacher feels on being tarred a monster and having his students warned against him by fellow teachers.   How about the unsuspecting father, who eventually realizes (after a lot of injured feelings and misunderstandings) the real reason his kid refuses him hugs (from age-12 on) is not because it makes him/her feel babyish, but because his/her teachers spread this libel against all dads and is convinced s/he’s being ‘fondled’.  Yet, this same bunch promoting the homophobic diatribe against fathers is teaching boys and girls it is okay to fondle each other.   All together now, can we say ‘double-standard!?

 

But, what if the question has some kernel of truth to the charge?  What is the evidence for it, and what is the evidence against.  How likely is this libel to be true or is it just a distraction (http://www.newswithviews.com/public_schools/public_schools.htm).  The evidence for is given in the accusation itself, which refers to the Department of Justice cataloging of apprehended offenders, most of whom are considered ‘straight’ (despite, it can be argued about a third deviated from ‘straight’ when the molestation was same-sex) based on marital status or relation to the victim or a familiar at the time of incarceration.   In this case, gay libelers conveniently ignore the offenders are more properly designated ‘bisexual’ or ‘indifferent as to sex’ for the purpose of this argument; neither of which makes ‘straight’ the real threat to children. 

 

Few gay men have children or the same, constant concern for children as do fathers (for all the usual reasons); and, therefore, few qualms regarding a libel that will never touch on them.  Many, if not most, will ever see the harm in spreading this libel.  At the same time, they have the same or greater libidinous interest in youthful flesh as any pedophile of whatever persuasion, even if they draw a line at minors.  If nothing else, this makes them ‘sympathetic’ with their pedophile brethren as evidenced by the near universal approval of pedophiles by non-pedophile gays; even to branding complainants ‘homophobic’.  If you have read the article I sent previously, you will see just how strong this preference for ‘youthful partners’ is among gay men.   And, gays are habituated by gay-life to fewer inhibitions regarding sexual outlets (gay dogma commends experimental behavior, same as GLSEN encourages sexual-experimentation unbeknownst to parents). 

 

Statistics on child molesters aren’t particularly useful, as DOJ long ago stopped reporting the incidence of gay molesters (whereas they do still provide numbers for parents and straight-boyfriends that molest).   However, it is possible to sift the data for grains of truth; and one means of doing this is asking the right questions of the data and testing each.  Logic dictates when molestation is by a parent or close associate, there is a much higher chance the crime will be reported and the offender caught & convicted than when the offender is some chance acquaintance or internet trawler-stalker, yet the analyses accompanying the statistics make no mention of this probable data bias.   Moreover, the statistics DOJ reports are for convicted felons only, and do not give the whole pedophile range.   Among so-called ‘straights’, molestation is mainly a crime of opportunity; one in which pedophile spouses, boyfriends, and relatives of straight partners have access.   Among gay-pedophiles, where access is severely limited, the act must be more one of intent, and opportunity must be created.  This suggests the gay-pedophile will have taken some time to plan out his attack, including eluding detection.  This, I see, as the main difference between the simple molester and the pedophile.  Whereas molestation may be temptation realized, pedophilia is always by intent and planned.  Thus we would expect the number of gay molesters to be fewer (undercounted in the data) than that of simple (often hetero) molesters.  It is false, therefore, to conclude the data proves straight-men are the greater or only threat to children. 

 

As a percent of straight-male parents and partners, pedophiles are vanishingly small group.  As a percent of male gays, however, pedophiles are a statistically significant percent of a small subset.  What is most significant to me is that gays represent less than 3% of the male adult population yet about a third of all low-access child molestations (see http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L46.pdf), despite the limited access.   Therefore, isn’t it more likely the available statistics simply reflect straight offenders disproportionately, and the gay allegation (built on this statistic) is meant to deflect and confuse?   For there to be only twice as many straight as gay pedophiles when straights are 97+% of the male-adult population, straight-men would be less, rather than more, inclined to pedophilia as a group.  Even if the true number of pedophile gays is less than my estimate, it can’t be by much.

 

While DOJ reports 2/3 of all sexual-assault victims are minors, they estimate the number of assaults at 110,000 per year out of a 280+million population (2000 census); of whom, 70-million were minors.  This puts the average incidence of rape/sexual-assault of minors (ages 12-17) at 0.16%.  This number includes assaults by adults and fellow minors, same and opposite sex attackers.  Therefore, while a little high, this serves as a proxy for putting the molestation problem (as a whole) in perspective (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf).  Assuming 1.6 per 1,000 teens are victims and two-thirds of these are victims of straights (of whom 90% are familiar adults), then significantly less than 1-in-1,000 are same-sex victims of straight-attackers.   A later DOJ study (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/jvo03.pdf) put this estimate higher (~3/1,000), but that is still far from the picture of ‘every straight guy is a threat’ the GLYTE guide paints us.   [Comment: This study covers twice the time period, includes children under 12, and includes debatable sources as will (misleadingly) produce higher statistics (averages in high numbers from prior years).  Both studies exaggerate somewhat due to admitted limitations in the data, study focus (i.e., unspecific to pedophilia), and author biases.]

 

I do not believe for one minute that straights are the ones chiefly inclined to pedophilia.  Pedophile web-prowling is predominantly and openly gay, as is pedophile activism (i.e., groups pushing an agenda of ‘man-boy love’, not ‘adult-child love’; e.g., http://noapologies.ca/?p=5007).   If child-molesters were predominantly straight as the slander alleges, why is it overwhelmingly gay pedophiles who are engaged in movements to change the culture to one of open-season on children?  Remember, it is gays far more than straights (and pedophile gays more than non-pedophile) who now spearhead the sexualization of school children and lowered the bar on what can be taught as sex- education.   Pedophile-gays are a tiny fraction of a percent of the adult population, yet their views are given unprecedented and unmerited weight.

 

Anytime we read a claim or statistic as these, we should take a moment to reflect on whether it squares with the reality we see around us.  If not, it is better than 50/50 someone is distorting reality to conform to their views.  Count up the number of straight adult-males of your acquaintance who are also parents.  How many of this number do you suppose ever fondle/rape/sodomize their kids?  Do you seriously believe, as the GLYTE guide alleges, that, overwhelmingly, ordinary fathers do this to their own children?  If that were true, the human species is doomed and would never have survived this long.  Or, is it more likely gays have acquired a somewhat deserved reputation they’d rather deflect, and have succeeded in getting it suppressed.  The reality is we are wired to protect children, and the parent who doesn’t is the rare exception – not the rule.  The parental-role powerfully and naturally reinforces the instinct in all of us to protect to the point of obsession few would traduce (or want to).  The sexual molestation of children is among the most heinous of crimes, yet its frequency as a problem is often exaggerated because people always want to believe the worst of us; and has become more a political tool than genuine concern in the campaign to elevate gays by smearing all straight-men as ‘homophobic pedophiles’.  The problem I have with gay-activism is this willingness to traduce bounds and use children as pawns; and, then, compound the offense by unleashing real pedophiles to turn our nurseries into gay incubators.  I have no tolerance for pedophiles of any stripe (or their abettors), but, whereas straight-pedophiles are still locked up when caught, gay-pedophiles are given a freehand to prowl, parade, and elevate themselves to positions of authority purely on the grounds it isn’t them also – and that is just plain nuts.

 

The purveyors of this tripe have made a concerted effort to promote sex-education as ‘the best means to keep our kids safe’, but the opposite has largely been true.  Reductions in teen-intercourse, teen-pregnancy, STDs, and unwanted children were the proclaimed goals of such programs, all of which either achieved nothing or added to the problems.   Abortion-on-demand, contraceptive access, and sex-education combined in the late-1970s and 1980s as programs intended to address teen-pregnancy, but also as a means of supplanting parents; transferring the traditional role to government.   Teen-sexual misconduct is now rampant and starts unprecedentedly early.   Teen-pregnancy initially rose, but later fell in the wake of AIDS.  Abortion, rather than accommodating accidental mothers (knocked up teens, rape victims, at-risk pregnancies), has become little more than an alternative to either birth-control or abstinence; and is encouraged as such.   STDs (other than HIV and Chlamydia) spiked more than 5-fold before returning to the steady decline in progress since the 1940s (due almost entirely to advances in treatment, and only marginally attributable to education and prevention).  HIV and Chlamydia were virtually unknown in the U.S. prior to the sexual revolution and sex- education, but erupted immediately thereafter.  Chlamydia is especially prevalent among modern teens as the #1 STD.   Most of the spike and continuing incidence of STDs occurs among those 25 and under.  Given this, to continue arguing sex-education and enhanced sexual-awareness among teens guard them against the hazards of unprotected-sex is pure folly.  Initially, this was a liberal but not especially ‘gay’ agenda, but that changed almost the moment the gay movement gained momentum so that, today, both the agenda and the message have been hijacked; and it is more for them than for children it is kept going.

 

Other stuff relevant to gays and/or the agenda:

 

http://pfox.org/Myth_Gay_Gene.html - Parents and Friends of Gays and Ex-Gays - disputes assertion ‘gay’ is genetic and/or a fixed state; and not subject to choice; also says gays 5 times more suicide prone (i.e., mental health issues associated with the gay-life); also see http://www.cwfa.org/articles/5458/CFI//index.htm

 

http://www.narth.com/docs/hom101.html - environmental theory of sexual orientation: gay as a form of ‘arrested development’ or detachment; if valid, gays may be less a product of abuse than, more simply, lack the proper role-model combined with an unmet need to bond as a fellow male

 

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/13755/MEDIA/education/index.htm - another instance of inappropriate sex-teaching

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationquestions/3352334/Any-questions-This-week-On-questions-of-sex-is-this-the-answer.html - a school teacher seeks advice from an advice-column; describes some of the subject matter he is compelled to teach against reason and conscience

 

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11601061/ - unintended psychological consequences of teaching casual sex

 

http://www.ncfamily.org/PolicyPapers/Findings%200412-HomosexualEd.pdf (How Safety is Used to Promote Homosexuality in Schools) “The “sexual orientation” characteristic provides special protections for students and teachers who identify as homosexual or bisexual. The “gender identity/expression” characteristic is intended to give transgender students the opportunity to express themselves as male or female, regardless of their biological sex, through changes in their appearance and voice, and also to ensure they have access to rest rooms, locker rooms and activities that match the gender identity they choose.” –  Don’t think I’d want my daughter (if I had one) forced to share restrooms and locker-rooms with a bunch of sexually addled boys convinced by adult hustlers-of-the-bait-&-switch-lifestyle, however ‘innocent’ of lust they may pretend.  The so-called ‘transgender-male’ gets to pick, choose and alternate between locker-rooms, indulging a prurient interest in each.  So where does the ‘safe-school’ paradigm come in?  Safe for whom?   By overstating the danger to gay kids, we guarantee a situation in which tensions will be rife in every school, every day as gays are given every preference and opportunity to exploit a protected sexual advantage.  Even if they don’t, the insecurity this creates is enough to ensure tempers will flair, and more often as teens approach adulthood.

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Abstinence/BG1533.cfm - backgrounder on comprehensive v abstinence sex-education

 

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=4417 – students performing simulated copulation behind bed-sheet (shadow show) as part of a school presentation

 

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 – way too much information to describe, just read it

 

 

Parental-Rights Violations & Case Law

Our rights as parents for the moral upbringing of our children are quickly eroding, here in the US and across the world.  In Canada and Australia (link below), even private Catholic schools are forced to teach the acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle, even though this directly conflicts with Catholic teachings.

Massachusetts, 2007 (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49813) U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed civil rights lawsuit brought by elementary school parent, ordering “it is reasonable; indeed there is an obligation, for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality”.  The winning lawyer in the case asserted “Once I have elected to send my child to public school, my fundamental right does not allow me to direct what my child is exposed to in the public school.” – violates Constitutional guarantee of freedoms of religion and speech that even school bureaucrats are not entitled to take away

 

Colorado, 2007 (http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2007/may/16/cwa-defends-teen-sex-panel-at-boulder-high/) speakers panel from the Conference on Word Affairs was convened a Boulder high and all school students were forced to attend.  The speaker endorses teens having sex and doing drugs. Audio transcript (http://www.bvsdwatch.org/content/view/86/1/ start at Part III)

Chicago, 2007 (http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3170491&Entertainment=true, link broken) R-rated movie Brokeback Mountain featuring two cowboys in an explicitly gay relationship shown to eighth-graders without parental knowledge or consent.

Massachusetts, 2007 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54420 ) federal judge in Massachusetts orders "gay" agenda taught to Christians attending a public school, finding it necessary to their becoming "engaged and productive citizens."  By that reasoning, mightn’t it have had greater validity for children of atheists to be taught religion that they might become “engaged and productive citizens” also?  Clearly, the judge is playing agenda favorites, as well as violating the rights of parents to instill values.

New Jersey, 2007 (http://cbs3.com/topstories/local_story_030235258.html; link broken) Marlton, NJ, third graders shown a film ‘That’s a family’, promoting ‘alternative families’; including lesbian and gay families. Terminology defined in the film such as “you can actually use the word gay to describe two women who love each other or two men who love each other”.  No parental permission was requested or notification given before shown to 8 yr olds.

Maryland, 2006 (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200610/CUL20061004a.html; link broken) Prince Georges County, a student was told by supervisor she could not read her Bible on school grounds during free time and would be suspended if she continued.

Maryland, 2003: (http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/highlights.shtml; http://www.mcpscurriculum.com/pdf/May5doc-2.pdf) Montgomery County public school curriculum unanimously approved by Board of Education, postulated and introduced the concept of whether homosexuality is a sin - referring kids to religions other than their own.  

“Myth: It isn't "normal" to be homosexual or have homosexual feelings. 

Myth: Homosexuality is a sin.

The ‘right’ answer to this question is that some religions are “biblically misguided.” 

Approved Teacher Resource: Issues and News: Myths and Facts, Family Pride Coalition.

This is an attack on religion, specifically the Christian and Jewish faiths.

Massachusetts, 2005 (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49813) public school 2^nd-grade class was read a fantasy book, King and King, in school about two princes getting married. The prince in the fairy tale falls in love with the princess’ brother, instead of the princess. When parents objected, the teacher said because same-sex marriage is legal in their state there is no way a mother or father can opt out a child from such experiences (see David Parker case below). The school read the same story to second graders the following year, over parental objections and ignoring parent’s requests to be notified.

Massachusetts, 2006 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52311) group of gay activists have filed a friend of the court (amicus curiae) brief in the David Parker case, essentially stating that a parent has no right to object to ANYTHING the public schools want to teach their children, regardless of whether it conflicts with their faith or not.

California, 2006: California passed law adding “sexual identity” discrimination to its anti-discrimination laws. The teaching of most mainstream religions is that homosexual behavior is a sin. This religious belief is directly in conflict with the gay agenda. Similar laws in Australia and Canada have been used to justify enforcing “tolerance training” or acceptance of homosexual behavior even on the Catholic parochial schools.

Kentucky, 2004 (http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/takala/041130) Boyd County school district attempted to force all students to attend sexual orientation and gender identity “tolerance training”, with no opt-out capability, after losing a law suit to the ACLU.  James Esseks, litigation director for the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, told the Louisville Courier-Journal "The schools have great latitude in what they want to teach, including what's in training programs, and the training is now part of the school curriculum. Parents don't get to say I don't want you to teach evolution or this, that or whatever else. If parents don't like it they can homeschool, they can go to a private school, they can go to a religious school …”

Massachusetts, 2006 (http://www.townonline.com/newton/opinion/view.bg?articleid=610359) visiting social-worker wrongfully explained transsexuals and transgendered to a class of third-graders (8 yr-olds); principal refused to apologize to parents

Overseas

Germany, 2005 (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42476) parents told they could not home school their child; that the child had to be in the public school system where the child would be taught homosexuality is normal.  In Germany, "Fourth-grade students are shown videos of sexual intercourse and how a baby comes forth from this act. The narrator of the video assures the students that this sexual act feels good and is fun. Homosexuality must be accepted as normal and the children are encouraged to examine themselves as to their own sexual orientation.” Parents in Germany cannot home-school if they object, and must leave Germany or have their children seized by the state. The brand new curriculum under discussion for our 10th graders in Montgomery County also asserts that children should examine themselves as to their sexual orientation.

Australia, 2004 (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/may/04051808.html) Catholic private schools pressured by the Australian Education Union into teaching homosexuality is normal.  Canadian Catholic schools already forced to comply.

 

 

Testimonials at Massachusetts Bill Hearing

 

A mother testified her 11-year-old daughter was given a homework assignment to draw an erect penis ejaculating. The mother described how this deeply affected the entire family. The only reaction from the committee was a question by House Chairman Martha Walz (D-Boston) who blandly asked the mother if she had been properly notified according to the current law. (The mother said: “absolutely not”.)

 

David Parker made national news over his elementary school’s refusal to notify him or allow an opt-out when teaching his kindergarten son homosexuality and transgenderism.  The family filed a Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit over the matter, but the federal judges said Parker has no rights under current Massachusetts law over what their children are taught or even to be notified of it.  At the end of the testimony, the only reaction was from Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz (D-Boston), who asked a question about opt-out in schools. 

 

Parker was also wrongfully locked-up for protesting the matter to the school’s principal, as was his right.   The court ‘null-processed’ his case; leaving him in legal-limbo as regards his innocence.   Courts across the country have taken to null-processing cases for which there are no real or substantive grounds (aka, false arrests) and the accused refuses to cop a plea or agree to counseling (equivalent).   This arguably u-Constitutional ruling leaves the accused no grounds on which to sue for false arrest and exposes him to bureaucratic targeting as an ‘un-cleared offender’.  In his case, Parker was indefinitely barred from returning to the school regarding this or any other matter concerning his children.  A great many parents have similarly been wrongfully limbo-ed in state courts and registries as child-abusers (neglect) simply because this finding precludes them from having their day in court.

 

Amy Contrada, mother of two children, testified regarding a “Youth Pride” event and other homosexual-related activities targeting children (http://www.massresistance.org/docs/govt09/bills/edcomm_hearing_101309/contrada.html). 

 

R.T. Neary, former schoolteacher who was once a top official in the teachers union, gave a passionate speech for parent’s rights in the schools.

 

 

Some Horror Stories Courtesy of Joel (http://www.newswithviews.com/Turtel/joel57.htm):

 

·         On March 19, 1996, a public school in East Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania made 59 sixth-grade girls submit to a genital examination as part of a routine physical. The school did not ask for parental consent. During the exam, school officials blocked the exit doors and refused to let the crying and pleading young girls call their parents.

·         In Stephens County, Georgia, parents were shocked to discover their 14 and 15 yr old daughters were taken to a birth control clinic by a public school staff member without their knowledge. The county clinic administered AIDS tests and Pap smears to the girls and gave them birth control pills and condoms. The school denied parents access to the test results and defended its actions on grounds that the counselor believed what she did what was best for the girls.

·         The Pacific Justice Institute filed a lawsuit on behalf of parents against the Novato [California] Unified School District for authorizing pro-homosexual presentations without prior parental notice or consent. According to the Pacific Justice Institute Press Release, “The presentations entitled “Cootie Shots,” exposed elementary school children as young as 7 yrs old with skits containing gay and lesbian overtures. The presentations were followed by question & answer sessions about what constitutes ‘normal’ families and acceptance of those who choose the homosexual lifestyle.”

·         Carol (last name withheld), a schoolteacher, couldn’t believe what she was being asked to teach in her sex education class. The curriculum forced her to show second-graders pictures of nude boys and girls and ask them to name body parts. School authorities told Carol and her fellow elementary school teachers that there were no absolute moral rules, so she shouldn’t be concerned about what she had to teach the children

·         In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, parents became furious about a comprehensive survey given to elementary school children in the Gateway School District. The 5-to-10 yr-old students were asked questions regarding “forced sex, the torture of animals, the use of guns, and setting fires.” Many of the children were so traumatized by these questions they became physically ill, started bed wetting, or having nightmares. By the time these problems were brought to light, the survey had already been given to over 1,500 children in the Pittsburgh area.

·         A Massachusetts Department of Education employee described the pleasures of homosexual sex to a group of high school students at a state sponsored workshop on March 25, [2000] at Tufts University, this way: “Fisting [forcing one's entire hand into another person's rectum or vagina] often gets a bad rap … [It's] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with … [and] to put you into an exploratory mode.”   On March 25, [2000] the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Governor's Commission For Gay and Lesbian Youth, and GLSEN [Gay and Lesbian and Straight Education Network] co sponsored a statewide conference at Tufts University called ‘Teach Out.’ Among the goals were to build more GSAs [Gay/Straight Alliance clubs] in Massachusetts and expand homosexual teaching into the lower grades. Scores of gay friendly teachers and administrators attended. They received state ‘professional development credits.’ Teenagers and children as young as 12 were encouraged to come from around the state, and many were bused [sic] in from their home districts. Homosexual activists from across the country were there also.

·         A mother was shocked and outraged when she discovered her son had to read a novel about teenage gay pornography for his English class. The woman had enrolled her son in Newton South High School’s summer program to help prepare him for the English portion of the Massachusetts State Standardized Test. Little did she know her son's teacher had recently bragged in a Boston Globe newspaper article how he was quietly introducing ‘gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender’ subjects into his academic high school classes. She relates “In this class, the teacher passed out a copy of The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky to each child as the class’s required reading assignment, with instructions to write an essay on the book when they finished it.  The book is aimed at teenagers, and is told from a teenage boy's perspective. The book contains explicit references and discussion regarding: Sexual acts between teenagers, male masturbation, oral-genital sex, a great deal of profanity, male homosexual acts between teenage boys, including kissing, seduction, ‘having a crush,’ and anal sex, illegal drug use, homosexual acts between men and boys, sex between a boy and a dog, female masturbation using an object.”

·         In Newton, Massachusetts, the school forced 9^th grade girls in health classes to go to a drug store and buy condoms and practice putting them on a banana.

In another story I read but can no longer locate, Minnesota 3^rd graders were lined up in a school auditorium along the line painted down the middle of the floor, and told to step across the line each time they were asked a question applicable to them.  At first, the questions were innocuous and used to establish an automatic, rhythmic and unthinking response from the children.  Progressively, the questions became more personal, sexual, and disturbing.  This was later explained away as an exercise in ‘sensitivity training and personal exploration’.  This is a well known brainwashing technique.  I would term it ‘desensitization’ and an invasion of privacy and personal boundaries by adults on children; for which they should be arrested and barred from teaching.

 

Finally, a Boston man was fired recently from his job for airing his conventional, Christian views on homosexuality (http://rawstory.com/2009/11/media-firing-gay-marriage/).   There is some dispute who provoked the exchange of views (him or the lesbian who unrelentingly related details of her upcoming wedding despite his obvious discomfort), but what is clear is that it is now a dismissible offense to have such views at all, and this is upheld by our courts.   Just think on the possibilities for abuse!  Got a co-worker whose opinions you disapprove, just provoke him into saying anything un-PC then rat him out to HR!  While incidental to my subject, this shows just how far the agenda has succeeded in supplanting traditional values with its own in our culture.

 

Some of these stories are the result of overly enthusiastic or thoughtless managers, teachers, principals, & bureaucrats exceeding both their authority and commonsense, but all illustrate a clear pattern of expanding state intrusions at the expense of parents and the child-parent bond injurious to children.   The inability of some to separate the ideology from the behavior and the behavior from the person is at the root of a great deal of bad policymaking.  But that only answers why we let government overrule our good judgment; the other half is government overruling the few to say no even when those running government, decent folks all (in their estimation), are perfectly aware of the families they wreck and rights they trample.

 

 

Bob Stapler is a mechanical engineer and occasional commentator-without-portfolio reporting from deep inside the bluest of blue-states on the liberal state-of-mind

---