Posted on 02/11/2004 9:00:13 PM PST by little jeremiah
An excerpt from "PERSPECTIVE - IN WHOSE BEST INTEREST"
As a grim reminder of the strides the homosexual activists have made in just a few years, it becomes necessary, once again, to quote some of the ranting of Michael Swift, homosexual writer, who authored a well-known essay entitled, "For The Homoerotic Order" in the Boston Gay Community News, February 15-21, 1987. His essay is prefaced by the statement "This essay is outre, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor." Unbelievably, his mad fantasy has turned into tragic reality with consequences society refuses to face.
Here, in part, is what he wrote "We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms. . . . Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.
"All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. . . . If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer at us, we will stab you. . . . Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable. . . .
"We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. . . .
"The family unit--spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated, Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.
"All churches who condemn us will be closed. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks."
Well, today the heterosexual population is the "oppressed," and homosexual activists are seducing our sons and daughters in our schools, and they get the full support and blessing of the teachers' unions. Together, they have now set the machinery in motion to brainwash and socially engineer future generations in accordance with Michael Swift's mad fantasy of homosexual domination and oppression.
All laws curbing homosexuality have been revoked in Canada, and the government now recognizes and protects any kind of homosexual partnership. The passage of the hate-crime bill has established homosexuals as an elite group with special privileges and protection, and no one "dares cry faggot" or pervert anymore. Both homosexuality and bisexuality have become a fad in our society, and anyone showing distaste or disapproval is branded as a bigot or homophobe.
The family unit is constantly challenged in today's society, and recent court decisions have supported the unnatural conception of children through artificial insemination for subsequent adoption by homosexual couples. And parents who spank their children stand to have them taken away by the government, which may well place them in the foster care of adult homosexuals.
Should there be any doubt about the malignant pervasiveness of the homosexual movement in our schools and social infrastructure, look up http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/
With the attitude of our federal government and the teachers' unions, legalized pedophilia is just around the corner.
From the "Brochure" page of your linked site:
The P.E.R.S.O.N. Project utilizes proactive strategies to improve the treatment of LGBT persons in K-12 educational systems. Advocates for The P.E.R.S.O.N. Project provide testimony before state and local boards of education, meet with educational policy makers at all levels of government, inform the public about educational equity issues, and furnish various resources for addressing these subjects in the classroom. We call for an end to the censorship of information about our communities in textbooks, course content, resource materials, and library offerings associated with public education.We believe that elementary and secondary curricula should include:
Fair and accurate information about sexual orientation in sex education, social studies, humanities, and family life classes.Information about the historical and continuing contributions of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to art, language, education, science, sport, etc.
Discussion of the LGBT liberation movement and the history of the struggle for equality for sexual minorities in the United States and throughout the world.
Documentation of significant social, legal and historical events, including the National Marches on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights in 1979, 1987, and 1993; the Stonewall Resistance of 1969 and its 25th Anniversary commemoration in 1994, and the struggle for privacy and civil rights via the courts, (e.g. Bowers v. Hardwick, the Gay Olympics case, and the cases having to do with the rights of LGBT people to serve in the Armed Forces and to be recognized legally as parents).
Last updated 4/5/2002 by Jean Richter, richter@eecs.Berkeley.EDU
The site doesn't mention the recruiters, but they'll be around.
Thanks, Ed.
I have seen homosexuals, when confronted with Swift's essay, claim that it was just hyperbole, satire, or the like. But no, it's their plan for us.
Indeed it is. As Jann Flury's article points out, it's a grim reminder of the strides the homosexual activists have made in just a few years.
The links to articles posted here on Free Republic and elsewhere, contained in scripter's Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1), can be uses to document Swift's article line by line. For example:
We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity...
Tammy Bruce: Protect New York's Children from the Gay Elite
"In my book The Death of Right and Wrong I warn about the sexualization and targeting of children by the radical gay fringe...
Not all of this, however, is inexplicable. As I outline in detail in DRW, there is a sick movement among the homosexual academics and the radical gay fringe to change the age of sexual consent in this nation to 12-years-old. As sexually transmitted diseases for both hetero- and homosexuals increases and HIV/AIDS runs rampant, the goal by some to have access to children (untouched virgins, free of disease) has increased...
I cannot even begin to express my rage at a radical gay fringe and leftists who now are openly and willingly sacrificing children in a vain and self-obsessed drive to quench their own appetites for the young. That’s all this amounts to—adults indulging themselves, and others made too mute by political correctness to step up and say "No."
"Pedophilia Chic" Reconsidered (The taboo against sex with children continues to erode)
For elsewhere in the public square, the defense of adult-child sex—more accurately, man-boy sex—is now out in the open. Moreover, it is on parade in a number of places—therapeutic, literary, and academic circles; mainstream publishing houses and journals and magazines and bookstores—where the mere appearance of such ideas would until recently have been not only unthinkable, but in many cases, subject to prosecution...
Of course, this opus that "gay studies" bookshelves now reserve space for did not spring from nowhere. The book itself grew out of two issues of the American Journal of Homosexuality (Vol. 20, Nos. 1/2, 1990) dedicated to the pondering of "male inter-generational love." Here again, an ostensibly mainstream gay vehicle was put to the service of advocating pedophilia. In fact, the case of the Journal of Homosexuality is particularly interesting as a case study of how a pernicious idea can spread. The editor of this reputable gay journal, John P. DeCecco, is a psychologist at San Francisco State University. DeCecco is favorably quoted in the introduction to Male Inter-Generational Intimacy for having praised the "enormously nurturant relationship" that can result from pedophile-boy contact. DeCecco is also on the editorial board of Paidika..."
"Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover reflects on the Journal of Homosexuality's "Male Intergenerational Intimacy":
"This special issue reflects the substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia. Rather they argue that pedophilia is an acceptable aspect of sexuality, especially of homosexuality. Indeed, the San Francisco Sentinel, a Bay Area gay-activist newspaper, published a piece arguing that pedophilia is central to male homosexual life" (7).
You can continue to document like this through the entire essay. For example, going further along:
We shall seduce them in your schools...
GLSEN Encourages Teens In Anal SEX "Don't give up."
"The following quotes are from three Alyson publications recomended to teens by GLSEN: Young, Gay and Proud!, One Teenager in Ten, and Two Teenagers in Twenty...
These books are in middle and high schools around the nation.
"Doing it: Gay men...Many people don't know the anus is not only an organ to remove waste. It's very sexually exciteable...Your first few times having anal sex might be a little hard. You may have to practice a bit before it starts feeling really good. I sure did." (pg. 81)
If this presents a realistic look into the life of a child struggling with same sex desires then these children are seduced/molested at an alarmingly high rate and engage in dangerous/abusive sexual activity at a very young age. What's worse is that the adults who purport to care most about them (the editor of this book for example) present this sexual abuse as if they were tender "coming of age" stories. As if the children struggling with same sex desires are showing how healthy they are by engaging in sex with adults and by having sexual encounters regularly beginning at a very young age.
And, the message is clear, if "straight" kids don't want to be closed-minded, if they want to be "open" and "free" they'll mimic the homosexual sexual behavior and promiscuity related in these books.
In several stories intense sexual activity as a child is presented as normal and healthy, even child/adult sex is presented without question. Five and six year old's who regularly engaged in sex are described as children "who were willing" to explore their sexuality "to it's fullest extent." Many stories fondly recount a youthful sexual encounter with a much older man or woman. Sexual promiscuity and engaging in sex as a child/teenager is presented as "sexual freedom".
Heterosexual or "questioning" youth are encouraged to try same sex intercourse because, the Kinseyin theory is repeated over and over, "Everyone's really gay or bisexual." and "You won't know if you like it until you try it."..."
Fistgate to be Held Again on March 15
Assemblyman MOUNTJOY opposes promotion of homosexuality in public schools
Queering the Schools (excerpt posted here )
And we could go on and on.
Make no mistake, Swift's essay, along with "The Overhauling of Straight America" and "The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game" spells out their plan. Of course, none of this could have occurred without the stage being properly set, and they did that by infiltrating the APA:
To: rface; Alamo-Girl; marron; unspun; logos; xzins; lockeliberty; P-Marlowe; Vernon; restornu
We are watching attitudes change, one generation replacing another, in the direction of full acceptance of gay Americans. We're not there yet. But this time it's the conservatives pushing the most radical idea: a constitutional freeze on social change.
I dunno, but this line of reasoning appears quite specious to me. Ms. Goodman is espousing the "individual rights" argument, alleging that gay men and women are somehow being deprived of their constitutional rights. But this is a total canard.
First of all, the Constitution does not confer rights, it secures them where they already exist. And as far as, say, Thomas Jefferson was concerned (if we want to take the DoI seriously), rights are endued in humans by their Creator; they are not, nor can they be, grants of the state, national or otherwise.
Moreover, gays cannot show that they are being deprived of the right to marry, within the traditional definition of that term. They just choose not to do so.
What is the traditional definition of marriage? William Bennett, on the O'Reilly show last night, had the pithiest definition I have ever come across. He said the purpose of marriage was "to civilize men, protect women, and raise children." Indeed, this is marriage's natural purpose, having been established over some 40-plus millennia ago, and a common feature of human existential experience in all cultures, all places, and all times ever since. It goes without saying that marriage has had enormous "fitness" (survival) value for the human species over time, and continues to be the bedrock social institution of a civilized society.
Here we have a situation when roughly 5% of the American population -- that part of it self-described solely according to preferred sexual practices that have never been regarded anywhere as "natural" -- is agitating on the basis that the other 95% is depriving them of their individuals rights. Yet no one is telling gays how to live their lives, or what they may or may not choose to do in their private lives.
Marriage is a public institution in a way that homosexual relations are not. For homosexual liaisons (of whatever duration) are mainly about sexual gratification, erotic experience; they are not concerned with the public purposes that marriage serves: civilizing men, protecting women, raising children.
Personally, one wonders why gay folks want to get "married," really. Civil unions would give them equal benefits with married folk; but this is somehow not good enough: They must have the term itself.
And so one asks: Why? The more radical activists hate marriage because they believe it is a "sexist institution." For such people, that's quite sufficient reason -- all by itself -- to mow marriage down. For it offends one by its "sexism."
And so society is to be stood on its head, just to gratify the narcissism and aestheticism of a tiny minority of the population who have zero sympathy for families, the demands of child-rearing, or respect for the requirements of our rule of law. And the means to do this is to execute an end-run around the Will of the People, expressed through duly-constituted legislatures, and head straight to confused public officials and (ultimately) activist judges for "judge-made law."
This hardly looks to me like a case of tyranny against a minority being perpretrated by the majority. It would be much more accurate to say this is the case of a minority tyrannizing the majority. And it is judges and justices acting outside the scope of their constitutional authority which makes all this possible.
As we saw in the case of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's one-judge majority, ordering the state General Court to accommodate gay marriage in the Commonwealth -- after the Will of the People had already been expressed in a constitutional referendum. The people of the Commonwealth by a huge majority clearly said "NO." One judge said "YES"; and that's all that was needed to trump the will and wishes of society.
This sort of thing is practically the textbook definition of tyranny.
Weasel-worded Kerry is trying (as usual) to have it both ways. He's not in favor of a federal constitution amendment to protect marriage, but he IS up for Massachusetts attempting to pass an amendment to our state constitution. But this is so deceitful of him -- for well he knows that, absent a federal amendment, it's only a matter of time before the Article IV "Full Faith and Credit Clause" ends up getting litigated -- and thus the issue finds itself back in the hands of judges. (Kerry is such a hypocrit I could spit.)
Personally, I am chagrined that the issue of a federal constitutional amendment has even come up. I hate the idea of being driven to such measures by the progressive left which hates America and most Americans. But the fact is, a federal amendment is the only thing that can keep the "Full Faith and Credit" issue from rearing its head at some not far-off time....
Thanks for the post, rface!
20 posted on 03/04/2004 10:01:32 AM PST by betty boop (The purpose of marriage is to civilize men, protect women, and raise children. -- William Bennett)
Jeremiah, what an enjoyable post! Needless to say, I agree with your analysis.
WRT the above figure estimating the gay population: I think your number is correct (though gay activists will tell you they are 10% of the population and rising). What I had in mind was an estimate of people in our society who sympathize with the gay position and believe, as you say, that “all (leftist) social change is good, inevitable, and the future is a nice, bright, socialist utopia.” My number includes elite academics gay or straight, and their allies in elite journalism and the mass media. These are the folks who shape and communicate what we are told is “respectable” public opinion on all social and political questions.
And of course I agree with you, theirs is “a sick fantasy.” The point is 95% of Americans in all probability haven’t got the least interest in going to live in some utopian brave new world: They like the world they live in just fine, thank you. The real question is whether a Court can force them to live in some twisted, narcissistic pipe dream.
The gay lobby is self-consciously, explicitly challenging the accepted norms in long customary usage of American civil society and Western civilization in general. Their strategic problem is they are a teensy tail on a giant dog. And the dog doesn’t want gay marriage. The gay lobby doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting gay marriage out of a representative legislature and knows it. That’s why it always runs to the courts. With a “civil rights” pleading.
Their Massachusetts strategy was brilliant and seems to have worked. Look for that model to be repeated elsewhere, going forward.
Thanks for your great post, Jeremiah.
"We're seeing an incredibly fast-paced civil rights movement and what I think is the last-gasp backlash of the radical right that has been in the gay-bashing industry for decades," said Patrick Guerriero, executive director of the gay Log Cabin Republicans. "This is an unstoppable train."
Let's derail the train. Make sure the politicians know you will not tolerate any redefinition of marriage.
The single most important issue at the moment is the rule of law. The willful rebellion against state law must be stopped or any other issue can become fair game as well for private interpretation.
Likewise a Constitutional Amendment must be forthcoming. Without it, the next "test" of the marriage laws will no doubt be polygamy and then bestiality and then pedophilia. Even many of those who see nothing morally wrong with same sex marriage will no doubt recognize the tax, property law, guardianship rights and insurance implications of the others.
I don't disagree with you, but FYI on this morning's PBS weekend news show on religion and ethics,
the show's producers, in their segment talking up gay marriage (overall it was a "pro" piece crafted along the lines suggested by Kirk and Madsen), trotted out a Harvard PhD to attack the antiquity and nature of marriage, in the service of the "well, we can do anything we want with marriage, it isn't a big deal" line of propaganda.
Here we have a situation when roughly 5% of the American population -- that part of it self-described solely according to preferred sexual practices that have never been regarded anywhere as "natural" -- is agitating on the basis that the other 95% is depriving them of their individuals rights. Yet no one is telling gays how to live their lives, or what they may or may not choose to do in their private lives.
Well, yes, we do tell them "what they may or may not choose to do in their private lives", but we do so with the sanction of legislation and deliberation, which allows the Government, as the People's servant, to invade the general Ninth Amendment liberties we all possess for sufficient public purposes.
The homosexual argument is that any attack on their favorite practices is bigoted, arbitrary, and unjustified. This is one of the reasons their lawyers keep trying to get certification and class status -- to induce courts to raise the bar on legislation against their interest, they hope to the level of "strict scrutiny". It is the job of any attorney worth his salt to show that the various legislatures deliberated in good faith, followed due process, and produced laws that happen to gore gay oxen, pro bono the rest of society who aren't burdened with their sexual deviancy.
Various analogies suggest themselves. The basic problem is how to convince liberal judges who have their minds made up already.
The alternative, which I support, is the consitutional remedy -- just take it away from the liberal judges. If they can't interpret the law without trying to legislate their own policy nostrums out of prejudice, then take the law away from them and leave them with an empty docket.
Yes, it must. We need Prosecuting Attornies willing to seek indictments of those who participate in that sort of thing. If that is not corrupting minors and disseminating harmful materials to minors, it would be difficult to imagine what would be.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
There are two aspects of what you suggest. A simple act of Congress, could end Judicial Activism in a wide swathe of areas, simply by limiting the jurisdiction of the Federal District Courts. I have been advocating such a move all of my adult life.
But the problem with the Homosexual assault on tradition and decency, is that if they win in any State, of course, there come into play considerations under the "full faith and credit" clause of Article IV. I think that we do indeed have to consider a Constitutional Amendment on this. This was not necessary before, because every State was at least somewhat rational. But it appears that Massachusetts has now fallen down the Rabbit Hole, so far, that the threat of totally delusional State Government is about to be realized.
Given this sudden crisis, we need to act; but not in panic. I would suggest that the Amendment should be broad enough to protect the States not only from this form of delusional newspeak, but from any form of delusional newspeak, as well as from the possibility of a Court misusing the provisions of some treaty, already ratified. I have a clear concept in mind, but haven't yet put it into words; and I want to reflect on various aspects a bit more, before I start to focus the concept into specific terminology.
In the meanwhile, if someone has a copy of Jefferson's 1782 Notes On The State Of Virginia, handy; I would suggest they post the provisions of the Virginia criminal code that relate to Homosexual and Lesbian activity. (Those lifestyles were not protected civil liberties in the minds of the men who gave us our liberty. No they surely were not!!)
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Once we reach their deadline date, then we are relying on the stalling tactics and, frankly, the defiance of honest Massachusetts clerks, to avoid homosexual marriage licenses, and therefore homosexual marriages, from becoming fait accompli.
Then, they think, the endgame that takes them to SCOTUS for their final triumph will be on.
Notice that a key element in the homosexuals' strategy -- which had to be coordinated behind closed doors with the Massachusetts judges (IOW, I smell judicial misconduct) -- is to take away time, the time to prepare, the time to defend, the time to deliberate what the law should be. This IMHO is a marker that their intentions -- the court's and their unacknowledged clients' -- are tyrannical.
They are jamming the People. Hell, clubbing them.
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.