Posted on 03/18/2004 5:17:04 AM PST by wallcrawlr
Tawdry business this gummint education. My first inclination is to disagree with your assessment. The $H!T needs to hit the fan! The more the better. Intolerance needs to become part of conservatives' vocabulary again. Every one of these damn books in every school library in the country should immediately find their way to the bottom of library trash cans, or out open windows, or pages flushed down toilets. Book bags and ladies' handbags would make nice transport vehicles off the library premises. There should be a coordinated effort to magnify the impact; to actually increase the chances of our friends in the faux press shining some light on the problem. Let the libraries replace the books under a cloud created by a few conservative miscreants! Then let the A$$HOLES claim ignorance as a defense!
How is it the we conservatives have been cowed into submitting to this insanity anyway? We weren't taught this tripe in school. My friend, I've said it before, but OUR generation allowed this to happen; we need to fix it. How can we in good conscience leave this mess to our children and grandchildren. This assault on our very way of life will not abate until WE do something to stop it.
This war against America as we know it has only been fought by one side because WE refused to engage the enemy. Did we believe that America couldn't be taken down by an immoral minority or were we just not paying attention. Our surrogates in the faux press surely kept us abreast of all the latest battle fronts didn't they? Har! If it wasn't on the evening news, it didn't happen, eh?
FGS
Standing up for truth never traumatizes a child. They have an inborn appreciation for doing what's right and will always be the better for being shown how real adults do what's right.
Children naturally recoil against homosexual behavior because even they understand from birth that it is wrong.
This child will grow to be a good strong conservative patriot. And a good mommy who will properly protect her children because she has been protected.
Just because it was classified as a mental illness prior to 1970, does not mean that classification is correct. In addition, a statement that "in the past it was such" is not a proof of a fact. In the past the world was flat, does that mean that scientists that come up with new theories or proof are activists?
I'm not debating whether homosexuality is "wrong". It seems you're trying to make it a "wrong" thing by anecdotal evidence. Using the mental health profession as an example does not bolster your argument
You can make an argument that homosexuality defies the laws of nature and I would agree with you (as sexual function for procreation) However, that doesn't explain homosexuality with other mammals in nature.
The Bottom Line: We agree on the premise of the original argument...I don't want the "gay lifestyle" taught to my child any more than you do. We just disagree on the reasoning.
You stayed up too late??? Maybe things will become clearer now that the sun is up.
FGS
Up until about 1970, homosexuality was classified as a mental illness. The activists got it changed. Which was a mistake. This is not normal behavior and the people who suffer from this illness have high rates of suicide, depression and substance abuse.
Just because it was classified as a mental illness prior to 1970, does not mean that classification is correct. In addition, a statement that "in the past it was such" is not a proof of a fact. In the past the world was flat, does that mean that scientists that come up with new theories or proof are activists?
The infiltration of the APA by homosexual activists was part of a well planned campaign to force the acceptance of homosexuality as "normal." The removal of homosexuality from the DSM was the equivalent of dropping a Hiroshima-sized bomb on our culture. The damage has been extensive - in the Church, in the public schools, and now with the institution of marriage.
Consider the following documentation:
An excerpt from "Psychology's sexual dis-orientation" by MIT Psychologist, Gerald E. Zuriff, Ph.D:
"Although the gay liberation movement's arguments were based mostly on the social implications of the diagnosis, the board tried to limit its consideration to scientific and medical arguments. The "scientific" considerations were based on two kinds of evidence. One was a body of research strongly pointing to a major biological basis for homosexuality. This included ethological studies finding homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, cross-cultural investigations indicating homosexuality is a human universal (and in some cultures, socially accepted), and neuroendocrinological studies showing the effects of hormones on brain development. The implication was that homosexuality is not simply the result of childhood trauma. It is neither freely chosen nor "unnatural."
The more important evidence came from psychological studies of gay men and lesbians in the general population. A major criticism of pathological theories of homosexuality was that they were derived from observations of homosexual patients who were seeking professional help. Not surprisingly, they found that homosexuality was closely associated with a variety of psychopathologies. However, when nonpatient homosexual populations were studied, it was found that many homosexual adults were leading well-adjusted, fulfilling lives. In general, homosexuality was not associated with any increased incidence of psychopathology.
Neither of these bodies of evidence is decisive. To be sure, findings supporting a biological contribution to homosexuality undermine the early psychoanalytic explanations. But the evidence is not all in, and even today it is too early to prejudge the issue. More important, even if homosexuality is shown to be genetically based, biological determination does not preclude a condition from being a disorder or from being treated. Some forms of depression and anxiety are known to have biological causes but are nevertheless considered psychiatric disorders and are often effectively treated, both biologically and psychologically.
The second argument, that homosexuality is not associated with other conditions recognized as psychopathologies, also falls short. It begs the question as to whether homosexuality in and of itself is a psychopathology. From the fact that a person can be perfectly healthy except for a broken bone, we would not argue that fractures are not medical problems. One could just as well argue that because many people with phobic anxieties manage to cope well, live full lives, and show no symptoms other than their narrowly focused anxiety, phobias are not psychopathologies. Furthermore, several of the disorders retained in DSMII also do not necessarily involve subjective distress (e.g., fetishism).
The Politically Correct American Psychological Association
Thought Reform and The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58:85-91
Background It has been suggested that homosexuality is associated with psychiatric morbidity...
Results Psychiatric disorders were more prevalent among homosexually active people compared with heterosexually active people.
Conclusion The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders.
Not probably, for sure.
The whole reason for the phoney "gay marriage" thing is to force acceptance by law. They know the overwhelming majority thinks homosexuality is perversion, and they want everybody compelled to accept it as normal.
None of which is actually "news". This story has been told before and the end is always the same...the fall of a culture. If we allow the "scribes" to continue to define the debate for us, we may as well fold our tent; burn it for that matter. The "system" has devolved into fanatic legalists nitpicking at every barrier to their degeneracy. We either take a stong stand on broader moral grounds.....or lose.
FGS
Great points you make. The one thing that concerns me about this whole argument are the rules laid out by our adversaries. Right and wrong; good and bad have been removed from the "debate"...
Thanks.
Have you read "The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values," by Tammy Bruce? Her book details how right and wrong; good and bad have been removed from the "debate".
Here's a short review posted by FReeper Peach: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1084485/posts?page=6#6
I also didn't say that I agreed with the practice. I think that it's morally reprehensible to discuss sexual issues (gay or otherwise) with a 1st grader, anyway.
I think that if homosexuality needs to be discussed at all, it should be at an older age; an age where the person can make sound judgements on their actions and the legitimacy of the actions and reasoning of others. Most of all, I also think that the entire issue should be explored. "It's OK to be Gay" is a nice platitude to spout, but "Gays are at a 300% higher risk (or whatever it is) of suicide because of depression." won't get repeated in the PC classroom of today.
Interesting. No I haven't read the book, but I did take a look at Peach's post. I only vaguely recognize the name, but given her obvious intellect, I'm proud to be in line with Bruce's idea(l)s ;^) Question is, can we recover the high ground? I fear that the booting of God from public schools in '63(?) was the beginning of the end. If we can't reverse the 40+ year fall, I will personally go to my grave begging for forgiveness from my grandkids. They deserve better.
FGS
Properly is the operative word here.
The removal of homosexuality from the DSM was the equivalent of dropping a Hiroshima-sized bomb on our culture. The damage has been extensive - in the Church, in the public schools, and now with the institution of marriage.
I wouldn't blame just the removal homosexualiy from the DSM. It's liberalism in general that caused this to happen. Whether it was removed or not, the liberalism of the 60's-70's are causing the problems we see today...as the generation that was engaging in free sex and drugs are now the DemonRatic leaders today.
Properly is the operative word here.
I'm glad to see that you agree that protecting our children from any exposure to homosexual behavior is the proper thing to do.
That is not the issue. Making one's child the center of attention around a disgusting and embarrassing subject is the issue. For example
On the playground: "hehehhe ... There is the girl that reads homo books."
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.