Posted on 11/30/2004 10:51:49 PM PST by kattracks
Civil liberties and homosexual rights advocates have renewed their push for community programs to bolster support in schools for homosexual youths, just weeks after voters repudiated same-sex unions in 11 state referendums.
But in northeastern Kentucky, parents and students have defied the Ashland-Boyd County school district's "mandatory anti-harassment workshops," part of an agreement with the American Civil Liberties Union to allow the Gay-Straight Alliances student group to meet in school buildings.Hundreds of students opted out of the tolerance training video, and another 324 students did not show up for school the day it was shown. The ACLU has threatened to file for a court order to enforce attendance.
Joseph Platt, a Cincinnati lawyer representing parents, said "mandatory training on tolerance for homosexuals violates the right of conscience of parents and students who believe such behavior immoral."
In Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, N.C., a lengthy cover feature in Charlotte Parent, a widely circulated shopper magazine, has brought indignant protests from churches and private schools associated with the Greater Charlotte Association of Christian Schools.
Titled "Parenting a Gay Child," the feature offered a sympathetic account of youngsters with "same-sex attraction" and advocated community "support services and education" on behalf of homosexual children. The article supported the view of homosexual interest groups that same-sex unions are comparable to heterosexual marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
The "spokesman" was quoted in "Charlotte World" newspaper. I tracked it down on their website.
I can understand "We just place ads; we don't run the magazine," but I can't understand their not making at least a general statement against immorality. What if the article had been about facilitating your heterosexual teenager's sexual activity? Would the Diocesan "spokesman" still have shrugged?
Don't they even realize that a teenage boy who is struggling with homosexual desires has probably been abused by an adult male? This is dreadful in so many ways!
I have to wonder, whom are they afraid of offending by making a simple moral statement? Homosexuals? There just aren't that many! Adults (parents of their students, sigh) who are living in sin? Parents who let their teenagers run around?
My boy is in private school.....
I should have said "twisted, abnormal, destructive view that nost of us don't share".
It is also perfectly normal for early pubescent males to go through a stage where they have a "first crush" or a hero worship of an older male in their world. It is natural and normal, but the Homosexualists take advantage of this stage in a teen boy's development to move in for active recruitment. (Then the poor kid is trapped in "liberal horror" for a very long time.)
BTTT
Thanks ... I'll make sure I mention that to the Bishop, too.
;o)
I'm beginning to think that the real "agenda" they're promoting is not homosexuality per se, but sex with children. Once it's accepted that it's acceptable for (ever younger) children to have sex, then the age of the other person becomes simply a matter of taste. If sex between a 14-year-old and a 16-year-old is okay, then what's your logical basis to condemn sex between a 14-year-old and a 60-year-old?
I'm beginning to think that the real "agenda" they're promoting is not homosexuality per se, but sex with children.
In her book The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values, Tammy Bruce wrote in Chapter Four, First the Culture, Then the Children: The Agenda of the Radical Gay Elite:
"I believe this grab for children by the sexually confused adults of the Gay Elite repesents the most serious problem facing our culture today." (Pg.94)
An excerpt from "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...
... 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...
Think about it: we’re talking about children who are not psychologically mature enough to decide what to have for dinner, let along comprehend the intricacies of sexuality and all its physical and psychological repercussions. But the Gay Elite want us to believe that somehow these children know they prefer to have anal sex or need their breasts removed to find their “true” selves. Yeah, and I’m Anna Nicole Smith.
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..."
An excerpt from "Targeting Children - Part four: Access to children: homosexuality and molestation"
"Homosexuality and pedophila
It should be said from the outset that a homosexual orientation does not automatically lead to pedophilia, and most homosexuals do not abuse children. Moreover, most homosexual activist groups publicly denounce pedophilia.
But that is not the end of the story. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover says in his book Homosexuality and the Politicis of Truth that there is a "substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia."
One reason for this may be that the homosexual movement is based on the rather simple ethic of individual sexual freedom. In the activist magazine Gayme, writer Bill Andriette said, "The only standard for moral sex… is that it be freely and equally consented to by the persons involved."
From that sexual ethic to one which includes intergenerational sex is but a short leap. Andriette said, "There is no question that blacks, whites, women, men, children, and adolescents can consent to sex … . If we want really to respect the authenticity of individuals we have to let people take risks, explore different values, and recognize that we will be challenged and threatened by what they discover." (Emphasis added.)
This homosexual perspective was in full view nearly three decades ago, with the release of the 1972 Gay Rights Platform. Activists in Chicago, representing the fledgling homosexual movement, demanded the "[r]epeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons," and the "[r]epeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent."
Such homosexuals see society’s disapproval of adult-child sex as the transgression, rather than the adult-child sex itself. In The Age Taboo: Gay Male Sexuality, Power and Consent, lesbian author Pat Califia said, "Boy lovers and the lesbians who have young lovers … are not child molesters. The child abusers are priests, teachers, therapists, cops and parents who force their staid morality onto the young people in their custody."
Moreover, for many homosexuals, this same-sex attraction to minors may stem from their own sexual experiences. Research shows that very often homosexuals had their own initial same-sex encounter with an adult while children. (See AFA Journal, May 1999.)
Writing in The Advocate, a magazine for homosexuals, Carl Maves agreed. "How many gay men, I wonder, would have missed out on a valuable, liberating experience – one that initiated them into their sexuality – if it weren’t for so-called molestation?" he said..."
... Furthermore, some suggest that public disavowal of NAMBLA by homosexual groups is a smokescreen. David Thorstad, a founding member of NAMBLA and former president of New York’s Gay Activists Alliance, says homosexual activists have supressed pedophilia in order "to sanitize the image of homosexuality to facilitate its entrance into the social mainstream..."
( more info here )
An excerpt from ""Pedophilia Chic" Reconsidered (The taboo against sex with children continues to erode)"
"This social consensus against the sexual exploitation of children and adolescents, however—unlike those against, say, animal sex or incest—is apparently eroding, and this regardless of the fact that the vast majority of citizens do overwhelmingly abominate the thing. 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.
Dramatic though this turnaround may be, it did not happen overnight. Four years ago in these pages, in an essay called "Pedophilia Chic," I described in some detail a number of then-recent public challenges to this particular taboo, all of them apparently isolated from one another.1 Plainly, as the record even then showed, a surprising number of voices were willing to rise up on behalf of what advocates refer to as "man-boy love," or what most people call sexual abuse...
Four-plus years and many other challenges to the same taboo later, it is clear that this hypothesis got something wrong. For one thing, no sustained public challenges have arisen over other primal taboos. Even more telling, if nihilism and nihilism alone were the explanation for public attempts to legitimize sex with boy children, then we would expect the appearance of related attempts to legitimize sex with girl children; and these we manifestly do not see.2 Nobody, but nobody, has been allowed to make the case for girl pedophilia with the backing of any reputable institution. Publishing houses are not putting out acclaimed anthologies and works of fiction that include excerpts of men having sex with young girls. Psychologists and psychiatrists are not competing with each other to publish studies demonstrating that the sexual abuse of girls is inconsequential; or, indeed, that it ought not even be defined as "abuse."
Two examples from the last few weeks will suffice to show the double standard here. In the November 12 New York Times Book Review, a writer found it unremarkable to observe of his subject, biographer Gavin Lambert, that when "Lambert was a schoolboy of 11, a teacher initiated him [into homosexuality], and he 'felt no shame or fear, only gratitude.'" It is unimaginable that New York Times editors would allow a reviewer to describe an 11-year-old girl being sexually "initiated" by any adult (in that case, "initiation" would be called "sexual abuse"). Similarly, in mid-December the New York Times Magazine delivered a cover piece about gay teenagers in cyberspace which was so blasé about the older men who seek out boys in chat rooms that it dismissed those potential predators as mere "oldies." Again, one can only imagine the public outcry had the same magazine published a story taking the same so-what approach to online solicitation, off-line trysts, and pornography "sharing" between anonymous men and underage girls.
No: As was true four years ago, contemporary efforts to rationalize, legitimize, and justify pedophilia are about boys. Forget about abstractions like nihilism; what the record shows is something more prosaic. The reason why the public is being urged to reconsider boy pedophilia is that this "question," settled though it may be in the opinions and laws of the rest of the country, is demonstrably not yet settled within certain parts of the gay rights movement..."
An excerpt from "The Problem with Equivalence: "Pedophilia Chic" defended"
"In "'Pedophilia Chic' Reconsidered," Eberstadt raises questions about the mixed messages on appropriate sexual behavior for minors given out by the youth websites of many gay organizations. Eberstadt is concerned that these sites are encouraging young boys and girls to think sexually at ever younger ages. The parents disturbed by the Outright Vermont program agree. During the campaign, these parental groups complained loudly about graphic pictorial illustrations of, and instructions for, gay oral sex, fisting, and "rimming" ("mouth to ass," as the pamphlet describes it) made available to young people by Outright Vermont. Interestingly, supporters of Outright Vermont were, by their own account, "visibly shaken" by these attacks. What so shocked the partisans of Outright Vermont was that anyone could be horrified by the act of distributing to youngsters the sort of "safe sex" material gay organizations now ignore as commonplace.
The cultural fault line here is profound, and no aberration. The gay adults who operate gay-straight alliances and organizations like Outright Vermont seem to have a very different view than most heterosexual parents on the extent to which sexually explicit material ought to be made available to young people. And to be sure, explicit material about homosexual sex is even more disturbing to most parents than explicit material about heterosexual sex. With good reason. The most disquieting thing of all is that programs like Outright Vermont are now targeted at GLBTQ's. That's an acronym for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Questioning youth. A "questioning" youth, of course, is uncertain about his or her sexual orientation. But it's entirely commonplace for children who end up heterosexual to go through a youthful phase in which they question their own sexual orientation. Will these children now be told they have a gay gene, be handed a dental dam, and directed to an adult gay porn site? ..."
One reason for this may be that the homosexual movement is based on the rather simple ethic of individual sexual freedom. In the activist magazine Gayme, writer Bill Andriette said, "The only standard for moral sex… is that it be freely and equally consented to by the persons involved." EdReform's post #150 should be copied and emailed or printed out and distributed widely to any friends, relatives, co-workers, employees, or fellow congregants who lack real information about the "gay" agenda.
Is this truly commonplace?
Pedophilia.
All over the landscape.
---
Dear Bishop Jugis,
I am writing regarding some unfortunate comments made by the Diocese’s communications director, Mr. David Hains. A recent issue of Charlotte Parents magazine included an article which was supportive of homosexual relations among teenagers. The Diocese of Charlotte, which advertises its schools in this magazine, was asked for comments by the Charlotte World newspaper. The following is their report of what Mr. Hains said on behalf of the Diocese:
David Hains, spokesman for the Catholic diocese of Charlotte, said that the diocese “doesn’t find the article objectionable. Catholic teaching teaches all Catholics to be loving towards all people, including homosexuals.” Hains said that the diocese – which does view the homosexual act as sinful – doesn’t view the “Charlotte Parent” article as an endorsement of sin. He also said the diocese “doesn’t try to influence the editorial content of the magazines we advertise in.”
To be frank, this statement suggests that Mr. Hains did not read the article on which he was commenting. The article was full of moral and factual errors, and was precisely an “endorsement of sin.” It encouraged parents to provide moral affirmation to children engaged in homosexual relationships. It gave the impression a young person who feels a sexual attraction to another person of the same sex is irreversibly “gay” and must engage in homosexual activity. It downplayed the moral, psychological, and health risks of teen sex in general, and homosexual sex in particular. It provided a list of “resources” for parents which included only those organizations which support homosexual promiscuity among people of all ages. The only correct advice this article provided for a parent whose child discussed a same-sex attraction was that the parent’s becoming hysterical would not be helpful!
I am deeply disappointed that the Diocese’s official statement on this matter did not even mention the fact that the Catholic Church teaches that all sexual activity outside of marriage is morally wrong. There was no mention of the fact that, while a homosexual desire is not a sin in itself, it is a temptation to sin, and should be treated as such by the person who experiences it and his parents. There was no recognition of the duty of parents to protect their children from the sexual aggression of adults, or even of other legal minors.
I do not understand this. Mr. Hains is a “communications” professional, and so I must assume that his failure to make a clear statement regarding Catholic sexual morality was deliberate. The fact that he did so in the name of the Diocese of Charlotte distresses me greatly. Would Mr. Hains, on behalf of the Diocese, have been equally noncommittal about an article that encouraged parents to be “nonjudgmental” about their heterosexual children’s sexual activity? Shouldn’t the Catholic Church - an organization in which immense damage has been done by sexual abuse of children, particularly adolescent boys - state loudly, clearly, and unequivocally that “CHILDREN ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR SEX!”?
I must apologize; I am growing upset. I understand that as an advertiser in a magazine, the Diocese is not responsible for the content, and need not pass moral judgment on every article. However, I am still absolutely appalled that, according to its spokesman, the Diocese “didn’t find the article [in question] objectionable.” I respectfully suggest that you locate the relevant issue of Charlotte Parents and see for yourself why Mr. Hains’ statement on your behalf was dreadfully inappropriate.
Yours very truly,
Cy the Tax-chick
---
Mr. Hains' e-mail address was in the Diocesan newspaper. Do you think it would be polite to send him a copy?
Sounds good to me.
Link to an interesting Weekly Standard article on the pedophilia issue:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/987pbbuy.asp
In her big-screen debut, Luc Besson's 1994 Léon, Portman played Matilda, a pre-pubescent orphan who is taken in by the movie's titular middle-aged professional killer. Matilda dresses mostly like a prostitute, with tight leggings and a black velvet choker. Trying to shock another character, she refers to Léon as her lover, before later telling Léon that she is falling in love with him. In the European release, there's a scene in which, while the two are in bed together, Matilda asks him to make love to her. In Léon, Natalie Portman is 13-years-old. She was 15 in Ted Demme's Beautiful Girls, where she played a middle-school student trying to seduce the 30-something Timothy Hutton. Shortly thereafter, Portman became a cultural icon, the object of dirty grins and knowing winks.
And after Natalie, the deluge. There was Britney Spears's dirty-sweet school-girl act. The celebrated website devoted to a countdown to the Olsen twins' 18th birthday. And then the crowning moment: Vanity Fair's Youngest Hollywood issue, which displayed on its cover nine underaged vixens in various states of get-up-and-go, along with a headline proclaiming: "It's TOTALLY Raining Teens: And it's, like, so a major moment in pop culture." Even the taboo of Blue Lagoon lust is a thing of the past; today we celebrate the sexualization of young girls.
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.