How to Respond to the Rising Tide of Anti-Christian Hatred

Homofascists begin with the premise: "Homosexuality is 'normal' for me."

This is a fraud, because there is ample scientific evidence to suggest that homosexuality is indeed a 'variant,' of human behavior. If we are to remain epistemologically and logically consistent, the fact that such behavior is by definition not statistically normal sends this premise careening off the road of reason and towards the guardrails of fallacy. The statement, "Homosexuality is 'normal' for me,” substitutes solipsism for science. Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. There is a danger in the malignant narcissism implicit in that statement , as those who make it have the most to lose by it.

So, to respond to homofascists advocating that position, one can say that by reducing the concept of normality to whatever you deem it to be for yourself, you therefore legitimize the behavior of those who feel that, oh, say, tarring and feathering you or hanging you by the neck until dead because of your 'orientation' is merely another opinion - and one just as valid as yours. And if you really want to hew to this particular line of reasoning, then you must also have nothing to say regarding the opinions of others who disagree with your lifestyle choices. As I said, you can't have it both ways - unless of course, you resort to the Left's historical means of dealing with disagreement - namely, the gun, the gulag and the execution pits. Worse, the logic implicit in such a solipsistic statement denies the existence of good and evil, right and wrong or any sort of moral/ethical standards. Anne Hendershott, writing in The Politics of Deviance, says that the sociologist's objective in studying deviance is not to classify a specific behavior as either deviant or conforming, but rather to position a given behavior or class of related behaviors on a continuum ranging from negligible to serious in terms of the reaction it evokes in the community. If a behavior is considered by the majority of the members of a community to be unacceptable, dangerous or morally wrong, then that behavior is regarded as deviant. To quote Hendershott, "When a behavior warrants and receives condemnatory or punitive reactions, sociologists assert that it has seriously violated prevailing behavioral standards." Let’s say that again: prevailing behavioral standards. Discussion of the derivation of those standards - and the current cultural war against standards of any sort deserves a separate discussion, but we can address elements of it here.

For example, homofascists will argue that nobody is trying to "normalize" ANY kind of sexual "behavior" to grade-schoolers. This of course, is a lie.

A common homofascist dodge is to attempt to distance themselves from the assertion by resorting to the use of the word 'nobody' in order to diffuse and redirect attention from it. But the claim that, indirectly or otherwise that there is no attempt being made to in our public schools to 'normalize' ANY sort of sexual behavior is simply untrue – in other words, a lie. The evidence to the contrary - that homosexual behavior is indeed presented as simply another mode of sexuality and that this presentation has been institutionalized and is routinely made to those in the sixth grade or even earlier is too well documented to warrant serious consideration to the contrary.

But why not take it from those who speak directly to the issue of the normalization of homosexuality. Let us now refer to After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. Among other things, they say AIDS as an exploitable issue, one that could be used to, "establish ourselves as a victimized minority - legitimately deserving of America's special protection and care." Their words - not mine. This is relevant to our discussion because Kirk and Madsen saw an opportunity to recast the deviants of the past into the victims of the present - a point of view and a methodology that meshed perfectly with the zeitgeist of the victimist politics promulgated by the Left.

Kirk and Madsen called specifically for a "conversion of the average American's emotions, mind and will, through a planned psychological attack." Again - their own words, not mine. Kirk and Madsen outlined and described three specific approaches to this attack on American sensibilities: desensitization, jamming and conversion. Examples of desensitization aren't hard to come by. Many colleges, high schools and elementary schools celebrate the accomplishments of allegedly homosexual historical figures - convenient since the dead are no position to sure for libel or slander. The preposterous and untrue 'outing' of Abraham Lincoln is one such example. In another example a little closer to home, the Oak Hill Middle school in Newton, Massachusetts posted the photos of "major gay figures of the modern world." this - for the edification of 10 to 13 year-olds.

We shouldn't be too terribly surprised at any of this, given the complicity of the teaching profession in this sort of 'desensitization'. Reading from a course description at a West Coast university, we find that it offers to "use adolescent and children's literature, poetry, film and music to investigate what it means to be gay, lesbian or bisexual." The course: Finding Common Ground: Using Children's Literature to Explore Issues Related to Gay, Lesbian and Straight Identities was offered for those enrolled in the university's School of Education. At the very least, the lionizing of historical and literary figures' alleged sexual orientation is a criminal trivialization of their real accomplishments and contributions to the arts and sciences. As Camille Paglia has said, "Wouldn't students be better off if their teachers fed them facts rather than propaganda? Proclaiming Eleanor Roosevelt gay is not only goofy but malicious. It reduces a bold, dynamic woman to whose entire achievement was in the public realm to gossip and speculation about her most guarded private life."

Jamming is often combined with desensitization. Kirk and Madsen wrote that "propagandistic advertisement can depict homo-hating bigots as crude loudmouths and assholes - people who say not only 'faggot,' but 'nigger', 'kike' and other shameful epithets." In other words, they attempt to conflate disagreement or disapproval of homosexual practices with true bigotry. For example, under the aegis of many universities' compulsory "diversity" training programs, first year students are subjected to propaganda whose principle focus is on homosexuality. In one such program at Williams College, representatives of the Bisexual, Gay and Lesbian Union led 'Feel What It's Like to be Gay' tours through freshman dorms and required students to state their names and declare themselves to be gay. even though they were not.

Kirk and Madsen advocate conversion - that is, "subverting the mechanism of prejudice through the use of associative conditioning. It isn't enough that anti-gay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us - we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us." Interesting choice of words, here, is it not? All of the three methods outlined above are in use in our public schools and universities. For example, one of the major goals of GLSEN and similar groups is to reform public school curricula and teaching so that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender themes are always central and always presented in the approved light - they're quite open about it.

So – “nobody” is engaged in normalizing homosexual practices and lifestyle in our public schools? Those who advance that argument don't even have the price of admission to a reasoned discussion - the willingness to tell and recognize the truth.

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.