Skip to comments.Research Group Warns Schools of Homosexual Propaganda
Posted on 02/22/2002 2:35:45 AM PST by kattracks
click here to read article
SASU, great info on the links. Some ready made talking points.
(Additional documentation in GrandMoM's thread: Assemblyman MOUNTJOY opposes promotion of homosexuality in public schools)
"reasonable compromise" is how we've been throwing away everything our ancestors built!
This nation, in fact all of western civilization was built on a strong moral code. That code rests upon recogniztion of God and family. When you destroy the family (as the SADs are trying to do) you destroy the moral code and you destroy western society.
Take a look around, every society that accepts sexual perversion is either dead or severely in decline.
We will not compromise. The plague of SAD must be stopped. If the current SADs don't want to be healed that is their choice. But we will not allow them special rights and we will not allow them access to our children. SADs don't reproduce, they recruit
God Save America (Please)
True, but I'm beginning to think a better term would be brainwashing. The queer agenda is steeped in psychology and what they do is more akin to what cults do to their victims - they indoctrinate through brainwashing.
Parents -- wake up!!
Bingo! I am very pleased that someone is taking the Gay-stapo head on as far as this is concerned.
For anyone who hasn't read "Just The Facts about Sexual Orientation and Youth," it's half propaganda and half veiled threat of legal action against school districts that might have in mind balancing pro-gay curricula.
If you are a parent of school-aged children, you really need to read it, just to find out what nonsense might be rattling in the heads of your local school administrators.
"Religious brethren?" Uh-uh. Try "God" in that sentence.
Yes, absolutely. There is evidence for this both anecdotal and statistical - but no one has done a comprehensive study. Id like to see a comprehensive study.
They choose to live that way. Seems to me that those involved in such lifestyles will continue to do so regardless.
If all youve got is hedonism then you might as well be a hedonist. However, there have always been a large percentage of homosexuals who do not engage in this activity. Id like to see this percentage grow. But this and gay adoption are topics for a different thread.
But reparative therapy doesnt result in your normal healthy sexual desires. It results in no sexual desire whatsoever. Ive been over this. Read #13, #29, and #49. Reparative therapy seems more designed for the benefit of social conservatives than patients.
It ain't easy, in fact I think it's harder for a homosexual to adopt healthy sexual desires than it is for a perverted heterosexual. (unless the heterosexual was into some really weird stuff).
Ive never seen convincing evidence that change from homosexual to heterosexual desire is even possible. Ive explained this before.
Homosexuals (teenagers included)engage in destructive behavior not because people don't affirm their sexual desires but because they know that those desires are perverted and that's a frightening realization.
I disagree. In my opinion there is a correlation between self-destructive gay behavior and family background. The most well adjusted homosexuals tend to come from more accepting families and cultures. Obviously its more complex than this and correlation doesnt infer causation, but Id like to see more research done in this area.
They want to label kids in elementary school. I have seen homosexual curricula, pushed by groups like PFLAG, that suggest that elementary teachers be on the look out for children who they think might be homosexual so they can get the "direction" they need.
I too have some problems with the way homosexuality is presented in the school system. The original goal was to stop bullying of gay students and prevent the suicide of gay teens. Those are noble goals.
I personally know people who say that it is possible, and that they are living proof. Are you calling them liars?
I agree with you wholeheartedly, and am concerned that most conservatives have badly miscalculated their strategy with regard to the whole "gay question."
Since most conservatives seem to wish desparately to return to a time when gays were out of sight and out of mind, their knee-jerk response to the increased visibility of gays is to either(at its more benign and apathetic) wish gays would disappear or "convert," or (at its more malignant)demand that gays be oppressed into silence and hiding. The first of those options is almost certainly a pipe-dream, and God save our constitution if the second is adopted.
Also, almost universally, conservatives resist the entrance of (open) gays into the institutions that butress traditional society: marriage, the church, the armed forces, etc. That is, when gays seek to lead lives of commitment to those they love and service to society, they are told by conservatives "your kind is not wanted here."
A cursory review of the gains gays have made during the last 10 years in social acceptance and legal rights shows that conservatives have not been notably successful in any of their aims. Rather, the conservative "strategy" toward gays has had, as I see it, two counterproductive results: it has (1) perpetuated the status of gays as sexual "outlaws" who not only are not expected to follow traditional sexual and social mores, but are even legally hindered from doing so, and (2) reinforced the idea of many gays that to be conservative and/or religious is a betrayal of self -- thus leaving conservatives with no possibility to influence the attitudes of most gays. Calls for abstinence before marriage, for example, will fall on deaf ears when it comes to those who cannot ever marry.
By following this colossally ineffectual strategy, conservatives have abandoned the field to liberals (and libertarians) who, not wanting to think about the "nasty" subject of homosexuality any more than conservatives, simply push for, or allow, a general relaxation of restrictions on gays. For example, because conservative opposition makes incorporation of gay couples into marriage an impossibility, liberals in Europe and some US states have created for gays a "no strings" version of marriage (civil unions, domestic partnerships, et al.) Instead of being required to bear the legal responsibilities we demand of married couples, gay couples are in essence being given many of the legal rights of marriage on the cheap. And that, more than including gay couples in the existing institution of marriage, is a recipe for "undermining marriage." (You know straights will be asking for equal access to "marriage lite" -- they've already got in in many places, and I understand that French "PACSs" are more popular among young heterosexual couples than gay couples.)
A conservative strategy of admitting gays to social institutions like marriage, the church, the armed forces while insisting that they do so on the same terms as other people would be a better way of weaning gays away from their "perpetual rebel" status. Since you're going to have to deal with gays one way or the other, why not encourage them to be good citizens, instead of preserving them as a class of untouchables?
Good line, but I don't know if that is what you really want. The world he wants to live in would not be a pretty sight. Take a peek at the world of the Taliban if you want a sneak preview. With him as the Mullah.
Please tell me the source of this evidence. Either URL's or printed citations would be fine.
"...but no one has done a comprehensive study. Id like to see a comprehensive study."
A comprehensive study might not support your premise. Actually, homosexual activists are against comprehensive studies and often will not cooperate when requested to do so. For example:
"...NARTH recently requested the help of the Research Office of the American Psychological Association to obtain names and addresses of A.P.A. psychologists. We need to survey psychotherapists about their therapeutic successes in sexual-conversion therapy, in order to complete our large-scale research project (we currently have 1,000 responses). Such help is routinely provided to other organizations. Yet A.P.A.'s Director of Research, Jessica Kohout, Ph.D., refused NARTH's request.
NARTH Executive Director Joseph Nicolosi, Ph.D. replied as follows..." (read the letter written by Dr Nicolosi)
"If all youve got is hedonism then you might as well be a hedonist."
And that's exactly what groups such as GLSEN propose. Here are some examples of GLSEN's involvement in the schools from GrandMoM's thread. The groups that GLSEN supports in schools ("gay"-straight alliances) aren't generally proposed by students - it's homosexual activists that force it into the schools. See:
"Note the following pattern:
1. The existence of a dedicated activist on school grounds. The leader of the group was gay, and extremely dedicated to bringing the gay agenda to the school..."
"However, there have always been a large percentage of homosexuals who do not engage in this activity..."
Again, I'd ask that you please cite the source(s) for this information.
Of course they don't! Once someone has overcome the deviancy, they are, by definition, normal.
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.