Skip to comments.Challenging the Homosexual Fury In Our Government Schools
Posted on 05/30/2002 8:53:57 PM PDT by gohabsgo
Concentric is the state of having a common center. The U.S is no longer a concentric nation. It is being grotesquely divided, little by little, bit by bit. Free speech bordering on harassment and intimidation has replaced civility and open dialogue. A nation conceived in liberty now resembles a kid so confused about what liberty and identity is, and what unifying values are, that he has little in common with the family that instilled him with ethics and principles in the first place. How have we become "educated" to think like this?
Public education now includes laws requiring that teachers "come out," expressing their homosexuality in front of children as young as six years old. This is without parental notification or consent. Teachers compelled to triumph their sexual identity, subordinating the purpose of schools, are the most self-centered, conceited individuals on the planet. Conceit is excessive pride in one's own worth or value.
According to the Frequently Asked Questions fact sheet provided by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), California's specious safe schools law is designed to accomplish the following:
"Lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, and transgender (LGBT) students are subject to a climate of fear resulting in increased absenteeism, decreased academic performance and increased risk of suicide. The National School Climate Survey (whatever that is) also found that 30% of LGBT students had missed at least one entire day of school in the past month because they felt unsafe."
Let's see, a "climate of fear" results in cutting classes, not doing homework and preparing for tests, and killing oneself. A suspect survey discloses dramatic evidence that subject students missed ONE entire day, not a half day, not first hour, one entire day, because they felt unsafe? Not that any of the other 3,000 students face any challenges. Are the "rights" of LGBT students more equal than other students? And just how many LGBT students are there?
The same groups who advance this agenda, so furiously focused on forcing themselves upon a seemingly powerless public, routinely condemn and attack any expressions of G-d, church, family values, or other positive influences. You have to give the Devil his due. He sure knows how to operate through the left. No venomous (and falsely applied) epithets equivalent to homophobe, bigot, and gay basher are even considered, let alone employed by shell-shocked parents. The left plays on the self-imposed conservative tendency of avoiding confrontation, and exploits it like a giant hole in a fence.
The program is: Bludgeon the public to the point of confusion, moral ambiguity, and denial of faith. Wear it down, knowing most people won't defend their value system, even though they fully believe what the left is doing is wrong. "They'll grow tired, and will concede," lawyers from gay activist groups and the ACLU are convinced.
Confiscation is to seize by, or as if by, authority. This is the issue. Is the common sense public willing to reclaim a moral right that has been stolen? They have the defensible moral right to decide for themselves what, and from where, information about sexual orientation and identity will originate: from parents, or from arrogant and disdainful public school social engineers intent on pushing homosexual equivalency.
Homosexual rights activists employ their special vocabulary like an occupying army, an idiom where identity is fixed. The persistence and formula are textbook. Anyone who opposes this agenda is not just an enemy, but an intruder.
Most words move fluidly along a continuum, expressing degrees of strength and emphasis. Language is historically developed as a form of sophisticated negotiation. I'll concede this if you give me that. But when wielded in an intimidating manner, most capable adversaries drop like flies. That's part of the plan: divide and conquer.
Let's test the belief continuum just to prove the point. A homosexual rights activist is aggressive and rabid. Pushing for equivalency via gradualism, merging with another meretriciously used term: "progressive." A rabid advocate goes to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion.
Obsessed and largely angry, victimhood becomes the signature. Making schools "safe" provides cover. Schools won't be any safer with pro-homosexual laws, but will instead become an ever-enlarging battlefield in the culture war. Meanwhile, real education takes a back seat.
On the opposite end, the conservative parent isn't rabid and aggressive, thinking he can reason with an unreasonable adversary. Sporadically challenging out-of-control school districts using opt-out forms to prevent homosexual programming of their children, common sense parents are losing the battle.
California's AB537, the little reported and deceptively titled "Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000," permits Hayward school district homosexual teachers to "come out" in classrooms, in front of impressionable little kids. How would you like to have your child come home and talk to you about homosexuality? What an absolute outrage!
You the parent, and you the public have much more power to effectuate change and stop these outrageous policies than you know. But you have to get off your behinds and get involved. Start with calling your newspaper and demand an explanation as to why these issues garner no coverage. Cancel the paper if they, predictably, fail to address your questions. Contact local, state and federal officials in numbers. Call and write the governor and the education superintendent.
Go to Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family, as well as The Family Research Council. And in all fairness, take a look at GLSEN's site. Most homosexual activists hate the Judeo-Christian system of values, and recognize that if they can gain control of children, they can change the entire culture in one generation. The easiest thing to do would be to quit, especially when this is what the homosexual activists are counting on.
It is obnoxious to be called the "religious right," the "far right" and "religious extremists." None of us likes that. But being ridiculed and marginalized is the price we must pay to defend what we believe. Now go to work! You'd be amazed at what you can accomplish with a little initiative.
I know of one queer/gay/whatever teacher and he keeps it quite personal. He has a hard enough time dealing with his sinful, despicable lifestyle as it is; I think.
We need to nip this agenda now or the "indoctrination" in our public schools will get even worse -- if that's possible.
I promise you that the gay agenda is active in every state. There are no exceptions. No child enrolled in a public school is safe from the propaganda.
"Let´s look at gay behavior as defined by two gays, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen Ph.D., authors of After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90´s (1989).
In Chapter Six, they outline ten categories of misbehavior, drawn from their own experiences, wide reading and thousands of hours of conversation with hundreds of other gays...
What follows are some highlights. As you read this, ask yourself if there is another human community, including the Mafia that could make these generalizations about itself. Ask yourself if we haven´t caught this disease, or at least the sniffles.
The authors say a surprisingly high percentage of pathological liars and con men are gay. This results from a natural habit of self-concealment, and leads to a stubborn self-deception about one´s own gayness and its implications.
They say gays suffer from a narcissistic personality disorder and they give this clinical description: pathological self absorption, a need for constant attention and admiration, lack of empathy or concern for others, quickly bored, shallow, interested in fads, seductive, overemphasis on appearance, superficially charming, promiscuous, exploitative, preoccupied with remaining youthful, relationships alternate between over idealization and devaluation.
As an example of this narcissism, the authors say a very sizable proportion of gay men who have been diagnosed HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex.
They say the majority of gays are extremely promiscuous and self-indulgent. They must continuously up the ante to achieve arousal. This begins with alcohol and drugs and includes such forbidden aspects of sex as wallowing in filth (fetishism and coprophilia) and sadomasochism, which involves violence.
They say many gays indulge in sex in public bathrooms and think it is antigay harassment when it is stopped. Many think they have a right to importune straight males, including children.
Many gays are single minded sexual predators fixated on youth and physical beauty alone. When it comes to the old or ugly, gays are the real queerbashers. Disillusioned themselves, they are cynical about love.
Relationships between gay men don´t usually last very long. They quickly tire of their partners and fall victim to temptation. The cheating ratio of married´ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%...."
"Gay" by Choice or by Chance?
Who Gets the Benefit of the Doubt?
The title of this book is going to make some people unhappy. They will argue that you can't protect someone from homosexuality because homosexuals are "born that way" and have no choice in the matter. The fact is that science has not proved that homosexuality is biologically caused. A handful of scientific studies in the past few years have claimed to show a possible biological (genetic) cause of homosexuality, but these studies were conducted by "gay" activists themselves and have largely been rejected by non-"gay" scientists. The failure to demonstrate a genetic basis for homosexuality doesn't prove that homosexuals are not born that way, but then, it doesn't have to. The logical presumption of science must be that an unproved hypothesis is simply not true. Further, the burden of proof should always be with the proponent of a new idea, not the defender of the established view of things. As with so many "politically correct" issues, however, logic has been turned on its head as it relates to homosexuality and the "gay" political agenda. Advocates of homosexuality will, when forced, grudgingly acknowledge that science has not proved a biological cause for it, but they nevertheless insist their belief is true and that the burden of proof that homosexuality is not innate should be on those who believe it is a learned behavior.
Unfortunately, many people have accepted this faulty logic and taken the position that we should give homosexuals the benefit of the doubt; we should treat them as if homosexuality were already proved to be a normal variant of human sexuality. After all, the reasoning goes, if homosexuals truly are "born that way," it would be unfair to treat them as if homosexuality were a simple lifestyle choice that they could change. No one has adequately explained how the discovery of a biological cause for homosexuality would legitimize homosexual behavior, but that is part of the assumption we are asked to accept. However, many human behaviors are influenced by biological factors, and not all of them are good for the individual or society.
Meanwhile, serious questions have gone unasked in America's rush to be "fair" to homosexuals. What if homosexuality is not biologically determined? (Again, the weight of evidence indicates that it is not.) What if homosexuality is a learned behavior, or worse, a type of sexual addiction that, once started, is very hard to stop? Who stands to be harmed by unchecked homosexual advocacy in our society? Aren't our children at the greatest risk? Leaving aside the question of whether "gays" recruit, what if some children choose to experiment with homosexuality simply because they are taught by teachers or role models that it is a normal sexual alternative? Many opponents of the "gay" movement believe that this is true and offer compelling evidence to support their position.
This book suggests that our society is giving the wrong people the benefit of the doubt on the question of homosexuality. Rather than assuming that science will eventually vindicate the belief that homosexuality is both normal and innate, we should be asking what harm might come to our children if homosexuality is a harmful, learned behavior. In our opinion, if there is any question about whether children can be protected from becoming homosexual we should act in a manner which will protect the children. Any other response allows our children to be used as guinea pigs in a dubious social experiment. In short, it is our children, and not "gay" political activists, who deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Some will suggest that such a policy implies that society should discriminate against homosexuals. If discrimination is defined as irrational or arbitrary prejudice, then certainly we should not discriminate. However, if discrimination means choosing between competing rights based on a legitimate priority (the health of our children), we should discriminate. We should not be afraid to say no to the "gay" political movement when its goals conflict with our policy of putting children first. All rights are balanced with responsibilities. Freedom of speech does not allow shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Freedom of sexual preference should not allow teaching children that "gay" is good.
And while you're at it, take a look at some of the recommended reading lists and other activities endorsed by GLSEN. (You'll need RealPlayer to listen to the audio clips).
Got that right, there are other more obvious markers. Long term incarceration in prison, so-called bi-sexuality, the fact that there are ex-gays and of course CONFESSION.
Sadly, this has happened twice in my family. I cant begin to tell you the devastation its inflicted upon my relatives. There is a special place in hell for these people.