Skip to comments.

Posted on 01/02/2002 10:57:12 AM PST by FoundationAndEmpire

At present, it is generously estimated that male homosexuals make up 2.8% of the population, with lesbianism showing up at half that rate (1.4%). Some conclude that if one eliminated the cultural factors that lend impetus to the "choice" of homosexuality, those figures may be even lower.

Nevertheless, from the amount of media coverage and the visibility of vocal proponents, one might begin to believe that the homosexual subculture is approaching parity with the straight majority - or doing its darndest to recruit to that end. Most notably, we see homosexual activism aimed at inculcating our children in the normalization of the deviant life style. THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA

By Michael Swift, "Gay Revolutionary." Reprinted from The Congressional Record. First printed in Gay Community News, February 15-21 1987

"We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us. Full ArticleAnd most recently, the American Psychological Association (APA) appears to have been overrun by gay activism. From a disturbing historical-trend perspective, we have seen a steady progression in the normalization effort.

In the first assault, gays achieved a dramatic victory in convincing the psychological and psychiatric community to eliminate homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders (DSM-III). In another overt attempt at normalization, we have recently seen the highly visible drive to normalize same-sex marriage; which has met majority opposition in every venue where it was brought to a vote. In a more insidious move, DSM-IV was quietly revised to virtually normalize the previously abnormal disorder of pedophilia!

But when the APA appeared to endorse a move for the normalization of pedophilia that originated in the the Journal of Homosexuality by reprinting the results in its prestigious Psychological Bulletin, Dr. Laura and a number of legislators, with the massive endorsement of the American public, forced a retraction. This provocation led to a stunning defeat for the gay folks at NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) which was looking to enlarge the pool of youthful gay-sex-objects, by reframing its lusty desires as Male Intergenerational Intimacy.

Then came the APA with another Gay/NAMBLA motivated endorsement of Deconstructing the Essential Father, in the June '99 issue of the American Psychologist, which is as much an assault on normative heterosexual marriage, as it is on traditional fatherhood. In fact, they go so far as to say that neither father nor mother are essential to child-rearing. And dads may actually be harmful to the family enterprise by appropriating precious family resources for beer and cigarettes. From this premise, they then appear to advance a backhanded endorsement of the father-child bond. To what end? one might ask.

Well, in the earlier defeat, NAMBLA advocates asserted that "When the sexual contact is not coerced, especially when it is experienced by a boy and is enjoyed, it may not be harmful at all." This brings us to the convoluted logic of the "Deconstruction" argument. On one hand, the decontructionists argue; "However, we do not believe that the data support the conclusion that fathers are essential to child well-being and that heterosexual marriage is the social context in which responsible fathering is most likely to occur." On the other hand, they assert; "If, in contrast, one assumes that gay and lesbian parents can create a positive family context, then one is likely to initiate research that investigates the strengths of children raised in these families."

Now here comes the other shoe. The deconstructionists propose "an alternative blueprint for social change", one which in part suggests "reconstructing traditional masculinity ideology", and "an ideology that defines the father-child bond as independent of the father-mother relationship. ... This ideological shift would encourage the development of diverse models of responsible fatherhood." Hmmm, I'll just bet it will.

Let's look at a couple of "essential" facts that NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) presented. (NARTH has been reviled by the APA, going so far as to suggest delicensure for psychologists that engage in reparative therapy for homosexuals.) NARTH stated: "While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual. Further, since homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles, it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males."

At the risk of being accused of cynicism, paranoia, and so-called "homophobia", I would strongly suggest that the "deconstructionists" have a far less benign agenda than simply "recommendations for social policy supports to mothers and fathers that we believe will more effectively achieve the goal of reconnecting fathers and children."

First, I would note that there is no deconstructionist reference to "biological" fathers and mothers in their future Utopia. Secondly, given the setback for the pedophilia-normalization effort, it is quite likely that the deconstructionist approach is simply a thinly-veiled countermove of closeting the pedophile and his victim in the context of "father-child bonding." Later, they will ostensibly be able to point to the "positive" outcome of these pairings as the establishment of normalcy of "consensual" man-boy love, or the more innocuous Male Intergenerational Intimacy.

Where are the radical feminists when you need them? They're certainly not raising their voices to protest the power-imbalance notion that no boy-child can be a consensual partner to Male Intergenerational Intimacy when his Man-Partner is his "adopted father" (or fathers) upon whom he relies for his food and lodging.

Surely the same opponents that brought the "normalization of pedophilia" to its collective knee will see the insidious threat posed by this outrageous deconstructionist proposal. With any sense at all, the vast, normal, heterosexual American culture will rise to the occassion and see this for what it should be - a provocation to reconstruct traditional fatherhood.

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.