Rainbow Curriculum

school_library

School Libraries in the Crosshairs

Elementary schools pride themselves on promoting reading and literacy.  These school libraries are often a child’s introduction to the world through literature…but what else are they promoting?

Public school libraries are often in the forefront of the marriage debates.  Under the banner of tolerance, some schools have allowed reading material to creep in that normalizes and in some cases even promotes the gay agenda.

Activists know that if the next generation can view the gay lifestyle as a closer shade of “normal”, the marriage battle will be won against traditional values over time.

This hopeful comment was from a woman named Meagan at keenspot forums:

“Give it another generation and the kids today will wonder why it was ever such an issue and have no problem passing laws to make marriage less discriminatory. Sometimes change is better over time, rather than revolutionary.”

She is right.  Unless parents remain vigilant on the school scene, the next generation will be an easy target for gay activists with the help of books like “King and King”, “Molly’s Family”, The White Swan Express” “And Tango Makes Three” as well as “One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads”.

king-kingone_dad_two_dadsmollysfamilywhite_swan_expressand-tango-makes-three

Short blurbs of each of these books and many others that promote the homosexual lifestyle to various school age groups can be found here.

Arthur Levine, the editorial director of his own imprint for Scholastic Press, one of the world’s largest children’s book publishers, is, as a gay parent himself, concerned with this issue.

“Ten percent of the children’s book readership, at least, will grow up to be gay or lesbian,” he said to AfterElton.com...  And an even higher percentage of picture book readership will grow up to know and love somebody who’s gay or lesbian. So when you think about it that way, a large percentage of your picture book audience can really benefit from naturalizing the idea that there are gay and lesbian people in the world. When you think about it that way, it’s even more of a mystery why there aren’t more of these books.”

In schools stateside and overseas, the battle is being waged for the minds of the young.  For or against, people are taking a stand to promote the world view they hope will be accomplished in the next generation.

In one school, parents were able to get these controversial materials removed from school libraries:

Muslims’ fury forces schools to shelve anti-homophobia storybooks for 5-year-olds

By LAURA CLARK
London Daily Mail

Two primary schools have withdrawn storybooks about same-sex relationships after objections from Muslim parents.   Up to 90 gathered at the schools to complain about the books which are aimed at pupils as young as five.

One story, titled King & King, is a fairytale about a prince who turns down three princesses before marrying one of their brothers.

homosexual_promotion_books
Withdrawn: The fairytale King and King and Tango Makes Three

Another named And Tango Makes Three features two male penguins who fall in love at a New York zoo.

Bristol City Council said the two schools had been using the books to ensure they complied with gay rights laws which came into force last April.  They were intended to help prevent homophobic bullying, it said.

But the council has since removed the books from Easton Primary School and Bannerman Road Community School, both in Bristol.

A book and DVD titled That’s a Family!, which teaches children about different family set-ups including gay or lesbian parents, has also been withdrawn.

The decision was made to enable the schools to “operate safely” after parents voiced their concerns at meetings.  Around 40 are said to have gathered at Easton to speak to staff and another 50 at Bannerman Road.

Members of the Bristol Muslim Cultural Society said parents were upset at the lack of consultation over the use of the materials.

Farooq Siddique, community development officer for the society and a governor at Bannerman Road, said there were also concerns about whether the stories were appropriate for young children.

See full story from The Daily Mail here.

Parents are the most motivated elements in the school arena.  These are our children and we have a responsibility to protect and bring them up under healthy influences.

In another instance here in the U.S., these same controversial books were removed from a public school, only to be replaced even after more than 700 people voiced their objection to the books.

Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said this illustrates the need for parents to be vigilant:

“Once pro-gay books or curricula get into the school system, it is very difficult to get them out,” she said. “That’s why it’s especially important for parents to be alert on the front end and be aware of gay-activist groups that are working to influence your schools.”
Advertisements

74 Comments

  1. Euripides said,

    January 4, 2009 at 6:10 pm

    This is some mess we’ve gotten ourselves into, when free speech trumps common sense. This will pose a serious problem now and in the future when all sorts of books on all sorts of subjects will be protected by the first amendment with no regard to responsible thinking.

  2. January 4, 2009 at 6:13 pm

    Very interesting reading. I have only been partially aware of this issue and haven’t thought about it recently. It’s good that schools are listening to parents concerns and removing the books. Why encourage something that is a disorder. I like that quote you gave, “some schools have allowed reading material to creep in that normalizes and in some cases even promotes the gay agenda.

    Perhaps this is why home schooling is becoming so popular.

  3. beetlebabee said,

    January 4, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    Home schooling is one of the best options out there for parents who want their children to grow up with an education and societal influences that are known. It takes the trust out of the equation.

    Your children are gone 6 hours out of every day, and that is only in elementary school. I don’t think our schools have earned that trust.

  4. James R. said,

    January 4, 2009 at 7:45 pm

    I think parents really are the key. The more stable examples there are of what marriage used to be and in some areas still is, and the more we make an active effort to counter the false family ideals, the clearer it will become to our children. They’re no dummies. They can see the effects of the family breaking down in the lives of their peers. Their generation is the one left surviving from the sexual revolution.

    Someone has to pay the piper for all the irresponsibility of that age, unfortunately, it is the children.

  5. Mary Ane said,

    January 4, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    I hadn’t heard of most of these books. I wonder if my kids’ school has them. Thanks for the information. There is an interesting post at opine that runs parallel to this subject:

    http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2009/01/helpthe-fait-accompli-is-coming-or-is.html

    Their point is that the high support for the gay lifestyle with regard to marriage may be because of age, not new generation. Give them a few years, they’ll get perspective.

  6. beetlebabee said,

    January 4, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    Thanks Mary Ane for the link. I am an opine admirer. They’ve got some good brain cells lit up over there. I think the point we agree on, and that is of utmost importance is that we continue to fight and resist the temptation to let it all work out.

    The natural state of things is chaos, and there are plenty of patrons for it. It takes a great deal of effort to keep society functioning in an orderly, healthy way.

  7. January 5, 2009 at 5:52 am

    These books are ridiculous. And this goes right along with the No on 8’s lies that homosexual marriage won’t be taught in schools. We all know it is and will continue to be. I think its crazy that high schools have banned some literary classics, but yet kindergartners area allowed to read about gay lovers. Thank you for the information! Great post!

  8. January 5, 2009 at 12:39 pm

    Schools, the media, and popular culture have been teaching a type of tolerance to our children, since my own children were in school. Teaching our children the difference between not condoning wrong, and being tolerant of others differences can be quite a challenge for parents. Children are highly influenced by teachers, etc… Unfortunately, many children feel that their teachers are smarter than their own parents.

    As we all know, our children don’t figure out that parents are wise, until after they are out of our homes! LOL So, this creates a near battle to teach correct principles to our children, against the strong currents of the world.

    The teaching of strong values must take place in our homes, before children enter school, and must parallel false doctrines thay they will be introduced to in the schools and beyond.

    Parents must be bold! This has always been the challenge of righteous parents:-)

    tDMg
    LdsNana-AskMormon

  9. blogger970 said,

    January 5, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    Wow. These are major reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. No, we are not “homophobes” or bigots, we simply want to keep the right to parent our children in ways that we know are best. If Same-Sex marriage is legalized, by law, schools must teach that this behavior is okay, taking away the right of a parent to teach.

  10. beetlebabee said,

    January 5, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    Journalista, I looked up the penguin book that is based on the true story of two New York male penguins who hung around together and became gay icons for the homosexual community. It turns out that they had to abandon their little tuxedoed mascots after one of the bachelor penguins in the “gay” relationship ditched out on the other to court a female named Scrappy and raise a family. I guess he didn’t know he was hopelessly “born that way.”

  11. mommyspy said,

    January 7, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    If your kids are in public school, I would recommend taking the time to volunteer in the classroom and also discuss these issues with other parents. Its obvious that parents need to keep an eye on what the schools are doing. It is no long safe to send your child off to school and trust what is being taught. Get involved.

  12. goldnsilver said,

    January 11, 2009 at 6:42 am

    If you don’t want your kids to read books with homosexual content presented in a tolerant manner, then don’t let them so. This is your right as a parent, until your children reach the legal age to make their own decisions without your permission.

    However.

    A library is a place of where free speech is one of its main proponents. To demand that they remove a certain book just because it ‘offends you’ is unconstitutional. It’s quite simple – leave the book the ‘offensive’ book on the shelf and borrow a more suitable book for your child.

    I suggest you all accept that people disagree with you and have a right to publish fiction that outlines their opinion – to any age group. You have the right to publish material which emphasises the benefits of the traditional family group if you so please.

    The fact that you believe that society will be sucked into a black hole of moral degredation if you’re children glance at an illustration of two male penguins just goes to show how illogical and weak your opinions must be in the first place.

  13. beetlebabee said,

    January 11, 2009 at 11:47 am

    Goldnsilver,

    You have some good general points, however this is where we disagree: there is a difference between a public library, and a public school library. Public libraries are places where children go with their parents. There are many books in a public library that are unsuitable for children, it is up to the parent to supervise their contact and use of the library. At school, the books are already pre-screened as safe and good for children.

    Children are impressionable, I would have the same qualms about books with Joe Camel on the front. No doubt those books exist, and possibly pro-smoking books may be found in the public libraries, but the school libraries’ choice to promote questionable books crosses the line into propaganda promotion.

    My aim here is to educate parents so they know what to look for and to let them know that these things are out there so they can be sure none of these books are in their child’s libraries. Public school is not the place to learn new morality.

  14. goldnsilver said,

    January 12, 2009 at 3:30 am

    You have some good general points, however this is where we disagree: there is a difference between a public library, and a public school library. Public libraries are places where children go with their parents. There are many books in a public library that are unsuitable for children, it is up to the parent to supervise their contact and use of the library. At school, the books are already pre-screened as safe and good for children.

    I agree with there being a difference between the public/school libraries, good point.

    However, if your child happens to borrow a book you don’t find suitable, you can take it off them, explain your reasons to them and ask them to choose another when they are in the library next. Surely that would be easier than demanding that public schools bow to your view of homosexual behaviour?

    Children are impressionable, I would have the same qualms about books with Joe Camel on the front. No doubt those books exist, and possibly pro-smoking books may be found in the public libraries, but the school libraries’ choice to promote questionable books crosses the line into propaganda promotion.

    Indeed, children are impressionable. But this is where my point comes back to the strength of your argument about homosexuality – if your points are strong, then you shouldn’t be worried. A child is the most likely person to believe what you say about gay people, and if even they won’t after sampling one counter argument, then your argument is flawed.

    My aim here is to educate parents so they know what to look for and to let them know that these things are out there so they can be sure none of these books are in their child’s libraries.

    I wholeheartedly have no problem with you letting other likeminded parents know about the existense of these books; everyone has a right to know what’s out there. I only in promoting the idea that they should be taken off the shelves, which is in breech of free speech.

    Public school is not the place to learn new morality.

    That is an idealistic wish, but not the reality. Every single piece of literature every written has some form of moralising ingrained in its nature. To avoid morals in a school environment is impossible.

    I think what you really mean is ‘Public school is not the place to learn morality that contradicts my own opinion’. However, this is also impossible. How can the government cater for the differing morals of millions of people?

  15. beetlebabee said,

    January 12, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    I responded to most of this issue on the smokerphobe thread, but I’d like to add here that Yes, freedom of speech is a right, but that right does not mandate that everything ever written be included in the school library. Decisions are made all the time as to what is appropriate or not appropriate for a school library. My argument is that these books are not appropriate.

  16. goldnsilver said,

    January 12, 2009 at 6:52 pm

    Yes, freedom of speech is a right, but that right does not mandate that everything ever written be included in the school library. Decisions are made all the time as to what is appropriate or not appropriate for a school library.

    Could you have possibly uttered a more hypocritical set of sentences? I don’t think so.

  17. rubyeliot said,

    January 12, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    Goldnsilver:

    Would you say the same thing about pornographic books?

  18. goldnsilver said,

    January 12, 2009 at 7:12 pm

    Interesting question.

    Pornographic books are intended for an audience over the age of 18 (in most countries). I see no problem in their inclusion in libraries as long as they were only leant to people who could prove their age to be over 18 and the books were monitered closely. Obviously, they would not be in public schools as students haven’t reached that age yet.

    As for the comparison between porno lit and pro homosexual children’s books – the likeliness between the two is non existent. Pro homosexual children’s books don’t actually have any content that’s considered ‘mature’ (eg nudity, sex scenes etc). Its only inappropriate if you disagree with homosexuality, but most people don’t.

    As discussed previously, its up to the parent to monitor what their children read, not up to the state to remove books based on one groups opinions.

  19. beetlebabee said,

    January 12, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    “Could you have possibly uttered a more hypocritical set of sentences? I don’t think so.”

    Well, hypocritical or not (I actually don’t believe so) that is the way things work. I think your confusion actually lies in how freedom of speech applies. For instance, even though you have complete freedom of speech rights, I can censor you at a whim on this blog and not run afoul of your freedom of speech rights. Schools are subject to the opinions of the community in which they live, hence organizations like the PTA, school boards etc. No two public schools have identical libraries, and I would challenge you to find even an old tattered copy of the bible in your local school library.

  20. Mark Lemine said,

    January 12, 2009 at 10:29 pm

    “Its only inappropriate if you disagree with homosexuality, but most people don’t.”

    Hm, what country are you from? In the U. S., California just won it’s case against homosexuality by a clear majority, Florida won, and Arizona won. Three states most recently had their referendums and the opposition to homosexuality as a right, or as an equal lifestyle was refuted.

  21. goldnsilver said,

    January 13, 2009 at 12:12 am

    Well, hypocritical or not (I actually don’t believe so) that is the way things work.

    Sorry, I thought things work the way we want them to, not by themselves.

    I think your confusion actually lies in how freedom of speech applies. For instance, even though you have complete freedom of speech rights, I can censor you at a whim on this blog and not run afoul of your freedom of speech rights.

    Well next time I hear an American harping on about the greatness of their country and the fact that they have ‘freedom of speech’, I’ll remember ‘freedom of speech’ only applies when you agree with them.

    Schools are subject to the opinions of the community in which they live, hence organizations like the PTA, school boards etc. No two public schools have identical libraries, and I would challenge you to find even an old tattered copy of the bible in your local school library.

    Its a little different here. In Australia, we are not paranoid of having The Bible or The Koran on bookshelves, its actually encouraged. I think its a sad state of affairs when such important texts are left out of school libraries, despite the fact that I’m an athiest.

    But that’s the thing, I can have something I disagree with on a bookshelf without protesting to the school.

    Hm, what country are you from? In the U. S., California just won it’s case against homosexuality by a clear majority, Florida won, and Arizona won. Three states most recently had their referendums and the opposition to homosexuality as a right, or as an equal lifestyle was refuted.

    It’s true, I stand corrected (I was more referring to opinion in my homeland). Proposition 8 was voted in the majority of ‘Yes’. However, the percentage for ‘No’ was far higher than I expected and quite surprising. I consider that in one of two generations (once the older generation has died), that if that same vote was held it would swing in gay favor.

  22. January 13, 2009 at 1:01 am

    Having a book in a school which tells the kids how great homosexual relationships are without telling them the negative consequences of it would be misleading. These types of books that BB is talking about is are designed to present to children the false idea that homosexual relations are “normal” although just a bit different. Homosexual relations are not normal and we should not be telling students that they are.
    Freedom of speech is a good thing but it needs to be limited. There are some things we are not allowed to say. If freedom of speech was unlimited I would be allowed to walk into a classroom and start swearing. Penthouse magazine would be able place its magazines into all the schools.

  23. goldnsilver said,

    January 13, 2009 at 1:07 am

    These types of books that BB is talking about is are designed to present to children the false idea that homosexual relations are “normal” although just a bit different. Homosexual relations are not normal and we should not be telling students that they are.

    Again, what’s wrong with that really? Homosexual people are normal, but just a little different. I don’t see it as a bad thing to teach children to accept people for what they are and not to hate people or be judgemental.

    As I’ve said previously, you have a right to your opinion, but not to ban the books. People have different opinions to yours you know.

  24. January 13, 2009 at 1:35 am

    Homosexual relations, that is homosexual sex is not normal. It is a disorder. People who have a same sex attraction should be accepted for who they are. They are people who have a same sex attraction disorder. The problem arises when some of these people act out their desires and take part in homosexual sex. Not only that but they live together like spouses and then some one writes a story and they put it into a school.
    Children need to be taught that we accept everyone for who they are but we don’t always accept their actions. Do you accept a murderer without question? No, you accept the person but reject their murderous behaviour. We can accept people who have a same sex attraction but cannot accept the behaviour (homosexual sex).

  25. Raytmimer said,

    January 13, 2009 at 4:05 am

    Secular Heretic, good point. We make decisions and discriminate between right and wrong every day, you would be dishonest if you didn’t admit that. By that I mean in the true sense of the word discriminate, meaning to choose. : to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences. No set of choices is equal. You always have to choose. The question is whether the choices are made with regard to consequences or based on some intangible preconception.

    Is murder right? of course not. Murder ends the life of an innocent.
    Is cheating right? of course not. Infidelity creates instability in a home and damages children.
    Is practicing homosexuality right? Well, look at the studies and see the consequences. Don’t just choose based on some idea that all choices are equal.

  26. Stephanie said,

    January 13, 2009 at 1:58 pm

    Raytmimer-

    You say “Is practicing homosexuality right? Well,look at the studies and see the consequences.”

    If I wanted to conduct a study on heterosexual folks to see if their lifestyle is really good for society and children, then how many do you think I would find that cheat on their spouses, indulge themselves into pornography, steal, murder, practice child abuse, sexual abuse kids, abandon their children, work too much, etc? The number of heterosexual folks who commit these unhealthy acts and many more has to be very, very high.

    Could I come to the honest conclusion that the heterosexual lifestyle is wrong, not good for our kids or society based on that study? Probably not.

    It would not be just or right.

  27. Raytmimer said,

    January 13, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    Stephanie, I guess it would depend on if the studies are comparing heterosexual family practices to the ideal or not. What are they being compared to?

  28. Raytmimer said,

    January 13, 2009 at 2:19 pm

    See, if they’re being compared to some ideal and the numbers come out poorly, you could conclude heterosexuals have problems. If they’re being compared to homosexual families and the numbers still come out poorly, then you could say that homosexual families for whatever reason were healthier than heterosexual families. In fact, you could actually show that heterosexual families have higher incidences of disease, death, promiscuity and pedophilia.

    I don’t follow studies, but if I were promoting the homosexual lifestyle, I’d get the studies that really show that the lifestyle is healthier and get those out in the public eye. That would be a powerful convincing power with people and you could get away from a lot of the social stigma.

  29. Stephanie said,

    January 13, 2009 at 2:34 pm

    Ray-

    Heterosexuals do have problems, just as many, if not more than homosexuals. I still would not compare heterosexuality to murder or cheating.

    I should have clarified this the first time, by on comment #25, when you talk about homosexuality, are you talking about the actual physical act itself or the “lifestyle” as many call it?

  30. Raytmimer said,

    January 13, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    The physical expression of homosexuality is what I was refering to. It’s the same in my mind with the lifestyle. If you don’t act on the impulses, as many don’t, they live a life of chastity, in line with personal or religious beliefs, then in my mind, you’re not really living the lifestyle promoted by the gay advocates.

    Personally, I’d rather talk about people, as all one race, not identified by sexuality. It’s a bit of a mystery why people would want to wear their sexuality as a label.

  31. Stephanie said,

    January 13, 2009 at 3:46 pm

    Ray-

    That is exactly my point, all of us talking about people, as all one race, as a whole. Not separated as if one is so greatly different than the other.

    SOME people do wear their sexuality as a label whether gay, straight, porn star or housewife. It IS a bit of a mystery why people would want to wear their sexuality as a label but I, for one, find myself not even thinking about my sexuality UNTIL I have to talk about it, explain it and/or defend it because someone else doesn’t understand it.

  32. January 13, 2009 at 5:06 pm

    Personally, I’d rather talk about people, as all one race, not identified by sexuality. It’s a bit of a mystery why people would want to wear their sexuality as a label.

    I think this is why some people who have same sex attraction become offended when comments like ” homosexual sex is disordered”. It is because they are linking their sexual orientation to their identity as a person. Most people don’t do this. Their sexual attraction is a thing that they have not the person that they are. This makes it confusing when talking about homosexual acts as opposed to people who have a same sex attraction. Many it seems in the “gay culture” immediately link the two together and so an attack on homosexual acts becomes an attack on a same sex attracted person. They don’t differentiate between a variety of acts that can be chosen with the person who does the choosing.

  33. beetlebabee said,

    January 13, 2009 at 6:31 pm

    It’s a huge disservice to people who suffer with SSA to identify them by that label, I agree. There are so many other things to identify with. What is the draw of gay pride parades then?

  34. Stephanie said,

    January 13, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    Secular-

    “I think this is why some people who have same sex attraction become offended when comments like ” homosexual sex is disordered”.”

    Does this really have to do with the sex that two people of the same gender have with one another?

  35. January 13, 2009 at 8:13 pm

    No I’m addressing the issue that many same sex attracted people link their sexual orientation to their identity rather than saying that their same sex attraction is just another one of the many desires they experience. I desire to drink water when I’m thirsty but It doesn’t define who I am. If I did define myself in this way I could accuse those who don’t like drinking water as “waterphobic.”

  36. Stephanie said,

    January 13, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    Secular-

    “If I did define myself in this way I could accuse those who don’t like drinking water as “waterphobic.””

    It runs much deeper than that and understandably so.

  37. goldnsilver said,

    January 14, 2009 at 12:31 am

    Is practicing homosexuality right? Well, look at the studies and see the consequences.

    In fact, you could actually show that heterosexual families have higher incidences of disease, death, promiscuity and pedophilia.

    I don’t follow studies, but if I were promoting the homosexual lifestyle…

    Hmmm…interesting that. You base your right/wrongness metre for homosexuality on studies, yet when the same is applied to straight studies its suddenly ‘I don’t follow studies’. Just mull that over a little.

    Personally, I’d rather talk about people, as all one race, not identified by sexuality. It’s a bit of a mystery why people would want to wear their sexuality as a label.

    I think this is why some people who have same sex attraction become offended when comments like ” homosexual sex is disordered”. It is because they are linking their sexual orientation to their identity as a person. Most people don’t do this.

    Sexual orientation is a huge part of a person, no matter where they are aligned. You display your sexuality everytime you walk out of the door – even if in subconscious way or the ‘lack of gayness’ in your apparel, demeanor and mannerisms. Could you suddenly begin acting gay if straight apparel, demeanor and mannerisms were no longe acceptable?

    To wonder why someone get’s offended when you call their sexuality a disorder is true idiocy on your part. How could it be taken in any other way then offense? Would you take well to someone saying that your sexuality is a disorder?

    Haven’t you ever heard of ‘Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you’?

    No I’m addressing the issue that many same sex attracted people link their sexual orientation to their identity rather than saying that their same sex attraction is just another one of the many desires they experience. I desire to drink water when I’m thirsty but It doesn’t define who I am. If I did define myself in this way I could accuse those who don’t like drinking water as “waterphobic.”

    Sexual identity is only a part of a persons whole identity – but its a pretty HUGE part. To compare it to preference of water over gatorade is a weak and pathetic stretch.

  38. January 14, 2009 at 1:37 am

    To wonder why someone get’s offended when you call their sexuality a disorder is true idiocy on your part. How could it be taken in any other way then offense?

    I can understand that some people would be offended by a comment like this but sometime the truth is painful. Our bodies tell us what sex our sexual partner should be. Our sexuality has a purpose, if you do something different with it, it no longer serves its purpose. It then becomes an abuse of our sexual powers, a disorder.

  39. January 14, 2009 at 3:05 am

    “Ten percent of the children’s book readership, at least, will grow up to be gay or lesbian,” he said”

    Notice how no one here caught this blatant promulgation of the gay agenda’s favorite lie: that 10% of all people are gay. It’s this kind of garbage that allows these fools to convince the uneducated that their cause is just, when it is not.

    goldnsilver, “To wonder why someone get’s offended when you call their sexuality a disorder is true idiocy on your part.” You’re right as usual. Anyone who believes what the experts in homosexuality have to say is a true idiot. Scientific evidence and studies don’t mean anything when you have the source of all truth: a solid personal opinion.

  40. beetlebabee said,

    January 14, 2009 at 4:19 am

    You’re right D. I didn’t even catch that 10% slipped in there. In the recent study out of the Netherlands with over 7,000 participants, they still only estimated 2-3% of the population as gay.

  41. Stephanie said,

    January 14, 2009 at 4:57 pm

    Secular-

    “Our bodies tell us what sex our sexual partner should be.”

    How do our bodies tell us again?

    Just a note-Do you think we could refrain from the whole name calling thing? It really serves no purpose, it only causes strife.

  42. January 14, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    From what I have read the 10% error came about by a man named Alfred C. Kinsey. The Kinsey Institute published many so-called scientific findings: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1952). Both were sensational best-sellers. In April 2004, after two years of study, the American Legislative Exchange Council arrived at the conclusion that the work of Alfred C. Kinsey was fraudulent and contained “manufactured statistics.” Their report cites “compelling evidence of illegal and criminal acts masquerading as science.”

    Stephanie, one of the purposes of sex is to make babies. No amount of homosexual sex will ever make a baby. Only sex between a man and a women has the possibility of leading to new life. In this way our biology tells us the gender of who our natural sex partner should be. Intercourse can only be achieved through male to female coupling. Sodomy is not intercourse, it is sodomy. Any type of foreplay which does not lead to intercourse is simply group masturbation.

  43. Stephanie said,

    January 14, 2009 at 6:02 pm

    Secular-

    “In this way our biology tells us the gender of who our natural sex partner should be.”

    What about the man and woman couple who can’t make babies for some reason? What is their purpose? Or the handicap individual who has the right body parts and can’t have sex in the traditional sense? What is their purpose? They don’t appear to be designed to produce babies.

    “Any type of foreplay which does not lead to intercourse is simply group masturbation.”

    And so for the heterosexual woman who desires to commit only foreplay on her husband every now and then, you call that group masturbation? And what is wrong with that? Does every sexual encounter have to be for making babies?

    I really don’t want to get in to great detail about sex, because I personally think that what people do in their bedrooms is their own business, not ours. I was just trying to understand your comment in #38.

  44. January 14, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    Sexual intercourse needs to be open to the possibility of life. Sometimes there is no possibility of conceiving at all (age, medical problems etc) but the sexual act still needs to be opened to the possibility of conceptions because that is the purpose of intercourse. Just as our bodies reveal our gender, they also reveal our natural sex partner.

    And so for the heterosexual woman who desires to commit only foreplay on her husband every now and then, you call that group masturbation? Yes, it is not intercourse.

    Does every sexual encounter have to be for making babies? Yes, every sexual encounter needs to be open to the possibility of life. If it is not open to that possibility then the sexual act is not fulfilling its primary purpose. (sexual intercourse makes babies).

    If you have not thought about sex in this way before it can be a bit hard to grasp at first. Our society pushes onto us so much that sex is for pleasure and that babies are a potential evil to avoid. Pleasure is a consequence of sex it is not the purpose of sex.

  45. Stephanie said,

    January 14, 2009 at 8:13 pm

    Secular-

    No, I have thought about sex in that manner for a long time and now I just don’t believe that anymore. I believe it is such a beautiful gift shared between two people, no matter the possibility of producing a baby. I think it serves a multitude of purposes.

    I do agree that much of society thinks as you stated and I don’t agree with that line of thinking either. I think it serves a multitude of purposes.

  46. January 14, 2009 at 8:28 pm

    “I believe it is such a beautiful gift shared between two people..
    It is. Anther purpose of sexual intercourse is to unit the spouses together in some type of physical, emotional, spiritual way. A hormone called oxytosin (spelling?) is released into the bloodstream that makes the spouses like each other more. Each spouses negative qualities diminish in the other persons mind while the positive aspects are enhanced. This is why it is dangerous to have sex with someone you don’t know well. You become quickly emotionally attached and when it is discovered that the other person is a bit of a “loser” they can’t see it and end up remaining in the relationship. Young girls losing their virginity to a person they don’t know well find themselves unable to give up the relationship when they really should and are then often subject to violence.

  47. Stephanie said,

    January 14, 2009 at 8:33 pm

    Secular-

    “This is why it is dangerous to have sex with someone you don’t know well.”

    I agree.

  48. January 14, 2009 at 8:36 pm

    Oxytosin is also released when a women breast feeds her baby.

  49. Stephanie said,

    January 14, 2009 at 8:39 pm

    Interesting. Thanks for the information.

  50. goldnsilver said,

    January 14, 2009 at 8:39 pm

    I can understand that some people would be offended by a comment like this but sometime the truth is painful. Our bodies tell us what sex our sexual partner should be. Our sexuality has a purpose, if you do something different with it, it no longer serves its purpose. It then becomes an abuse of our sexual powers, a disorder.

    The truth is painful at times, but your words are not THE TRUTH, but an opinion. Your correct that our bodies will tell us who our sexual partners should be, and gay people’s bodies tell them that they should be with someone of the same gender.

    goldnsilver, “To wonder why someone get’s offended when you call their sexuality a disorder is true idiocy on your part.” You’re right as usual. Anyone who believes what the experts in homosexuality have to say is a true idiot. Scientific evidence and studies don’t mean anything when you have the source of all truth: a solid personal opinion.

    You are an absolute idiot. Could you have possibly misconstrued my words with any more stupidity? Bah, there’s no use.

    Also, sexual intercourse only being for ‘baby making’ is an old hate, puritanical view that has been thankfully debunked. Sex is healthy and enjoyable, not just with the view of ‘oh, there could be a baby happening here’.

  51. January 14, 2009 at 10:42 pm

    The biology of our bodies tells us that our sexual partner should be from the opposite sex. Our desires can be misguided, they don’t tell us anything about our sexual partner. If our desires did then a pedophile could claim that because they desired sex with children, children must then be a potential sexual partner.

    Also, sexual intercourse only being for ‘baby making’ is an old hate, puritanical view that has been thankfully debunked. Sex is healthy and enjoyable, not just with the view of ‘oh, there could be a baby happening here’.

    Having babies is not the only purpose for having sex. Uniting the spouses is another purpose. Both operate simultaneously together.

  52. goldnsilver said,

    January 15, 2009 at 1:46 am

    The biology of our bodies tells us that our sexual partner should be from the opposite sex. Our desires can be misguided, they don’t tell us anything about our sexual partner. If our desires did then a pedophile could claim that because they desired sex with children, children must then be a potential sexual partner.

    That’s an interesting point and to be honest I will have to think this over.

    However, I don’t think
    Having babies is not the only purpose for having sex. Uniting the spouses is another purpose. Both operate simultaneously together.

    Fancy that. If you let gays marry, they would actually be fufilling the ‘uniting spouses’ bit and you wouldn’t have to lose sleep at night thinking their sex is pointless.

  53. January 15, 2009 at 4:40 pm

    Homosexual sex is not unitive. You need male and female to have an authentic unitive act of sexual intercourse. Any other type of sexual activity is just mutual masturbation or sodomy.

  54. Ruby said,

    January 15, 2009 at 7:37 pm

    Also, sexual intercourse only being for ‘baby making’ is an old hate, puritanical view that has been thankfully debunked. Sex is healthy and enjoyable, not just with the view of ‘oh, there could be a baby happening here’

    GoldnSilver, if marriage is not about babies, if you take children out of the question, then why shouldn’t we allow siblings to marry? Can’t siblings enjoy sex just as much as any other two people? (or 3 or 4?)

  55. January 15, 2009 at 9:24 pm

    goldnsilver: Actually, I did not misinterpret your comment. Your message was that anyone who thinks homosexuality is a disorder is an idiot. However, I get my information about this topic from actual experts in the fields of neuropsychology, psychology, etc, who specialize in the therapy and treatment of homosexuals. If that makes me an idiot, so be it. These professionals have a long history of providing treatment to people who do not want their same-sex attraction, and many have overcome it. There are also many ex-gays who have decided to ignore the ostracism they receive from the gay crowd and speak out about leaving the gay lifestyle, which tells me that if some have done it, others can, too.

    See NARTH, specifically this article: How Might Homosexuality Develop?
    Putting the Pieces Together
    .

    See also:

    Evergreen International, specifically the Myths Section.

    Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays, specifically Diary of an Ex-Gay Man.

    ‘Gay’-rights leader quits homosexuality. (Be sure to read the other articles about this man that are linked to. His story is amazing.)

  56. beetlebabee said,

    January 16, 2009 at 11:16 am

    Sorry about the delay in posting your comment DRK, your links got caught in the beetlespam filter, but no worries! I pulled you out! Good links!

  57. daniel rotter said,

    January 18, 2009 at 6:16 am

    “…leaving the gay lifestyle.”

    What exactly is the “gay lifestyle.” I’ve heard this term (or “homosexual lifestyle”) literally hundreds of times, and yet I have never seen it actually defined. Do all homosexuals have the same lifestyle? Do people who use this term honestly believe that all homosexuals live their lives the same way?

  58. Liberty Belle said,

    January 18, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    Daniel, usually people refer to the “gay lifestyle” because they are making a differentiation between how people act and who they are. There are people with SSA who do not choose to act on those impulses.

    It’s not the person’s orientation that is wrong, we all have faults and struggles, it’s the lifestyle that is wrong.

  59. daniel rotter said,

    January 18, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    “It’s not the person’s orientation that is wrong, we all have faults…”

    I don’t understand that portion of your sentence. Logically, if you find “fault” with something, then you consider it “wrong.”

    “…the lifestyle that is wrong.”

    And yet you still haven’t defined what you mean by “the lifestyle.”

  60. beetlebabee said,

    January 18, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    Daniel, let me clarify, there is no moral wrong in being attracted to the same sex. If you act on that impulse, then it is morally wrong. Having a disposition to drink too much alcohol is not the same as drinking too much alcohol.

    A lifestyle is how you choose to live. If you choose to live in a way that acts on same gender attraction impulses, then you live that lifestyle. It is a choice. If you choose to live in a way that does not act on those impulses, then you are choosing a different lifestyle. Regardless of your orientation, you choose your lifestyle.

    I make a clear distinction between those who live the homosexual lifestyle and those who do not because one is morally wrong and the other is not. You can live with SSA and also live a completely moral life. It would not be fair to lump the human susceptibility to temptations with choosing to act on those temptations.

  61. daniel rotter said,

    January 18, 2009 at 9:37 pm

    “Daniel, let me clarify there is no moral wrong in being attracted to the same sex. if you act on that impulse, then it is morally wrong.”

    That doesn’t make much sense. If one believes that behavior X is wrong, then logically, one would have to believe that thinking about partaking in X should be wrong as well. If there is no “moral wrong” in “being attracted to the same sex,” then why would there be a “moral wrong” in acting on that attraction?

  62. beetlebabee said,

    January 18, 2009 at 10:06 pm

    Is it morally wrong for an alcoholic to constantly have his thoughts dwelling on the bar scene and which flavors of meat a margarita compliments?

  63. daniel rotter said,

    January 18, 2009 at 11:50 pm

    “Is it morally wrong for an alcoholic to constantly have his thoughts dwelling on the bar scene and which flavors of meat a margarita compliments.”

    Yes.

  64. beetlebabee said,

    January 19, 2009 at 1:25 am

    That makes sense then for you to be confused with what I said. For me, I would say that someone who suffers from SSA and who dwells on wishing they could act on those impulses but still refrains from following through on those impulses is unwise, but that is not on the same level as someone who actually acts out.

  65. rubyeliot said,

    January 19, 2009 at 4:22 am

    i agree with you bb. good point.

  66. daniel rotter said,

    January 19, 2009 at 4:42 am

    “…someone who suffers from SSA and who dwells from SSA and who dwells on wishing they could act on those impulses but still refrains from following through on those impulses is unwise…”

    I’m confused how SSA attractions could be “unwise” and yet not be a “moral wrong” (“there is no moral wrong in being attracted to the same sex”).

  67. beetlebabee said,

    January 19, 2009 at 5:38 am

    Daniel, I did not say that SSA attractions are unwise, I said feeding the attractions with thoughts is unwise for someone who is trying to live a lifestyle inconsistent with acting out, just as it would be unwise for an alcoholic to dwell on how great it is to have that first drink.

  68. daniel rotter said,

    January 19, 2009 at 6:07 am

    “Daniel, I did not say that SSA attractions are unwise…”

    From an earlier post: “…someone who suffers from SSA…”

    The very fact that you view someone who has SSA attractions as “suffering” from them indicates that you believe these attractions are “unwise.”

    “I said feeding the attractions with thoughts…”

    Huh? ALL “attractions” involve “thoughts.”

  69. beetlebabee said,

    January 19, 2009 at 6:28 am

    If you are honestly trying to misunderstand my comments, then there is no point in discussing further. Playing at continual confusion doesn’t play well with this particular audience.

  70. January 19, 2009 at 10:38 pm

    goldnsilver: RE: Your comments:

    “If you don’t want your kids to read books with homosexual content presented in a tolerant manner, then don’t let them so. This is your right as a parent, until your children reach the legal age to make their own decisions without your permission.

    However.

    A library is a place of where free speech is one of its main proponents. To demand that they remove a certain book just because it ‘offends you’ is unconstitutional. It’s quite simple – leave the book the ‘offensive’ book on the shelf and borrow a more suitable book for your child.”

    This is an interesting notion, that libraries are havens of free speech. The folks at PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays) made an unexpected discovery:

    Recently, while looking at our public library website for something totally not related to SSA, my wife pointed out all the pro-gay information on the local library web site. After some diligent searching, it became apparent there was little to no information on unwanted SSA. Material on how homosexuality originates was absent. Any resources to help people overcome their SAME SEX ATTRACTION were also absent.

    This led me to do website searches for all the counties in Arizona with almost identical results. Further website searches on the public libraries for Boston, San Francisco, and Los Angeles again yielded the same results. What became apparent is that ex-gay books and resources have either been eliminated or never included in the libraries.

    It’s only “censorship” when you get caught, right? Or when it it’s politically incorrect.

    Wait! I’m sure every librarian in Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and every county in Arizona simply forgot to include these books. You darned Christians and your conspiracy theories!

  71. beetlebabee said,

    January 19, 2009 at 10:40 pm

    DRK, that is a very interesting bit of information there! I had not even thought to look into something like that. Hats off to you!

  72. rubyeliot said,

    January 20, 2009 at 2:49 am

    is there a way we could help get the books into the libraries? i’ll donate.

  73. January 20, 2009 at 3:08 am

    rubyeliot:

    Absolutely.

    Ask your library to order ex-gay books

    beetleblogger:

    Thanks :)

  74. March 13, 2009 at 4:34 pm

    […] parental rights if it is legalized.  The book that the kindergartner was given is one example of gay books that teach young minds about the unnatural behavior of homosexuality, here are some others that are […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: