Proponents of Gay Marriage Hide School Agenda From Voters in Maine

“It’s Elementary!” …Yet Gay Lobby Denies Agenda in Schools

Check out the propaganda being pushed in this clip intended for school use.  Interesting isn’t it? And here I thought the gay marriage campaigns in California and Maine both promised that this sort of stuff would not be taught in school.

Just this last week the No on 1 campaign issued a letter condemning pro-marriage ads as false and misleading when they talked about gay issues being taught in the schools, yet here it is again—more evidence pointing to the gay lobby’s attempts to gain access to our schools.

It’s Elementary?!  It’s False!  The very premise on which the film is based is biased. If you have a problem with bullying, teach them about kindness and the golden rule, not lesbianism. To disagree with the gay lifestyle is not to hate. How is telling kids that if they disagree with the gay lifestyle they are homophobic or bigoted going to teach them tolerance and love for their neighbor?

A friend of mine commented in defense of this teaching saying:

“Would you prefer that gay and lesbian children in schools continue to get beat up?”

False logic!  Is teaching lesbianism to children the way to promote kindness? Or is teaching kindness the way to promote kindness?

This leap of logic happens in mainstream media all the time, but I believe you can teach children respect for others and their differences without teaching them they have to agree with other’s choices.

The subtle nuance displayed here promotes the gay lifestyle as normal, healthy and good.  It is being pushed in grades where it is too difficult for our young, impressionable children to identify and reject. That is why propaganda such as this should never be allowed in our schools.

What do the Gay Activists have to say?

Don’t buy the lies!  What is the truth of the issue?  Here is the truth, openly displayed even as it’s proponents deny it.

This is what every parent should see because this is what the gay lobby is trying to push in our classrooms across this nation.  It’s being pushed in every state, not just Massachusetts, California or Maine.

—Beetle Blogger

Related Posts:



  1. Ross said,

    September 27, 2009 at 2:12 pm

    With your logic, Beetle. Then teaching children about war, famine, slavery, or various other “negative” things in society would somehow be “promoting” it. Those things are taught because they exist. Homosexuality exists, therefore it should be mentioned.

    Do you really think not mentioning homosexuality in schools will make it disappear from existence?

    And wouldnt you rather children learn about it from a trusted teacher than–I don’t know–the media?

  2. Samantha said,

    September 27, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    This video is twisted and sick. It is propaganda and it has no place in schools.

  3. Samantha said,

    September 27, 2009 at 2:25 pm

    “And wouldnt you rather children learn about it from a trusted teacher than–I don’t know–the media?”

    How about learning it from a trusted parent???

  4. Ross said,

    September 27, 2009 at 2:26 pm

    Samantha, then thats what homeschooling is for I guess. If you feel the need to shield children from war, famine, death, homosexuality, and everything else you find “negative”

  5. beetlebabee said,

    September 27, 2009 at 2:53 pm

    It’s not the negativity, at issue Ross. As it says in the post, it’s the casting of something many consider immoral as something that is good and healthy and right in furtherance of the gay agenda rather than simply promoting good citizenship.

  6. beetlebabee said,

    September 27, 2009 at 2:56 pm

    Samantha, I agree with you that the place for this kind of teaching should give way to parental wishes. Some families teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Some families teach it is right. Having the schools pushing some political or social agenda is not the purpose of the schoolroom. Basic education is.

  7. Robert Mann said,

    September 27, 2009 at 3:42 pm

    “As you all know, most keenly, the question before you is not merely one of academic dispute; rather, upon the outcome of your deliberations will depend the foundational social structure, hence direction of the Commonwealth in future, and in significant measure, that of our Nation as well.”

    “It is therefore most urgent that these deliberations be based not only on compassion, and justice, but on the factual truth as well. Indeed, unless resting upon truth, neither justice nor compassion can long endure against shifts in sentiment.” –Jeffrey Satinover testimony in MA State Senate Committee studying gay marriage

    The problem with the gay agenda is it leaves out the factual truth. Gayness is a behavior. It’s changeable and it’s a choice, not an immutable condition.

    All people need to have respect for one another, but not at the expense of our free agency.

  8. beetlebabee said,

    September 27, 2009 at 4:14 pm

    “It is therefore most urgent that these deliberations be based not only on compassion, and justice, but on the factual truth as well. Indeed, unless resting upon truth, neither justice nor compassion can long endure against shifts in sentiment.”

    Robert, That’s a good quote! Completely on target. All the compassion in the world does no good if the science isn’t behind it. What does the social science say on gay marriage? It’s not the best, we can do better. If we can do better for families and children, why settle for anything less?

  9. Ross said,

    September 28, 2009 at 8:15 am

    Robert: “The problem with the gay agenda is it leaves out the factual truth. Gayness is a behavior. It’s changeable and it’s a choice, not an immutable condition. ”

    Interesting. So then by that reasoning then heterosexuality is also a choice. And a behavior. Completely changeable.

    So the question is, who is to say that one is “right” and the other as “wrong”? Why is one “immoral”, as Beetle states? Because “heterosexuality is what god/nature intended”?is a completely bogus assumption, because if that were the case, then it would be the “purpose” of every human being to procreate, wouldnt it?

    And I know a lot of people, both gay and straight, who would take issue with that assumption

  10. Robert Mann said,

    September 28, 2009 at 12:26 pm

    Men and women are different, and the union of a man and a woman is different that the union of two men or two women. Throughout history marriage has been defined as the union of a man and a woman for powerful reasons relating to the complementary differences between men and women. The differences combine to create a unique and essential social relationship. Marriage channels human sexuality into responsible, and socially valuable functions, namely adult complementary sexual union that results in the procreation, nurturing, and training of the next generation. It gives couples and society a future. The combination of the opposite sexes creates a distinctive integrative union and social relationship. No two men together or two women together can do this. Just as the combination of the different chemical elements Na (sodium) + Cl (chlorine) together make salt, but Na + Na or Cl + Cl do not.

  11. Robert Mann said,

    September 28, 2009 at 12:28 pm

    I think it is fair to say that one of the purposes of marriage is responsible procreation, yes. Is it the only purpose? no, but responsible procreation cannot be separated from the purpose of marriage.

  12. Robert Mann said,

    September 28, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    “It’s not the negativity, at issue Ross. As it says in the post, it’s the casting of something many consider immoral as something that is good and healthy and right in furtherance of the gay agenda rather than simply promoting good citizenship.”

    Beetle, you’ve got it exactly right. What is the purpose behind teaching homosexuality in school? That is the core question here. If it was simply to address bullying, that could be done without talking about sexuality.

  13. TaurusOfLA said,

    September 28, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    There is a difference between understanding and believing or agreeing. We are smart enough to know the difference between believing in something and understanding something, and we are secure inside ourselves that our beliefs will not be compromised by the understanding of something.

    In addition, within each classroom are a group of kids that include kids of same-gender parents and kids who will one day discover that they are gay, and this diversity not only exists but should be treated with respect and dignity, regardless if some people do not agree with this diversity.

    Also, there are kids who engage in anti-gay bullying and harassment, and those kids need to learn specifically that anti-gay bullying, not just bullying in general, is wrong.

  14. Ross said,

    September 28, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    Ok, I’m going to be incredibly simplistic here.

    The science expirement analogy doesn’t work, Robert. You are talking completely different about the product of joining two things together and the action of joining together by itself.

    Follow me
    Na+Cl = Salt. Yes. So let’s see. By your analogy…Na is a man. Cl is a woman. And Salt is a baby. Fair enough.

    Na + Na = Not salt. Man + Man = No baby.

    Marriage isnt the salt, in the equation. The baby is. The product of male and female binding together. Marriage is the plus sign. Just because a baby is the product of the equation (in this case salt), does not mean it is the process that binds the two together.

    Marriage, is the + sign in this case. And it exists in all forms of the equation (Na+Cl, Na+Na, and Cl+Cl)…..whatever happens after the equal sign (the product of the specific relationship) varies depending on the components existing in the equation…

  15. Samantha said,

    September 28, 2009 at 1:58 pm

    It’s Elementary:
    Gay and Lesbian Issues in the Classroom
    Reviewer: Karen Jo Gounaud
    President, Family Friendly Libraries

    It’s Elementary, It’s Slick…It’s Alarming

    There’s a sophisticated new arrow in the gay activists’ quiver: a polished, well-produced video called It’s Elementary. This film is high-quality and very effective– a direct testimony to the talent, determination, and funding of gay activism.

    It’s Elementary is a clarion call for those of us with opposing opinions to come forth with our own masterpieces of salesmanship. But if this film is any indication of the status of the culture clashes, traditionalists are way behind.

    The main vehicles advancing the film’s agenda are the brilliantly framed discussions with children and teenagers. The producers effectively record (and edit) the participation of students in activities addressing lesbian and gay issues from a positive and pro-active perspective.

    Talks with parents, teachers and administrators are secondary in importance, but still powerfully revealing in their focus and emphasis. The few video participants who question the central assumptions are clearly marked as out- of-touch, if not ignorant and in need of gay-affirmative education.

    Even the simple music by Jon Herbst succeeds in underscoring the message of the film: the importance of expanding the “gay is OK” message into the school environment. The music then becomes subtly sinister when the film portrays news accounts of “gay-bashing,” or when it spotlights “anti-gay” politicians and others who do not accept the concept that homosexuality is normal.

    One of the most effective scenes revealed, in an elementary classroom, that the beloved music of the film The Lion King was the work of a gay musician. The overwhelmingly positive reaction of the children was powerfully reflected in their faces.

    The children were also encouraged to join in praise of a young essay winner who wrote proudly of her two lesbian “moms.” (One might wonder who had actually written this mature sounding essay–the young child, or her mother.) One school housed a gay and lesbian family photo display. And some of the most articulate teachers in the film were openly gay, speaking directly and convincingly to the children about their belief in the legitimacy of a gay lifestyle.

    “Indoctrination” is not too strong a word to describe what was really going on with those classroom activities.

    Criticism of homosexuality was invariably equated with racism and ethnic bigotry.

    What was missing from the class discussions and the film’s other presentations was equally revealing. There was never any mention of the scientifically proven promiscuity and disease crisis in gay male life, or the relationship between disease and anatomical unsuitability.

    Missing also were the explicit sex lessons which are so often targeted toward children as AIDS education, on other occasions where public relations is not the issue.

    Of course the existence of another school of thought–the reparative-therapy approach aiming toward reversal of the condition–was excluded from this work. No mention was made of the many counseling programs that offer compassionate help for all hurting, sexually confused people.

    And there was no acknowledgment of the fact that reasonable people who reject the gay agenda also reject “gay bashing,” as well as the rock-throwing mentality it represents.

    It’s Elementary is alarming because the reactions of people in the video–adults, youth, and especially the children–indicate that the foundation for acceptance of homosexuality as a legitimate, healthy alternative to heterosexuality has already been successfully laid down in our country. In fact, within an unknown but growing number of American schools and classrooms, both public and private, affirmation of a sexually deviant minority has been advanced to a much greater degree than most citizens realize.

    After I shared this film with the parents of a gay young adult, the couple labeled this a “bait and switch” vehicle. It’s Elementary, they observed, seemed to be asking for respect for homosexual people; in reality, it was preaching respect for the homosexual condition. They believed the producers were using a subtle process of effectively and deceptively re-educating children, especially young children, incrementally to the point of accepting behavior that would ordinarily be seen as outside the norm.

    The observant parents recognized that the authority figures in the film were clearly leading the young students to the assumption that being gay can’t be bad because of the good things gay people have done.

    This “sanitized presentation” of homosexuality, as the reviewing parents described it, obviously was intended to make it hard for the kids watching the film to discern facts from propaganda. They cited one boy’s statement, describing the effect this lesson on homosexuality had had on him: “It’s kind of like vegetables: you don’t know [you’ll like homosexuality] until you try.”

    “What’s the big whoop?” asked another child flippantly in response to tales of some parental concerns. Some children were even outspokenly critical of their own parents’ negative attitudes about homosexuality.

    This is not surprising when you consider: Today more than ever, homosexual activists–with perhaps only a 1-3% presence in society–are successfully “dumbing down” our ability to make accurate moral and socio-psychological discernments through their growing influence in government, business, the media, and even religion. An important part of that agenda has included the redefinition of several concepts: our understanding of what constitutes religious bigotry, family values, human rights, and even our basic conceptions of right and wrong.

    Decades of subtle and not-so-subtle propaganda materials such as this video–and organized political efforts like the one that culminated in this film’s distribution–have been stunningly effective.

    We must protect children from educational materials that contradict the historic truths about family which are rooted in America’s Judeo-Christian foundation. The survival of the family needs all the armor of truth we can supply. That truth is elementary, and it is imperative. There’s no time to waste. Let’s get together and get it done.

  16. beetlebabee said,

    September 28, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    Taurus, There is a difference between understanding and agreeing. Absolutely. Unfortunately this film does not make that clear, in fact, just the opposite. Mistreating people is wrong period, so why stop at gays? Why not say mistreating ANYONE is wrong? Which goes back to the point that if kindness is what is needed in the schoolyard, then teach kindness, not politicized social agendas.

    “there are kids who engage in anti-gay bullying and harassment, and those kids need to learn specifically that anti-gay bullying, not just bullying in general, is wrong.”

    As with all problem students, a note can be sent home to allow the parents to deal with the finer points of the golden rule if need be. I understand the idea that some children will bully people just because they’re different. It’s not limited to gay people, it’s fat people, tall people, thin people, asian people, black people….white people too! People with buck teeth, people with no teeth, people with freckles….people with bad hygiene…. There’s always something for someone to pick on you about. Tolerance includes religious tolerance, and the tolerance of diverse ideas. That is what this film explicitly attacks. Any conclusion different from what the filmmakers have decided is right and good is either scorned or not addressed. It’s one sided propaganda for one, and for two, it’s completely inappropriate to show children.

  17. beetlebabee said,

    September 28, 2009 at 2:11 pm

    Samantha, I agree with you completely. It’s Elementary is propaganda, and has no place in schools. The fact that those pushing the gay agenda currently in Maine refuse to honestly acknowledge their efforts to influence our children in public school is alarming in the least.

  18. Ross said,

    September 29, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    robert: “The problem with the gay agenda is it leaves out the factual truth. Gayness is a behavior. It’s changeable and it’s a choice, not an immutable condition.”

    In which case, Robert, heterosexuality is also a choice, is changeable, and not a mutable condition. So what? What makes one “right” while the other is “wrong”? So a man chooses to be in a relationship with a man instead of a woman. He should still be given rights to protect his family unit (whether it is called “marriage” or something else entirely) under the government because of the commitment he is making to his partner.

    Falling back on the whole, “homosexuality is wrong because its not what nature intended” ideology is completely bogus because procreation is merely a part of life. Im sure many people, gay and straight, do not see procreation as the “purpose” of a human being in society…

  19. BillWare said,

    September 30, 2009 at 11:34 am

    There is one giant flew in this article.

    Most states have anti bullying programs in school. Twenty-two of these included gays as an example of those who are bullied. Many towns and cities in states include gays for schools in their jurisdictions. The lesson on gays is what we see in the video clip. Including gays has gone on long before gay marriage equality and will continue long into the future.

    Whether prop 1 passes or fails has no effect on these preexisting classes. Implying it does is a gross misrepresentation. What opponents of prop 1 representatives and school officials have said is true. Prop 1 has no effect on schools whatsoever.

  20. beetlebabee said,

    September 30, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    Bill, the law as it is will have a great effect on schools. The pressure to preach the doctrine that homosexuality is normal in the classroom will grow if Question 1 doesn’t pass. Question 1 does not mention schools by name, but technically right isn’t right in this case.

  21. BillWare said,

    September 30, 2009 at 1:18 pm

    Maine already includes sexual orientation and gender expression in its school’s anti bullying programs. Prop 1’s fate has no bearing on these programs as shown in this video.

    Bullying based on religious beliefs is also one of these lessons. Yet the teacher doesn’t say that one religion is “good” compared to others or that being religious is better that having no religion at all. Same with sexual orientation. They don’t say that any orientation is “good and healthy and right” any more than they would say that about Methodists.

    They relay the conclusions of every prominent medical and mental heart association in the country that homosexuality is simply a normal variation of human sexuality. Would you expect them to do otherwise and lie to their students?

  22. Peter Tanous said,

    October 29, 2009 at 11:04 am

    Since when did legal gay marriage save our country?; draft our constitution?; build our infrastructure?; idiots, this is history that makes this country what it is & that is great. Who gives a crap about gays or lesbians. The country is free because of war, (maybe that is one reason why war is taught in schools). So go ahead be gay or lesbian and do what the ever you want in your private life. No one cares. When people start caring is when your evil hidden agenda is to expose children in schools to your warped belief that you should have exclusive rights is horse crap. So stay home, be gay and leave your agenda right with you at home. No one cares until you start pushing this into class rooms. This your meaningless fight you craeted thinking that we are stupid by your hidden agenda. Get the point…NO ONE CARES if you are gay or lesbian. It is a nothing issue. Go away & be gay! We will fight for our children. So be gay and keep your almighty “proud to be gay” teachings and stick it where the sun does not shine.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: