Wednesday, October 26, 2005

It's About Our Children, Stupid!

Progressive Christians and Gay activists are promoting the misconception that Conservative Christians oppose gay marriage because Conservative Christians are judging them harshly, judging them as sinners and throwing stones from their glass houses. By Progressives doing so they are painting Conservative Christians as bigoted haters. I could not begin to tell you the number of times that a "Progressive" has accused me of hating gays because I am opposed to gay marriage. It matters not that I have told them I have gay friends whom I love. As I have often found with the modern day liberal (interchangable with "Progressive") when they are not hearing what they want to hear they find it much easier to ignore the facts and live in their ignorant little world. I mean, as long as they ignore or refuse to accept the real reason Conservative Christians are opposed to gay marriage they can continue to claim that Conservative Christians are afraid they'll get "gay cooties" or something, right? I'm here to set the record straight (pun unintended) on why THIS Christian is opposed to gay marriage.

For me, it is a health issue. I am greatly concerned that gay groups are visiting our grade school children in our public schools. I am greatly concerned that our children are being taught by their teachers that there is no difference between a homosexual and a heterosexual relationship. I am greatly concerned that the homosexual lifestyle is being promoted and therefore encouraged to young impressionable children as an equal and healthy "alternative lifestyle" to that of heterosexual relationships.

It is easier for a liberal or Progressive to pass me off as an intolerant fundamentalist Christian than to research the higher health risks among the homosexual lifestyle for themselves, so I decided to make it easy for them and bring it all together for them right here on this blog.

In this study:

Study Surveys Mental Health Of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexuals And Their Siblings
October 20, 2005 - The August, 2005 issue of the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, published a research survey of the mental health of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and their siblings.
"Mental Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Heterosexual Siblings: Effects of Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Family," by Kimberly F. Balsam, Theodore P. Beauchaine, Ruth M. Mickey, and Esther D. Rothblum, was funded in part by a grant from the Lesbian Health Fund of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

We find:


  • "The researchers conducted the research to discover if there were differences in suicidal ideation, depression, and the use of mental health services between gay, bisexual, and lesbian siblings.
    The study was conducted by questionnaire. The project eventually included responses from 805 women and 449 men. Of these, 533 identified as heterosexual; 163 as bisexual; and 558 as lesbian or gay.
    According to the researchers, "LGB's [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexuals] ... use mental health services more and are at higher risk for suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and self-injurious behavior than are heterosexual siblings.""
And here we find:

Research Studies Show High Rates Of Gay Emotional/Relational Instability
Lifetime prevalence of DSM- III- R Psychiatric Disorders

Homosexual (SSA) vs Heterosexual lifetime prevalence percentages for:

Mood disorders: Homosexual 39.0% Heterosexuals 13.3%
Major depression: Homosexual 39.3% Heterosexual 10.9%
Anxiety disorders: Homosexual 31.7% Heterosexual 13.2%
One or more diagnoses: Homosexual 56.1% Heterosexual 41.4%
Two or more diagnoses: Homosexual 37.8% Heterosexual 14.4%

Stanford et al. (2001) Arch Gen Psychiatry, Vol. 58.
Study from the Netherlands of 5, 898 adults of which 2.1% self-identified as homosexual.

Why do these studies matter?

In this research paper: "The Health Risks of Gay Sex" by Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr., MD: http://www.corporateresourcecouncil.org/white_papers/Health_Risks.pdf Dr. Diggs, Jr. makes it clear that:


  • "Encouraging people to engage in risky sexual behavior undermines good health and can result in a shortened life span. Yet that is exactly what employers and governmental entities are doing when they grant GLB couples benefits or status that make GLB relationships appear more socially acceptable."

Dr. Diggs, Jr. makes his point in the corporate world to point out the health risks as pertains to health benefits given by corporations or governmental entities and how it encourages social acceptance of the gay lifestyle, but we might make the same claim regarding public school curriculum and teachers who promote and encourage the gay lifestyle by making GLB relationships seem more socially acceptable.

Then, go here:

The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science to read from the words of Gay activists, themselves, that they have come to the acceptance that scientists have been unable to determine that gays are "born that way."

It is questionable, highly questionable, whether gays are born that way or they have chosen the lifestyle, so why promote an unhealthy lifestyle in order to be tolerant of those who, supposedly, have no choice because it is the way God made them? They cannot prove that to be the case and there is evidence to suggest the contrary.

Now, if you live in a little Progressive bubble and you do not believe that gay activists are targeting our children in public school click on this link: Gay Activism in the Schools.

Why does it matter? I don't want gays targeted for violence any more than anyone else wants them targeted for violence, but allowing the promotion and encouragement of the gay lifestyle to our children, by making it seem like a "cool" alternative to the norm we are exposing them to a lifestyle that could take 20 years off their lifespan and leave them open for mental and physical health problems.

Gay marriage further normalizes and asks for the acceptance of this lifestyle as a perfectly healthy alternative lifestyle for our children. This is wrong. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with hate and nothing to do with a fear of getting some "gay cooties" on us.

Before Progressive Christians throw those stones from their glass houses claiming that Conservative Christians do not support gay marriage simply because they are bigoted haters they might remember their own tone is no less condemning of Conservative Christians than what they perceive as condemnation of gays in America coming from their, evidently, arch enemy, the evil Conservative Christian. I do not condemn gays in America because I think they are "sinners" rather I condemn their lifestyle because it is an unhealthy one and it is being promoted as normal and natural to unsuspecting children who are not being told of the higher health risks associated with it. It's about protecting our children, stupid!

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

posted by you on another blog

"While I'm touched by your sentiment, I do think, considering the fact that I no longer wish to intertwine my Christianity with my politics or respond to other's intertwining of their politics to Christianity, and since that is basically what you do here, that it would be best for me to move along."

you just really cant help yourself, can you?

Jacke M. said...

I replied to you in a blog entry, anonymous.

Evidently it bothers you to have me posting something again about Christians.

That simply tells me I am doing something right.

Momma Twoop said...

Nice way to respond to the substance of the post, Anonymous. *eyeroll*

They say you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Let's see if "progressives" are any different...

Anonymous, do you disagree with what Jacke has put forth in her blog? Why, do you suppose, the homosexual community is overrepresented in all the categories discussed in the studies Jacke cited? Do you agree with society attempting to teach children that there is no difference between a homosexual lifestyle and a heterosexual lifestyle when virtually all studies prove that to be incorrect?

Anonymous said...

*Note: Not the Anon above.

As far as mental health issues go, do you consider the fact that homosexuals might be more depressed and suicidal due to the fact they are persecuted and not allowed some of the fundemental rights other people take for granted? I'm not saying this is neccessarily the case, I'm just presenting an alternative hypothesis.

Jacke M. said...

Dear Anonymous,

You raise a question which has been pondered before. There is little "persecution" of gays in The Netherlands, in other words, they have already enjoyed for quite some time what gay activists have called for in the U.S.

Excerpt:

http://www.narth.com/docs/risks.html

"While society's alleged oppression of homosexual individuals (homophobia) seems to be a favorite panacea-like theory for the mental-health problems of those who practice homosexuality, the Dutch study is not supportive of such a hypothesis. Dutch society is recognized as one of the most gay-affirming and gay-tolerant in the world, and yet the risk for mental illness among those who engage in homosexuality remains high, and significantly higher than among heterosexuals in that country."

End excerpt.

Excerpt:

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

"The Effect of Social Stigma

Third, does pressure from society lead to mental health problems? Less, I believe, than one might imagine. The authors of the study done in The Netherlands were surprised to find so much mental illness in homosexual people in a country where tolerance of homosexuality is greater than in almost all other countries.
Another good comparison country is New Zealand, which is much more tolerant of homosexuality than is the United States. Legislation giving the movement special legal rights is powerful, consistently enforced throughout the country, and virtually never challenged. Despite this broad level of social tolerance, suicide attempts were common in a New Zealand study and occurred at about the same rate as in the U.S.

In his cross-cultural comparison of mental health in the Netherlands, Denmark and the U.S., Ross (1988) could find no significant differences between countries - i.e. the greater social hostility in the United States did not result in a higher level of psychiatric problems."

End excerpt.

Also, please tell me what "fundamental rights" gays are denied in the U.S.?

They have no more and no less rights than I, I can't marry someone of the same sex either.

:)

Anonymous said...

I'm not exactly convinced by those links, given that they give evidence to the contrary to what you suggest:
*******
He notes an emerging visible subculture of "barebacking" (anal intercourse without condoms among homosexual men). He blames homophobia, which "inhibits prevention at all levels, not least the broader culture, which delivers anti-gay messages, institutionalizes homophobia through structural mechanisms, such as laws that regulate intimate sexual behavior, and lags in support of sensitive and honest prevention for gay and bisexual youth, young adults and older men."

Gross's article concludes with a moralistic monologue which includes the following statements:

* "...prevention efforts fall prey to political opportunism, misplaced moralism, stigmatization, and homophobia."

* "...distraught parents still evict gay youths, propelling them into lives of inner-city scavenging and vulnerability to exploitation."

* "Most schools continue to refrain from even the meekest adaptation to gay adolescents' needs for safety and mutual affiliation, much less the authentic respect that might nourish self-respect. In turn, whatever normalization school and after-school settings might be providing for concurrent emotional and sexual maturation among heterosexual adolescents is denied to most of their gay counterparts, who instead are apt to retreat into furtiveness, shame, or precocious pairings with older partners."
*******

However, let's just be hypothetical. Let's suggest you are right - that homosexuals are more likely to suffer from mental issues and depression. This means homosexuals can't marry - how? Are you suggesting that depressed individuals shouldn't be able enter into a partnership of such a description? There's absolutely no connection, given that homosexuality and homosexual marriage are not the same thing. In order for those arguments to mean anything, you'd need to explain how gay marriage specifically increased depression etc. Given that homosexuality isn't something that can be turned on or off, and that it exists even in the animal kingdom (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html)
there is nothing a gay person could do to stop any resultant depression arising from their sexuality. Wouldn't it be better then to try and heal any depression in other ways? Say, perhaps, acknowledging them as respected members of society and not treating them differently?

Here's an analogy. Some Charismatics believe they're given the ability to speak in tongues by the holy spirit, and do this in prayer sessions. I, personally, think this is more likely to be some kind of psychological condition that should be cured. By your logical arguement, Charismatic churches should be shut down. Even though these people would argue they can't stop the speaking in tongues, it's psychological issues should be solved not by healing them, but by shutting them off and making them feel like second-class citizens.
(Note: I'm not claiming homosexuality is a disease, but that the depression resulting from it is. My analogy isn't perfect.)

Momma Twoop said...

However, let's just be hypothetical.

Okay, let's. Why would you want to change society's structure in an effort to "cure" depression in the homosexual community when it has been proven, beyond a doubt, that those things being demanded now, when allowed, make no difference in the rates of depression? Further, would you promote "embracing" depression as a normal, healthy lifestyle, as is attempting to be done with homosexuality? When dealing with depression, society says get some help and, in many instances, offers help, rather than attempting to force society to promote it as a healthy, viable alternative lifestyle.

So, in our hypothetical mode, since you think homosexuality should be embraced as a normal, healthy alternative lifestyle in spite of the statistics, would you be happy if society were to do the same with Charismatic Christians? Let's say Charismatic Christians decide they need special rights, too, and activist groups begin pushing for special Charismatic marriages, inclusion in diversity training in our schools, and the passage of special hate crime legislation which would make harming or murdering one of them more important than harming or murdering anyone non-Charismatic. After all, both homosexual and Charismatic Christians are groups identified by their beliefs and BEHAVIOR, rather than race, gender, socio-economic status, etc. Would you still support giving them "rights" as you do homosexuals? How about if other groups came together and decided they wanted special recognition and rights based on their sexual practices, which is easily done if we start giving people certain rights based on behavior?

You say it can't be turned on or off. While I tend to disagree with that assessment, it is irrelevant for the argument that many behaviors cannot be turned on or off. Does society really need to be restructured to create classes of people based on behavior rather than those things which have been established over thousands of years? Do we set up special churches, rights, etc., for people who can only have fulfilling sex with obese people? Do we do the same for those who find themselves attracted, regardless of what help they have gotten, to animals? How about those folks who can only have a great, fulfilling time when their escapades include lots and lots of latex, or wearing diapers, or hot wax, or whips and chains, or fruit, or oxygen deprivation, etc., etc., etc.,? When you start giving special rights, or changing long-standing institutions, based on BEHAVIOR, a whole can of worms is opened, as there are countless behaviors, many of which are kept hidden because of an "oppressive" society. Isn't it our right, as citizens, to ask that can of worms be kept closed, to demand that marriage continue to be identified by gender rather than changing it to be defined by sexuality?

Jacke M. said...

Dear Anon.,

You are comparing an editorial...:

http://www.narth.com/docs/risks.html

"Michael Gross's EDITORIAL, "When Plagues Don't End," (pages 861-862) focuses on the resurgence of HIV/AIDS among homosexual men in the United States. The highest rates of HIV transmission are among African-American and Hispanic men who self-identify as gay." (emphasis mine)

End excerpt.

...to a scientific paper referencing scientific studies:

Exerpts:

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

"Summary: Recent STUDIES show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources...." (emphasis mine)

"...Saghir and Robins (1978) examined reasons for suicide attempts among homosexuals and found that if the reasons for the attempt were connected with homosexuality, about 2/3 were due to breakups of relationships --not outside pressures from society...."

"...Bell and Weinberg (1981) also found the major reason for suicide attempts was the breakup of relationships. In second place, they said, was the inability to accept oneself. Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. The median number of partners for homosexuals is four times higher than for heterosexuals (Whitehead and Whitehead 1999, calculated from Laumann et al 1994)...."

"...Another factor in suicide attempts would be the compulsive or addictive elements in homosexuality (Pincu, 1989 ) which could lead to feelings of depression when the lifestyle is out of control (Seligman 1975). There are some, (estimates vary, but perhaps as many as 50% of young men today), who do not take consistent precautions against HIV (Valleroy et al., 2001) and who have considerable problems with sexual addiction and substance abuse addiction, and this of course would feed into suicide attempts...."

"...In his cross-cultural comparison of mental health in the Netherlands, Denmark and the U.S., Ross (1988) could find no significant differences between countries - i.e. the greater social hostility in the United States did not result in a higher level of psychiatric problems...."

End Excerpts.

The fact that animals in the animal kingdom display their animal instincts, possibly as an act of domination or aggression in no way *proves* that homosexuality is not a choice. I think it is better when discussing human behavior to keep it pure, limiting the discussion to human behavior rather than speculating about why animals, which are unable to adequately communicate their *feelings* therefore rendering them poor study subjects act as they do. There are arguments on both sides of that issue.

Regarding your comparison of homosexuals to Charismatic Christians, you were right to provide a disclaimer as to the imperfect nature of your analogy.

Comparing a scriptural Christian believe and action to sexual orientation or activity? I can't follow you on that one. If I replied to such an analogy my response would be quite like the response of "Momma Twoop."

Anonymous said...

My apologies for comparing an editorial to scientific research, I didn't realise. Most of what I said still stands.

"The fact that animals in the animal kingdom display their animal instincts, possibly as an act of domination or aggression in no way *proves* that homosexuality is not a choice."

I'd disagree. Well, it may not exactly be proof, but it is rather reasonable corroborating evidence. That, and it's common amongst some varieties of primate, which are of course our closest animal relatives.

My comments about my analogy being a bit off were due to the relationship between homosexuality and gay marriage not being the same as the the relationship between speaking in tongues and Charismatic Churches.

"Okay, let's. Why would you want to change society's structure in an effort to "cure" depression in the homosexual community when it has been proven, beyond a doubt, that those things being demanded now, when allowed, make no difference in the rates of depression?"

Well, I'd still believe that two people in a loving relationship are more likely to be able to deal with depression than those who aren't. However, if there is no difference is the rates of depression due to gay marriage, which you are stating, then why deny gay marriage? It's not going to make the problem any worse, given that anyone who joins in gay marriage is likely to already be a homosexual.

"So, in our hypothetical mode, since you think homosexuality should be embraced as a normal, healthy alternative lifestyle in spite of the statistics, would you be happy if society were to do the same with Charismatic Christians?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm rather sure Charismatics can, in fact, get married. Large numbers of Christians do, in fact, complain when their rights are violated. I recall a case when a large Christian group was up in arms when someone complained about them praying in public(Note: Matthew 6:6). I don't see many other religious groups praying in public, so I guess Christians have special rights. People try to get the Bible back into schools, how is that different from "diversity training"?

And, for the record, I'm not arguing that homosexuals should be given anything like "special marriages" or similar, they should just be given the same right to marry the people they love, like everyone else.

Momma Twoop said...

However, if there is no difference is the rates of depression due to gay marriage, which you are stating, then why deny gay marriage? It's not going to make the problem any worse, given that anyone who joins in gay marriage is likely to already be a homosexual.

It isn't a matter of simply trying to keep the problem from getting worse. The issue lies in homosexual activist groups telling Americans that they suffer these things due to "homophobia" and possibly making it easier for adventurous or confused children to consider living that lifestyle. Studies have proven the theory that the excessive mental health problems in the homosexual community are a result of "homophobia" wrong. Still, the falsehood is repeatedly put forth. So that brings us to the question of why change marriage at all when it has been proven that doing so does nothing to make a homosexual lifestyle healthier, or make them happier, which is the popular mantra from same sex marriage advocates? Why put it forth to all Americans, including children, that it is no different than heterosexual relationships when it clearly is? Even the latest study (one of the largest ever done) from the Netherlands, where "homophobia" is virtually non-existent because it is punished severely and gays are allowed to marry, the homosexual community is still overrepresented on many mental health issues, alarmingly so in some instances. The statistics do not differ significantly at all from those found here in the U.S., proving that the unhealthier status of homosexual groups is not due to "homophobia," but is something endemic to the homosexual community for other reasons. So why portray it as a "normal, healthy and viable" alternative lifestyle to our children when that is a lie, and could very well lead a confused youth down a dangerous path?

You also state: Well, I'd still believe that two people in a loving relationship are more likely to be able to deal with depression than those who aren't.

I agree with that wholeheartedly. Two people in a loving relationship are much better equipped to deal with anything life throws their way. However, no one is preventing homosexuals from being in a loving, committed relationship with whomever they choose. They have the right to live, love and be as committed in a relationship as they choose without intervention from government. They have the right to create legally binding contracts to deal with their combined property and assets in the case of a split or the death of either of them. Society has the right to set its own boundaries and norms, including disallowing a tiny fraction of people to change the long-standing definition of marriage for questionable purposes. Marriage has always been based on gender, not love or sexual practices and behavior. Re-defining an institution based on behavior is, in my opinion, ill-advised, particularly when it is done based on misleading theories and emotion rather than fact and logic.

Regarding Charismatic Christians, yes, they can get married as long as it is between one man and one woman, just like everyone else. However, apply the hypothetical to other areas and see if you would be comfortable with them forcing change through judicial fiat. Would you be comfortable with them, or any of the other abnormally behaving groups I mentioned, forcing acceptance of any of their beliefs or behaviors upon society because they stated, falsely, that it was needed for them to feel "whole"?

Momma Twoop said...

A couple of things I forgot to include, Anon. By the way, I appreciate your even tone in this debate, very much so. :)

And, for the record, I'm not arguing that homosexuals should be given anything like "special marriages" or similar, they should just be given the same right to marry the people they love, like everyone else.

Allowing homosexuals to be married is, in and of itself, a special "right" as marriage between the same sexes has never been. It would be no different than homosexuals demanding to be called heterosexuals, in my opinion, because they say it makes them feel better. If allowed, it would change the definition of "heterosexual" just as surely as allowing same sex marriage does the definition of "marriage."

I don't see many other religious groups praying in public, so I guess Christians have special rights. People try to get the Bible back into schools, how is that different from "diversity training"?

Many other religious groups pray in public. In fact, a few Muslim men were recently questioned at the Giants stadium when people became alarmed because they were praying in public. Praying to a chosen god is the right of everyone in this nation, forcing others to accept it as normal is not. This nation is primarily Christian, so seeing Christians pray, or Catholics making the sign of the cross, etc., in public is much more likely to be seen than those of other religions praying. It does happen, however.

I don't see people trying to "get the Bible back in school." Can you share any reports of this you may have? In any case, it differs from diversity training in that placing a Bible in a school is different than promoting, as safe, sexual behavior and a lifestyle which is not.

Anonymous said...

"possibly making it easier for adventurous or confused children to consider living that lifestyle."

I don't believe that it's a choice, so this really isn't an issue from my end.

"Society has the right to set its own boundaries and norms, including disallowing a tiny fraction of people to change the long-standing definition of marriage for questionable purposes."

I'll disagree here as well, to an extent. A democracy is majority rule with minority rights.

"I agree with that wholeheartedly. Two people in a loving relationship are much better equipped to deal with anything life throws their way. etc..*snip*.."

Here you almost seem to be advocating civil unions. The fact of the matter is, from a secular perspective, there really is no difference between such a union and a marriage - differences ony emerge in the religious sphere. Given that the argument against homosexuality here is also from a secular perspective, your statements are a tad confusing.

"I don't see people trying to "get the Bible back in school." Can you share any reports of this you may have? In any case, it differs from diversity training in that placing a Bible in a school is different than promoting, as safe, sexual behavior and a lifestyle which is not."

I'll admit something right now, as it may have not been initially obvious: I'm not actually American. While I admit I do my best to try and keep informed of the happenings in the most powerful nation in the world (as there's a sort of trickle down effect) I can't say I know from personal experience. However, what I'm refering to are things like attempting to get Intelligent Design taught, having the Ten Commandments in courtrooms, and some far-right Christians have at least complained about the Bible being taken out of schools (ie Jack Chick). While I wholehartedly admit it is inappropriate to hold the actions of a few against the whole, it should at least be clear that certain Christian groups are attempting to further their agendas, in much the same as you accuse homosexuals of doing. It's not all one-way. And I'm not saying it's neccessarily bad - people attempt to look after their own interests, though it's a tad inappropriate to decry people for doing so if you do so yourself.

Jacke M. said...

Anon. writes:

"While I wholehartedly admit it is inappropriate to hold the actions of a few against the whole, it should at least be clear that certain Christian groups are attempting to further their agendas, in much the same as you accuse homosexuals of doing."

You are correct that there are Christian groups promoting political agendas. Some are "Conservative" Christians and some are "Progressive" Christians, as well as individual Christian Americans voting based on a Christian value system in every election in the U.S. The thing you miss is that Americans identify themselves as a Christian MAJORITY Nation. Therefore, Christians are not a minority group, but the majority. Someone should be speaking for the majority.

You see, what happens in America is that politicians get elected to represent their constituents but, in many cases, they move to Washington and lose touch with those who they are supposed to be representing, or for financial interests they begin promoting the agendas of lobbyists rather than that of their constituents. In the meantime, Hollywood icons, the liberal leaning media and minority activists DO force their agendas down the "throats" of the majority of Americans against their will. Christians have been waking up and many are banding together to make their own MAJORITY voice heard.

One more thing I would point out to you, Anon., you are coming from an entirely different perspective than this blog entry was originally written about. You are coming from the perspective that it's all about the health and well being of the minority homosexual members of society in America. My point was that, and I agree with Twoop that homosexuals CAN live in a loving monogamous relationship if they choose to do so, no one is stopping them, but my point is that by certain activist groups going into public schools, including elementary, in the U.S. to educate our children about homosexuality and encourage them to consider their sexuality, as though it is a choice (and there is plenty of evidence to suggest it is a choice, but that's another subject) and by "tolerance" being promoted by the suggestion that gay couples are exercizing a perfectly healthy and normal alternative lifestyle to that of heterosexual couples WITHOUT educating them on the greater physical and emotional health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle, they are, indeed, encouraging and enticing our children to CHOOSE, or at the least consider that lifestyle, hence the title "It's About Our Children, Stupid!"

I will not deny that I believe homosexuality to be a sin, but there are many other reasons besides the "sin argument" that should give us pause when considering the "normalization" of such a lifestyle.

Anonymous said...

"You see, what happens in America is that politicians get elected to represent their constituents but, in many cases... *snip*"

You have a point in that someone should speak for the majority, however, (a)that's sort of what the elections are for, and (b)the minority still has rights. However, on the other hand, I understand your issues about politicians losing touch with their support base. America needs to impliment compolsory voting for me to be sure that it is in fact the majority opinion, however. A preferential system wouldn't hurt either, but that's an issue for another time.

"One more thing I would point out to you, Anon.,..."

I'll admit that I was under the impression this was all about the health issues, apologies if I made some incorrect assumptions. As far as it being a choice, it appears we will have to agree to disagree here, as we obviously have completly different views on it. Of course, this fact is actually the crux of the arguement, as if it isn't a choice as I believe, your arguments are in fact moot, as there is no real way a homosexual activist could convert someone to homosexuality, which seems to be your main complaint.

Jacke M. said...

anon. writes:

"America needs to impliment compolsory voting for me to be sure that it is in fact the majority opinion, however."

Interesting, you have me at a bit of a disadvantage as you know that I am an American citizen but while admitting that you are not an American, you have failed to identify to which country your allegiance lies.

You see, it would be difficult for me to understand your perspective without knowing that. It allows for you, from an entirely different perspective, to express yourself regarding the intricacies of the American voting system without equal consideration of your own country's voting practices.

This is a free country. How do you propose to implement "compulsory" voting? For the record, I am not familiar with the voting systems of every country on the face of the globe but I am unaware of other countries who mandate "compulsory" voting. Is your country's system of voting compulsory?

I'll make an effort to explain something to you, completely off the subject, here. We honor freedom in America. We don't force citizens to vote, what we do is allow for freedom of expression and dissent, and any citizen, meeting certain criteria, has a right to vote.

This freedom of expression and dissent works against the majority's interest at times. One of the ways it works against the majority's interest is when activists, with alligiances to radical agendas which are not necessarily in the best interest of all Americans, speak out incessantly like the "squeaky wheels" they are,(see Momma Twoop's "Squeakers Needed" blog entry) getting a majority of the attention from a decidedly liberal leaning press which does not speak for the majority. Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way, it is a pesky problem which comes with the territory of living in a free country. Our American soldiers, when fighting, fight to preserve this way of life, wherein all people have the right to speak out, by willingly and freely putting their lives on the line to protect the rights of even the minority (who, btw, also have the right to vote should they care to exercise that right) and our way of life.

The problem has been that until fairly recently in our history(which cycles in such a way) the majority became complacent, expecting everything would work out, that no one would take those minority activists seriously, and that has been to our detriment.

Many of us realize the importance of taking up this activism ourselves, to protect our American way of life. This has provided for what is commonly known as a "culture war" in the U.S. Extremist radical far left minorities in America are working to redefine our system. They do so with outside pressure from people in other countries who would like to see America's power, wielded on the global stage, reduced. One way foreigners have been able to do that has been to back these radical leftist activists who have been willing to climb into bed with some strange characters because they feel that their "end" justifies the means.
For the majority to insure it is being heard, elections, compulsory or not, are not enough in this climate, we feel we must have our voices heard at the same level that the minority activists are achieving. Not knowing your citizenship, I must assume, you are receiving your information from primarily liberal sources who promote the agenda of the minority over the majority here in America. All that said, in fairness, and if you wish to continue in this communication you should identify your citizenship.

anon. writes:

"...if it isn't a choice as I believe, your arguments are in fact moot, as there is no real way a homosexual activist could convert someone to homosexuality, which seems to be your main complaint."

You might have a point if the original post was talking about homosexuals making an effort to convert adults, but that was not what the original post was addressing. I specifically addressed the practice of homosexuals promoting their lifestyle to impressionable CHILDREN, who are not as savvy as you would like to pretend, and are greatly influenced by the radical gay activists who are visiting their public, government schools. They do have the ability to "convert" in a case such as that, to cause children to question their sexual orientation, in many cases, before they might even be thinking about sex. That, dear anon, is not a level playing field. I speak out in the interest of those CHILDREN, you speak out in concern of those poor, put upon gays who don't have the SPECIAL right of marriage in our country. You are coming from a completely different perspective than I. The physical and mental health ramifications of this unhealthy lifestyle which is promoted as normal and healthy to our children, whether you care to admit it or not, deserves the concern of all American citizens.

Momma Twoop said...

G'morning, Anon. :) Thanks for your reply.

In the context of my remarks about making it easier for confused children to consider living a homosexual lifestyle by embracing homosexuality as normal, you said:

I don't believe that it's a choice, so this really isn't an issue from my end.

Whether or not being gay is a choice, something which is an unknown, is irrelevant. I happen to think it isn't a choice in all instances. However, the more important question is why would anyone support promoting it as "normal and healthy" to everyone, particularly our children, when it clearly is not? If it is put before them at all, should it not be done so in a truthful manner, showing all those facts which are known? The public should be made aware of the results of years of studies which consistently show remarkably higher incidences of psychiatric disorders, mental disorders, sexually transmitted diseases, atypical structural brain asymmetry, pedophilia and, paraphilia, to only name a few. Bullying tactics used by radical homosexual activists, backed up by partner organizations such as the ACLU, have purposely prevented, thus far, the dissemination of these facts and they have chosen to blame everything on "homophobia," which has been proven a lie. Seeing that the entire picture is revealed for all to see should be an issue for everyone, in my opinion.

Regarding society's right to determine their own norms and define their institutions, you said: I'll disagree here as well, to an extent. A democracy is majority rule with minority rights.

Correct you are. The majority determines the direction of its society, so long as that direction doesn't squelch the rights of the minority. The majority happens to believe same sex marriages are not good for their society. They have that right and have cast their votes thusly whenever it has been put before them. This does not trample upon the rights of homosexuals, who still have every means to pursue life, liberty and happiness. I would point out, however, that a very vocal minority, again with the help of supporting organizations such as the ACLU, are busily attempting to force a transition in society IN SPITE of the will of the majority, even in those instances where same sex marriages/civil unions have been voted down by a super majority. Does that meet with your approval? What I find odd is that people, usually labeled "progressive," who support imposing the homosexual agenda on society as a whole claim to care about and fight for the "ordinary Joe." Ordinary Joe has spoken, vociferously and repeatedly, yet they still choose to force their agenda through handpicked federal courts.

No, I do not advocate civil unions as they are no different than same sex marriages. They're the same thing with different titles, and the result of either would be a forced embracement, or acceptance, of the homosexual lifestyle as "normal, healthy and viable." My point was that barring civil unions or same sex marriages does not prevent a homosexual from being in a loving relationship.

I would also like to point out that all my arguments have been from a secular perspective in that they haven't been based on religion. While I am a Christian, I do not believe my religion is sufficient to support my position, at least not effectively. My position has been based on study, information gathering, personal experience, etc., and not on my religion.

I will attempt to address the "bible back in the classroom" aspect of this discussion later. I have places to go, people to see and MUCH MORE coffee to drink before I can do either! :)

Have a good one, Anon.

Anonymous said...

"You might have a point if the original post was talking about homosexuals making...."

I'm not exactly how young the children are that you are refering to, but I'd agree that young children shouldn't be lectured to about sex from any angle, homosexual, hetrosexual whatever, at an early age. However, by the same token, waiting too late is just as bad, as it leads to dangerous sexual practices protected only by the rather insubstantial defences provided by schoolyard gossip. Without knowing the exact age, I can't really give a good reply, and even then, I probably couldn't, as I don't know that much about the standard maturity of child in such a context.

"My point was that barring civil unions or same sex marriages does not prevent a homosexual from being in a loving relationship."

Taking this to it's logical conclusion, why not just get rid of marriage altogether? It doesn't prevent a hetrosexual couple from living in a loving relationship.

"I'll make an effort to explain something to you, completely off the subject, here. We honor freedom in America. We don't force citizens to vote, what we do is allow for freedom of expression and dissent, and any citizen, meeting certain criteria, has a right to vote...."

Yes, it was perhaps a tad unfair not to explain which country from which I hail. I can't explain it any better than Wikipedia, so I'll just post the appropriate link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_electoral_system#Compulsory_voting

Jacke M. said...

Anon. writes:

"I'm not exactly how young the children are that you are refering to, but I'd agree that young children shouldn't be lectured to about sex from any angle, homosexual, hetrosexual whatever, at an early age. However, by the same token, waiting too late is just as bad, as it leads to dangerous sexual practices protected only by the rather insubstantial defences provided by schoolyard gossip. Without knowing the exact age, I can't really give a good reply, and even then, I probably couldn't, as I don't know that much about the standard maturity of child in such a context."

Anon., some of your statements cause me to wonder if you read the article posted in it's entirety or possibly have forgotten parts of it? I provided a link in the original article which would educate you on gay activism in American public schools. You are not required to merely take my word for it, click on the link provided in the article.