People’s concerns about homosexuality are deeply rooted and even reflected in sacred texts. There is no mystery to this. Opposite sexes are understood and expected to be attracted to one another. When this doesn’t occur within a segment of the population, it raises fears about them.
From Adherents.com: “1.51% of the total U.S. population identifies themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, or 4.3 total million Americans. These numbers are based on figures provided by a broad-based coalition of gay rights organizations and homosexual advocacy groups. The primary source cited was the The National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), published in the book “The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States” (1994), by Laumann, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels.” (Emphasis added)(The photo is of a young male attending a Youth Pride Event in Boston)
Those identifying themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual are a remarkably small cohort of the U.S. population. Given the passage of 17 years since the data was published, there is no doubt a few more people who compose the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender population are part of this demographic. If one was to take one’s cues from the mass media, one might likely conclude that it is a much larger part of the population. It is certainly much louder.
There was a flurry of protests when Kevin Jennings was appointed to an Obama administration position as “safe schools czar” but his role in shaping national policy has been largely forgotten. According to MassResistance.org, Jennings “is a long-time homosexual activist who began his career in Massachusetts, and founded GLSEN (Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network), the national homosexual group that targets children in schools.”
“Jenning’s Department of Education office received $410 million in FY 2011. Among other efforts, last year, Jennings helped introduce Bill 4530 in Congress that would require normalization of homosexuality, transgenderism, cross-dressing, etc., in America’s public schools.”
I am confident in saying that the vast majority of parents of school-age children do not want this to be a part of the curriculum in our nation’s schools and want to deal with issues related to homosexuality in the home according to their religious and other beliefs.
As the Obama administration gears up for the 2012 election, it is shedding people like Jennings who will be an embarrassment and a focal point for drawing attention to the constitutionally questionable “czars” put on the payroll in key roles. Few were vetted by Congress as is the normal process.
Rev. Nancy Wilson, a member of President Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, recently said that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) should be repealed. Passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, the law defines marriage at the federal level as being the legal union between one man and one woman. It says that no state is required to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state.
Using “human rights” as a cover, these pernicious attacks on the sanctity of marriage continue. It is not a human rights issue. The issue is a society based on the worldwide understanding that marriage is about procreation and any deviation from that, including polygamy, endangers society as a whole.
This has not deterred New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo. On May 23rd, the Wall Street Journal reported that he “is intensifying his push for gay marriage, speaking directly to lawmakers who have left the door open for supporting a bill to allow same-sex couples to marry.”
On May 14th, in Massachusetts, the annual “Youth Pride Day” was held. Its celebration was organized by the Massachusetts Commission for GLBT Youth and other groups who recruited kids who belong to “gay clubs” in that state’s schools.
Coming full circle back to Obama’s “czar”, Mr. Jennings, he was a teacher in Concord, Massachusetts and started “gay straight alliance clubs more than fifteen years ago.” At GLSEN conferences, young people were given “graphic homosexual handouts and paraphernalia.”
There’s tolerance and then there is the deliberate subversion of societal norms that are vital to a healthy society. Jennings and other homosexual advocacy groups represent the latter.
© Alan Caruba, 2011
7 comments:
The glaring problem with homosexuals is that they refuse to admit their behavior will never be truly accepted or considered normative by the vast majority of people. They are, for lack of a better word, deviant, due to being a tiny minority in a world dominated by heterosexuals, and they always will be a tiny minority until the end of man's existence on earth.
This fact bothers them as a group, and in a determined effort to align themselves with other "minorities" they have joined together and wish to have their clearly deviant worldview forced down upon others in the name of "tolerance". In my opinion, such annoying tactics are provoking even more enmity toward them, by both the religious and the irreligious. I submit homosexuals do not want tolerance at all - they want special, elevated privilege above heterosexuals, under force of law. That will cause them only more trouble - people don't want anything shoved down their throats, and they will react accordingly.
I have conversed with several "gays" in my day, and when I have politely pointed all of the above out to them, they became angry, stating that I am a "homophobe" or "intolerant". Some even go as far to insinuate my stance has to do with religion, not realizing that I am a secular non-believer.
For the record, I neither fear homosexuals or really care about them at all; they seem to have been born that way and are powerless to do anything about their situation. I do confess that on a personal, private level I view them as little more than freaks, but I do not go out of my way when encountering them to show them either hostility or overt friendliness, all in the name of common courtesy.
However, when debated, even in polite conversation, they seem to externalize or attempt to transfer their own evident self-hatred of their condition to those debating them. They blame heterosexuals for their refusal to accept "gays", in a fashion akin to the shunned wallflower at a dance, or the clumsy kid with no friends who gets picked last for the team, if at all.
I can understand their position without necessarily agreeing with it - no one wants to be considered an "oddball" or an outsider, which is exactly what homosexuals are and always will be, period. That is something THEY should be forced to accept and "tolerate" and then go about their lives. No one can force someone to like them or be their friend, and no amount of laws or silly sensitivity training will ever change that fact.
@Conway. This captures many of my own views on the subject. Well said.
Conway, you summed my feelings on the subject up perfectly. The few gay individuals I know have a real chip on their shoulder, and I suspect you're right ... they are externalizing their own anger.
I share your passive attitude ... let bygones be bygones, and treat everybody fairly. However, the insistence on the part of some people in the gay community to force society to consider them "normal" is very irritating, and it does little to help their cause.
I have no problem with granting civil unions, and equal rights and benefits to everybody, regardless of sexual preference. We are all entitled to equal rights in this society. But I'll be damned if I'm going to sit quietly by while homosexual techniques and practices are taught in our schools, nor will I support calling their civil unions "marriage". It just rubs me the wrong way.
We all have our crosses to bear, and the gay community needs to suck it up and deal with theirs. They are an aberration. An aberration that is normally found in most species, but an aberration nonetheless. Insisting that society embrace their condition, call it "normal", and celebrate it is ridiculous.
@Conway & Guy: you stated perfectly my feelings. I concur 100%. I have nothing to add, as your statements sum it up so well! As a parent, I DEFINITELY take offense at the idea that a minority aberrant lifestyle choice be forced down my throat by it being a required element of education. Fortunately, my child attends private Christian school where I don't have to worry about this, for now. But my concern is just how far this issue is being pushed. Alan, your last sentence says it all.
Mr. CAruba strikes several good points with which this "Queer", "Gay", "Homo"; whatever, agrees.
There is oone thing to have an agenda - which we see, some due (pro vs. anti), anothr to be swept up into the country's misery index for political means - as is the current practice.
We should ask, or shout above the 'blubbering nabobs' to a crown of gays. How many are you really willing to marry?
What are the numbers of those in peaceful, non-general community - imposing rellationsips are going to go to the JP?
Look at the nubers - percentages - very few.
I could rattle out the hypocrisies. But, why spend more time at the obvious.
Here's an example of gay fickleness:
During the high impact of the AIDS crisis in Boston, newly ordained rpiests were the subject of vile demonstrations.
Two yers ago, as the "Gay Pride Parade" was starting off (with BPD Colour Guard in the lead) anothr procession was clogging traffic a mile away. It was the opening of a mosque; women in najibs and men in thawbs.
In time, those priest would most likely minister to an ill gay man.
What would the new mosque disciples do?
@David Barry O'Connor: You are not alone in your views as others in the gay community have said as much to me. I appreciate that you have added your comment here.
Thanks for citing my submitted my comment. My personal rule in the whole - "gay", "queer", homosexual thing is: "My circumstances need not be your pageant". And, by your refeerence, I'm glad to know others of like kind are saying so too.
Have I felt discrimination? Yes, Of course. But it may have had as much to do with the tie I wore, my intimidation or anything else.
Where am I different. When called upon I show up, when I have to do more; damnit I do so.
Oriana Falacci, a cosmopolitian of dynamic renown, with a flutter of gay male friends, posed a point: When did homosexuality become something to reverence on the public's high altar. [(sic) I may have meshed her comment with notions of my own there.)]
Hmnn. Never thought I'd come up with the plural for pollitical gays: A flutter.
Again, thanks for the nod and for expanding the topic.
Post a Comment