Thursday, June 23, 2011
The Queering of America
By Alan Caruba
Queer, an adjective
1. strange or odd from a conventional viewpoint; unusually different; singular: a queer notion of justice.
2. of a questionable nature or character; suspicious; shady: Something queer about the language of the prospectus kept investors away.
3. not feeling physically right or well; giddy, faint, or qualmish: to feel queer.
Also slang for a male homosexual.
The Obama visit to New York on June 23 included a demonstration by GetEQUAL, a national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) “civil rights organization” and Queer Rising, a New York based grassroots “queer equality organization” at a time when New York State is just one vote away from enacting a law to legalize “gay marriage.”
For millennia marriage has been recognized solely as the union of a man and a woman. No society has ever sanctioned “gay marriage” because to do so would be to undermine the keystone of society, the family.
For the first time in the nation’s history, we have a President who has lent his office to the advancement of the homosexual agenda, though it should be noted that former President Clinton attempted to do that when he tried to alter the military to the open acceptance of homosexuals in its ranks in 1993. After an outcry, this was modified into a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that Congress has since repealed.
Among the “czars” that President Obama appointed was Kevin Jennings, given the title of “Safe Schools Czar” overseeing elements of policy in the Department of Education. Jennings was and is a homosexual activist who will leave his office in July and return to Massachusetts. He has specialized in targeting children with the “gay rights” message through indoctrination in the nation’s schools that is intended to advance acceptance of homosexuality and its permutations as an acceptable lifestyle choice.
Let me pause to say that I have long regarded homosexuality as an abnormality that appears to occur in some people from birth. It is, in that regard, not a choice. Neither, however, is one’s race. I do not discriminate against homosexuals, but I do not accept the destruction of societal norms because some homosexuals demand it.
It is difficult at best to determine how much of the U.S. population is homosexual. As best as I can determine it ranges from one to three percent, with the latter being on the high side of such estimates. For years homosexuals encountered laws that conferred a criminal status on homosexuality. They also encountered many forms of rejection by the greater society.
Those laws have been repealed, but the rejection they encounter represents an increasing backlash as homosexuals have “gone public” to initiate the legalization of “gay marriage” and the introduction of “hate crimes” legislation that conflict with freedoms granted by our Bill of Rights. It has mutated as well into an alleged “anti-bullying” campaign in schools as if bullying has not been a part of every child’s introduction to the fact that bullies exist everywhere in one form or another.
Last year, Jennings helped introduce Bill 4530 in Congress that would require the normalization of homosexuality, transgenderism, cross-dressing, and other practices in the curriculums of our nation’s schools. His office received $410 million in FY 2011.
In California there is a bill moving forward to actively portray homosexuality in a positive fashion including a provision that textbooks must include figures and events in gay history. Former Governor Schwartzenegger vetoed the bill but Gov. Jerry Brown has indicated he would sign it if it passes this year. I am pretty sure this is not what the majority of Californians want their children to learn, nor is it a fit topic to teach.
On top of national initiatives, the United Nations Human Rights Council has passed a resolution condemning discrimination based on sexual orientation. Given that homosexuality is a crime in 76 nations this seems a reasonable step toward protecting those who, as I have noted, have no choice in the matter of their sexual orientation. It is, however, just a resolution, not a law.
I can speak only for myself, but I find all this activity to legalize “gay marriage” and to introduce a gay agenda into the curriculums in the nation’s schools a distinct threat to the fabric of a society based on the undisputed normality of heterosexuality. I am pretty sure the “straight” citizens of Boston and elsewhere find it offensive to host a gay parade.
I believe the greater society has a right to protect itself, its children and its military forces against these legislative intrusions, mandates and coercions to force acceptance upon it. If it continues, it will become one more factor in the destruction of America, a signal that its moral foundations continue to be eroded.
Candidates for elected office and those holding such offices should be challenged and removed when they advocate and vote for the queering of America.
© Alan Caruba, 2011
Posted by Alan Caruba at 2:43 PM
Labels: gay marrage, homosexuality, US education
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Thank God Kevin Jennings just resigned. He was not by any stretch of the imagination safe.
Excellent article, Alan!
It is clear to all American Patriots that the homosexual agenda is a creation of American Socialism (AMSOC) designed to destroy the family.
All socialists hate the family, as they want all personal and family loyalty to go to the State.
In fact, if they could do it - the Left would outlaw love between man and woman. The only marriages approved would be loveless unions for the production of good little socialists without an anti-PC thought in their tiny heads.
Yes, Big Brother is a jealous god!
So, for a millennium, marriage was recognized as between a man and a woman? Do you not read the Bible? No, really, I'm serious. It's full of stories where a man was married to multiple women. Jacob, Leah, and Rachel come to mind offhand. In fact, many societies practiced polygamy, and although rare, even polyandry. Or how about more recent times where it was illegal for African-American slaves to marry without the consent of their masters. Or how about when it was illegal to marry outside of your own race. If you want to protect the sanctity of marriage, why don't you start with adultery. Why don't you write to politicians who publicly cheat on their wives? Why don't you attack reality television shows such as The Bachelor for making a mockery of marriage? Or is all that acceptable so long as it is male/female?
@Erin. Yes, marriage is intended to be solely between men and women.
Last time I checked a Bible the story was about Adam and EVE...
Adam and STEVE is a modern day San Fran version of creation I guess..
I won't go into detail of what kind of creature results from a homosexual coupling, use your imagination..
Does it have horns and a tail?
Alan: I believe each to their own. I'm not against gays per se - most are born that way and really can't help which sex they favor. However, I am against this anti-social concept of gay marriage. If gays want to 'marry' then they can go the civil-union route. Marriage is between a man and a woman and should be respected. Sure, not all marriages work out, but that's human nature. Homosexuals pushing for marriage are a group not to be trusted. They want to 'normalise' their sexual deviation and appear 'normal', when they are not. It is a clear attack on what marriage stands for and will futher break-down the traditional family - morally and culturally. As I get older, I appreciate what family is all about and it is not having 2 dads or 2 moms!
Checked out Erin's blog.
She is very young, a "single mother", she is idealistic, and profoundly stupid. Those are the kindest words I can use to describe her utter lack of intellect, vacuous is another adjective that comes to mind. Unfortunately, profound stupidity seems to be a typical trait of those her age.
I would say god help us all, but I don't believe there is one.
The spirit of the anti-Christ:
36. And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
First of all, great article. You have explained my own sentiment about gay marriage and the homosexual propaganda being pushed upon our children.
If I may mention Erin's comment. Yes, in the Bible there were early examples of polygamy. Later, Scripture addressed this issue clearly. I'd suggest researching it for yourself. However, your argument is elementary. In fact, it clearly doesn't connect with the case that Mr. Caruba was making; polygamy, marrying outside of your own race, adultery, masters impregnating their slaves. What does any of that have to do with indoctrinating our children and normalizing the "sexual" behaviors of those who would rather have sex with someone of their own gender? Are you suggesting we should just ignore this problem like those in the past did? Would you suggest the practice of pedophilia ought to be ignored as well?
As for Conway, profound stupidity is not a trait associated with age as much as it is associated with a lack of learning and synthesizing one's experiencing as they get older. But yes, I'm not certain how old she is, but her entire post is "vacuous". ;) I'm only 29, but I'd like to think I have a brain that computes common sense. Then again, I'd like to think. ;)
Many of my cousins are homosexuals, and I love them deeply. But homosexuality is a deviation from the normalcy of heterosexual reproduction as Mr. Caruba stated. We should not be expected to allow the government or anyone else to change that definition of what is "normal", especially when it contends with morality. This does not constitute hatred or intolerance. Quite the contrary. It constitutes a profound respect for the sanctity of marriage. No one is questioning whether or not someone can be openly homosexual. However, to adopt a hostile, militant attitude against heterosexual tenants within our society, the ones that secure an ongoing legacy of future generations, is to intend to destroy any moral or spiritual fabric that we have left.
Post a Comment