preaching part 2*

My response to Linda Harvey's writing titled
"What homosexual marriage will mean to America's children".
My counterpoints are prefixed with an asterisk, the
preceding indented paragraph before each one is an unedited
quote from Linda Harvey's original text.
The text can be found at
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33660




      In many circles, this is the prevailing sentiment regarding the
      possible legalization of same-sex relationships as "marriages"
      in the U.S. If the Supreme Court in the state of Massachusetts
      rules in favor of the homosexual couples who have sued for
      marriage rights, then other states will most likely be forced
      to recognize these couplings as marriages under the Full Faith
      and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

* This is likely. Times change. That which has been the standard
for dozens of years does not rule out the possibility that it has
been false for dozens of years. (Current anti-gay legislation
around the world, the Bible, etc.)


      There's just one problem with this angle: It doesn't take into
      account the impact on children. If same-sex relationships
      become the law of the land, then homosexual marriage will
      be presented to America's schoolchildren as the equivalent
      of heterosexual marriage.

* If you are saying that homosexual marriage is not the
equivalent of heterosexual marriage, then I agree with you.
Probably not for the same reason, though. Homosexual and
heterosexual marriage are, in fact, the same. Neither is an
equivalent of anything, they are the exact same thing. Two
people in love, dedicating their lives for each other. America's
schoolchildren should know that. Knowledge is a considerable
factor in reducing prejudice, and in the long run reducing
prejudice will create a better world for everybody, no matter
what their sexuality.


      Here's how and why it will happen. Right now, the vast
      majority of U.S. public school districts have put themselves
      in a very vulnerable position, one that conservatives have
      been warning about for years but few school boards listened.
      What they've done is add under their non-discrimination policies
      the category of "sexual orientation." It only remains for enough
      time to elapse – and for same-sex marriage to be legalized –
      for "gay" education activists to force schools to implement
      sweeping changes in curricular content.

* "Sweeping" is not a word I would use. But do you understand
that not every person in the world is heterosexual, christian, american,
white and hopes to be married and have a SUV and a dog at some
point in their life? That's what society is teaching our children today,
and schools are in many ways a big part of that. That must be changed.
Diversity is but richness, and we should see that. Just like children
today are being taught that it's ok to be black or tall or short, children
today should be taught that it's ok to be gay or lesbian or bisexual
(to name a few examples). Schools were created to open the minds
of our children to help them become even smarter adults that their
parents were. I said _open their minds_, not build walls to restrict
their thinking.


      Among those changes will be "diverse" textbooks that include
      same-sex couples as role models, even for little children. To
      refuse such content will be considered "discrimination," and
      the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal Defense
      Fund will take that district to court, as they have recently in
      order to force homosexual clubs onto schools. If not those two
      well-heeled groups, then the National Education Association will
      sue, as it has promised, on behalf of any teachers involved.
      Increasingly liberal courts, modeling themselves after the
      Supremes, are pretty likely to rule in favor of such plaintiffs.

* Knowledge is power. We should not try to protect our children from
knowledge. It is not possible to influence a child's sexual preference.
If "diverse" textbooks existed, more kids would no longer be afraid to
acknowledge that they are gay. Sexuality does not cause mental
problems, but repression of sexuality does. It took me years to
comprehend that it's perfectly alright to be gay. I came to that
conclusion on my own. I instinctively knew that people like you were
wrong when they said that homosexuality was bad, but hate propaganda
by people like you was enough to make me afraid of my own sexuality.
I suffered. Your children may or may not be gay, and they may or may
not choose to tell you about it. You should give your children more
credit. They are smarter than you think. Your religious upbringing will
not "spare" them from becoming gay. It will only intimidate them if
they are indeed gay, and they may hate you for it.


      That also goes for the "right" of teachers who are homosexual to
      wear wedding rings, talk about their homosexual spouses with
      students and introduce spouses at school functions. Your little
      Katie will learn in kindergarten that "Mrs." Jones is married to
      another "Mrs." Jones – and that she can grow up and choose
      to do the same if she wishes. It is, after all, her "right."

* Yes, it is. What's your point? If you think anyone is going to "turn
gay" just because it's "acceptable" you're wrong.


      Grade-school and middle-school anti-bias units will now crank
      into high gear the focus on homosexuals and cross-dressers.
      Because marriage is now legalized, children will be persuaded
      in misleading material that anyone who objects to homosexual
      behavior is not simply biased, that person is breaking the law.
      The take-away for students from these shallow lessons will be that
      it is illegal to criticize homosexuality, and every person young or
      old should be protected from the mean conservatives. Standing up
      for equality in America will translate into the freedom to practice
      homosexuality for every student who "discovers" such inclinations.

* There will always be people who object to homosexuality, as there
are, believe it or not, people who object to heterosexuality. Personally
I object to the word sexuality itself, as it implies that there are two
sexes and there are limits and boundaries between them.
There are none. Many fail to see that.

* Standing up for equality in America will translate into the freedom
to practice homosexuality for every student who discovers
such inclinations. I repeated your sentence because it makes my
point, not yours. I removed the quotes from the word 'discovers',
however. I assume you used the quotes to imply that it is possible
to brainwash heterosexual kids into becoming homosexual.
It is not possible.


      Sex education will be required to take into account this new
      form of "family" and abstinence – until – marriage education
      will take a twisted new turn. Suddenly, it will be co-opted by
      Planned Parenthood and other liberal activists with their own
      unique spin. Every student will be taught that, of course,
      abstinence until heterosexual or homosexual marriage is fine
      if that's one's choice. But since pregnancy isn't a danger for
      homosexuals, sex can be a wonderful option for younger and
      younger people – as long as it's carried out "responsibly," of
      course – like brushing one's teeth. To not teach this would be,
      again "discrimination" based on sexual orientation. Condoms
      are always available for those who can't wait. Let's show you
      third-graders how this condom fits on this banana, just so
      you are prepared.

* I'm reading this paragraph over and over in utter disbelief. It feels
like you are not a real person, just a machine that spews out random
prejudices and misinformations about homosexuality. I'm tempted not
to reply to this paragraph, but I don't want to make it seem like I
cannot counter it. Let me work out your implications here, though.
It seems like you're trying to say that you don't approve of condoms.
Have you ever heard of a place called "Africa"? No, it's not a state on
the east coast. Just making sure you know what I'm talking about
since it seems you have grown up in a huge, hollow bible that had no
windows into the outside world. In Africa, the entire continent is
sinking.
A massive portion of the adult population in many countries suffer from
AIDS epidemics. (Yes, through _hetero_sexual unprotected intercourse).
But I suppose you don't care because they're not American? Whatever
happened to the christian view of "loving thy neighbour"? In your
perspective, does "neighbour" only apply to member states?

* Pregnancy is not a danger for homosexuals, you are correct in that
statement. (That's a first.) But condoms should always be used because
they are the only way to protect both gay and straight people from
catching STDs in intercourse. The vast majority of people have for
long been having intercourse before marriage. That will continue to
happen regardless of the influence of laws and religious zealots like
you. That's why it's important to teach our children about condoms.
Would you rather shelter your precious children from this knowledge,
only to have them call you up one day many, many years from now
and have them tell you that they have just been diagnosed as having HIV?


      Expect a whole new crop of young adult novels featuring same-sex
      romance leading to marriage to appear instantly and be adopted
      just as magically by middle-school and high-school language
      departments throughout the U.S. Your 13-year-old Kyle will be
      required to read and give a book report on a novel where Bruce
      and Jason meet, date and get married. What won't be covered is
      how Bruce and Jason split up a year later after cheating on each
      other dozens of times.

* You are showing utter ignorance of what homosexuality is and isn't.
Homosexuality has no - and I repeat and emphasize - _no_ bearing
at all on the personality of anyone, unless the person for whatever
reason wishes for it to be so. You, like many other homophobic
individuals, only associate "intercourse" with the word "homosexual".
Try "relationship" instead. Homosexual couples are just as faithul
(and unfaithful!) to their companions as heterosexual couples. Are
you forgetting that about a half of your "sacred" christian marriages
end in divorce, too?

* As for the example about 13-year-old Kyle reading a book about
a gay romance - was that supposed to be shocking? Maybe your
13-year-old Kyle could teach you a thing or two about what
homosexuality is after reading the book.


      And it gets better (or worse). This stop-gap standard will last for
      just a few years, until the inevitable next piece of the puzzle is
      in place. Hank and Jim will petition the courts to allow Mary, the
      biological mother of "their" adopted child, to become part of their
      marriage. After all, what business does the court have in their
      bedrooms, determining who they have a right to love? Along about
      this same time, Cindy and her partner, Luke (who is really Lucy,
      except that she dresses like a man) will demand that the law
      recognize Luke as a "husband" in spite of her biology. And so will
      emerge the accompanying new curricular materials reflecting the
      legalization of group marriage and transgender unions, making
      sure every U.S. school child knows that these are future options
      for him, her or them.

* This is shock tactics to arouse the conservatives to rally for your
cause. You are just making up nonsense without any basis in reality
at all. Again you make it sound like being gay is a choice, an option.
It's really not. And what is wrong with transgender unions anyway?
Are you so hung up on your christian views of the "sacred" marriage
that you refuse to respect any differing views? Hang on to your dreams
of an universally heterosexual christian world. May I remind you of a
historical person by the name of Hitler, though? Somehow your
"manifesto" here bears resemblance to the dream that Adolf had, of
the supreme arian race. I hope you will be shocked to realize that.


      In such a legal and educational environment, what happens to
      religions that don't believe homosexuality is moral? Will those
      religions and their ancient teachings eventually come before
      some future Supreme Court and be told that they are guilty of
      discrimination? That their beliefs are no longer constitutional
      because of privacy rights?

* What are you talking about? Allow me to use another historical
reference to decipher the message you are transmitting with less
obvious verbiage. The Ku Klux Klan was a religion that didn't believe
being black is moral. (Well, not exactly, but the analogy is not
broken in any case). Are you saying that the KKK should be a
registered, legal and public organization? The Ku Klux Klan is no
different than the Catholic church in this sense. (Quote that!)
The church isn't supporting the idea that homosexuals should be
murdered (or at least we don't know of such plans), but members
of their congrigation do murder homosexuals in the name of their
God. The church will not allow homosexuals to be priests or other
high ranking individuals within the organization. Now, I'm not saying we
should hunt down the catholic church. But I'm saying that limits of law
must be and will be imposed on churches - their practices and preaching.
The church should not be allowed to publicly broadcast hate propaganda
against any human (have you heard of the Westboro Baptist Church?
That's what the KKK is today).

* Think about this quote from Bertrand Russell, and think hard.
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is
not utterly absurd."


      If this sounds like lunacy, it's because it is. What we do in the
      bedroom has always been public, in the form of what we call
      a family. It becomes what we teach and pass on as wisdom to
      our children. And if we aren't sure what "wisdom" entails, by
      golly, the homosexual activists are here to tell us. 

* Indeed we are.
And there's not a damn thing you can do to stop us.
Such is life.