Sex Information & Education Council of the U.S. (S.I.E.C.U.S.)
The organization describes itself as "a national, nonprofit organization which affirms that sexuality is a natural and healthy part of living. Incorporated in 1964, SIECUS develops, collects, and disseminates information, promotes comprehensive education about sexuality, and advocates the right of individuals to make responsible sexual choices." (SIECUS web site: www.siecus.org)
SIECUS advocates abortion, masturbation, and homosexuality, and actively promotes its agenda in the classroom, usurping parental control and undermining the family unit.
How does SIECUS promote its values ?
SIECUS promotes its beliefs by infiltrating the educational system, including elementary and secondary schools, with its agenda. The organization's web site, at www.siecus.com, states:
"A comprehensive sexuality program will respect the diversity of values and beliefs represented in the community..."
What does SIECUS believe ?
According to the organization's own web site, SIECUS holds the following positions on major sexuality issues:
On Parental Involvement :
- SIECUS usurps the role of parents in sex education, and approves of providing adolescents with contraceptives, without parental knowledge, according to statements at its web site:
"While it is generally desirable for parents to be involved in their children's contraceptive decisions, the right of each person to confidentiality and privacy in receiving contraceptive information, counseling, and services is paramount."
On Homosexuality :
- SIECUS is partial to homosexuality and believes it should be legally protected as a civil right.
- Consider the following Position Statements of SIECUS regarding sexuality and religion, posted at its web site:
"Religious groups and spiritual leaders can helpfully involve themselves in sexuality education and in promoting the sexual health of their constituents, including those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual.... professional guidance can assist religious leaders in how best to minister to their constituents regarding their sexual needs. It is important for religious institutions to minister and allow full religious participation to individuals who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual."
"Individuals have the right to accept, acknowledge, and live in accordance with their sexual orientation, be they bisexual, heterosexual, gay or lesbian. The legal system should guarantee the civil rights and protection of all people, regardless of sexual orientation."
On Abortion :
- SIECUS believes abortion is a "right" of women:
"Every woman, regardless of age or income, should have the right to obtain an abortion ... and at a reasonable cost."
On Pornography :
- SIECUS defends pornography, according to statements posted at its web site:
"Adults should have the right of access to sexually explicit materials for personal use. Legislative and judicial efforts to prevent the production or distribution of sexually explicit materials endanger constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and press ..."
On Masturbation :
- SIECUS promotes the use of masturbation, according to statements posted at its web site:
"Masturbation is a natural, common, and nonharmful means of sexual self-pleasuring that is engaged in by individuals of all ages, sexual orientations, and levels of functioning. It can be a way of becoming comfortable with one's body and enjoying one's sexuality, whether or not in a sexual relationship. No one should be made to feel guilty for choosing or not choosing to masturbate..."
The late Mary S. Calderone, M.D., M.P.H., co-founder and president of SIECUS for many years, previously was former medical director of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the largest abortion provider in the world. "What Margaret Sanger did for birth control and Rachel Carson for the environment, Dr. Calderone has done for sex education," wrote People Magazine.
-------------------------------------
A.W.A.R.E. collaborated with S.I.E.C.U.S. and used their material to teach our school children with a good example being the “school C.S.E.” sex education programme.
What kind of Women's organization is this that espouses to fight for Women's rights in Singapore but also knowingly collaborate with such an organization with such stated aims. That shows that no matter how they try to get back into society, they will continue to try to fight for gay rights and create conditions espoused by S.I.E.C.U.S. in Singapore.
------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread: Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are
In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda"
- Helloooooooo ! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call !
Music Playlist 1
Showing posts with label The Gay Agenda. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Gay Agenda. Show all posts
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
A Letter From Thio Li-Ann In Rebuttal Of A Gay Supporter
1. I am a little tired of the torrent of abuse and defamation that I have been receiving, and blatant emotive misrepresentations of my position. I was going to stay above the fray but given this insidious attack on my academic reputation (aside from many ad hominem insults), I feel I must cast some clarity on certain issues.
2. Let me clarify some issues. I do not know if Mr Graves-Pryor is trying to be incendiary by suggesting I am racist or if he is trying to lump all forms of what he calls “discrimination” together and so to incite hatred towards me. As a woman and a person of colour, I find this incredibly offensive. As an Asian, I find this bullying and rage makes me wonder about the state of both academic freedom and civil discourse in the US – I was unaware that you had to subscribe to a certain orthodoxy before one could be welcomed into a certain academic community, as Mr. Graves-Pryor seems to be insinuating. As a scholar, I would point out that the norm prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is one that is
(a) very much depends on the issue at stake i.e. which right is being contended for and
(b) is not universally accepted as a matter of law, though it is probably universally contended for as a matter of politics. It is neither an “Asian” nor “Western” issue,it is something contested within all societies, including the US, though admittedly, a minority opinion in most law schools.
3. I am tired of the insinuations that I am in favour of oppressing any community in Singapore or elsewhere. I think an appreciation of the context of Singapore and of the truth of things is needed. The law on sodomy is a law on the books and was kept on the books after full free and very robust democratic debate. It has since been exercised a few times, to my knowledge. The government applies it with restraint and has adhered to its policy that it will not be pro-active (for example, in the 1980s there used to be police operations in public places where homosex activities were known to be taking place). In Singapore, people do not really care whether someone is homosexual or not, as we tend to look at the merit of a person, for example, in the workplace. I would be the first to oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or ideological persuasion in the my own academic environment. It is the truth or strength of an idea that counts in scholarship and teaching, and we teach, we do not propagate one ideology. Perhaps things are done differently in a foreign land. My own view, and the way I conduct my classes, is to subject any topic to scrutiny, presented as an object of analysis rather than one of allegiance or affection. People will have their own opinions as opinions are cheap and easy to have. But my task as a professor is to subject things to academic interrogation and let people draw their own conclusions.
4. I have colleagues and students who identify themselves as homosexual. Some are hostile to the views I have expressed as a politician, some are hurt (and I have had really difficult conversations with such students whom I greatly liked as individuals, who expressed their disappointment at me for my views but I had to point out that everyone is entitled to their convictions which are complicated things. Some understand and know I respect them as people and some do not want to have conversations with me anymore. That is their prerogative)
5. That said, there is in Singapore a great concern when activists campaign to change social norms and to equate heterosexuality with homosexuality as a basis for changing policies and cultural understandings. If you wish to enter into the free marketplace of ideas, you must contend with opposing views. As must I. What I object to is the colouring of any principled moral opposition to homosexuality as “bigoted” and ignorance or “hatred”. What I find ironical are the tactics of those who call themselves “oppressed” to oppress. Some activists have no qualms in destroying reputation, insulting, slandering those who do not agree with their political agenda.
6. I have friends who identify as ex-gay. They point out to me that the homosexual community is the most vicious when they try to speak out. What about this oppressed minority group? One of them said to me: If they have a right to sexual orientation, do I not have the right to sexual re-orientation? All they get is vilification and abuse and charges that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ and it is a fallacy to believe they can seek to mute unwanted same-sex attractions if that is their choice. I appreciate this is a controversial matter, but that is the point. It is controversial and unsettled. What I see as a scholar is an attempt by one side to censor another out of ideological preferences. That is intolerant and totalitarian. It is the attempt to impose a dogma about a theory of human good and nature in the name of a fake ‘liberal neutrality’ which is in fact a substantive and contested ideology, even if it is the ideology of preference to many in western democracies.
7. I trust that members of the academic community appreciate that in matters of public morality, as oppose to commercial legal frameworks, one is apt to find the greatest divergence of values on a global level though there are convergent trends as well. The Singapore government takes a pragmatic stance towards the issue of homosexuality. While I do not think anyone should lose their job because of sexual orientation (as this is irrelevant to the performance of the job), I would not support for example, same-sex marriage which is also based on a discrimination against sexual orientation paradigm. Sexual orientation is relevant to the institution of marriage. What A sees as an equality issue (and that is a substantive argument masquerading as a formal one), B see as an issue the definition of ‘marriage’ or ‘family.’ It is a substantive issue. Is there only one view in relation to moral controversies? Or, may only one view be taught at a law school while competing views are snickered at on the basis of a false intellectuality?
8. Homosexuals in Singapore are by and large affluent and literate; building developers target high quality residences for their consumption. They have space to lead quiet lives which is what most of us want. They are basically left alone in practice. However, when you enter the public arena and demand to change social norms, which others resist, do you expect a walkover? When reasoned arguments are presented against the homosexualism agenda, which any citizen in a democracy is entitled to do, what happens? Homosex activists hurl abuse, death threats. They have demonstrated nothing but abuse towards their detractors. This is not the way to win respect. This is not conducive to sustainable democracy in the long-term. I argue it is a horizontal chilling of speech by the most malicious of methods. Homosex activists may see it as a “rights” issues (and I have academic friends and feminists who disagree “sharply” with my viewpoints but refuse to vilify me because they know who I am and respect me as a scholar), others see it as a matter of a “goods” issue, about the nature of public morality and social norms. And these debates are played out on a global basis.
9. I appreciate I am in a minority in the context of US academia for holding this view, but does this then disqualify me as immoral (let me say what Mr. Graves-Pryor considers immoral, others recognise as highly moral, principled as well as the need to have moral courage to articulate views which elicit vicious responses) and “unfit to teach human rights?” That’s libel. Mr Graves-Pryor is wrong to assume that expressing viewpoints that attract vitriolic attacks is an opinion held “without repercussion.” Does he appreciate the repercussions I have sustained to my academic reputation for my political views expressed in the context of parliamentary debates in an independent country? I have paid the cost for my convictions and principles. Is he now wanting to be my debtor?
10. Now, as a scholar, I have not written about homosexuality and the law in any direct sense. Simply because it is not a research interest of mine, or has not been up till now. It is also an area which attracts a great deal of personal attack, which no sane person invites, as this current furore shows. The only time I can think of where I indirectly referenced it in a law review article was in relation to issues of definition and how one identifies a ‘human right.’ That is, is a human right natural, is it a subject of political preference, an object of political capture? If human rights are meant to be universal, why is there so much local resistance? Is same sex marriage, for instance, a human right? Some may like it to be as a matter of personal conviction or politics, but it is not a global right, certainly not a customary international law norm, though there have been treaty-based interpretations of it e.g. ICCPR and ECHR jurisprudence. That is how I teach the subject.
I see it as a regional legal right, a contested one at the UN (though as a scholar, I will observe that the dominant view is to see sexual orientation as a right without defining the broad term) and a constitutional/ civic rights issue in many countries, particularly those in western liberal democracies (though not limited to the ‘West’). For example, the Delhi High Court recently interpreted a sodomy law as unconstitutional, but that is limited to the state of Delhi and the next day, a famous guru took out a motion to challenge this. This shows that it has become a politicised issue of significance in India but it also shows the sharp divergences of views in that country. This is how I teach. I examine views of both sides. I let my students make up their minds. I do not evangelise my students into one way of thinking as I know some professors do, perhaps because they hold different views about teaching and the role of an academic. People will disagree.
As a scholar, I adhere to the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side). As a Singapore citizen, I will defend my right to speak to my domestic politics. As a politician, when I was in the House, I did. I may have opinions about the US but I do not have the standing to speak to American politics. I do not presume to. Do Americans then presume to speak to Singapore politics? Of course they can express opinions, an the internet age facilitates the free spread of ideas, but
I would say, butt out, let Singaporeans debate it amongst ourselves. We have brains.
We do not wish to be neo-colonised. And if you think that the homosexual community is oppressed in this way, you speak from ignorance. The government of Singapore may be politically controlling in many areas pertaining to actual political power, but it takes a fairly hands off view on matters of public morality.
11. I am deeply offended at Mr. Graves-Pryor characterisation of me / my views as immoral. I disagree with his views but I do not threaten his job. I am offended by the insinuations of some that I am unable to teach in a manner which reflects both intellectual integrity and basic courtesy to colleagues and students, particularly those with “sharply disagreeing” views. Perhaps this is a function of American law schools where classrooms become political platforms rather than venues of academic enquiry. I do not know, I have no first hand experience.
12. I am disappointed at the basic lack of reciprocity. When some NYU professors come to Singapore and articulate views which may be disagreeable to official policy of the government, or the views of academic colleagues, we afford them the basic courtesy in the interests of authentic intellectual exchange, to express their views. We do not allow a song and dance and vicious attacks to be made on them. Perhaps, (some) Asians are more polite after all.
13. I was invited to NYU by the Law School. I was honoured by this recognition of my academic scholarship. I looked forward to meeting a new community of scholars of a respected institution. Now my ‘colourful’ political views have been “outed” so to speak (it is old to me, I have already gone through a local round of abuse in 2007, death threats and other acts of viciousness) and I have been roundly insulted and attacked. This is how you treat your visitors? Do you mean only those with acceptable political views or those who keep their political views personal for fear of such vicious responses are to be entertained? You will breed academic cowardice and a paralyzing homogenisation if this is the case. I am not suggesting that NYU in fact does this, I am merely pointing out the logical consequences of this kind of action / reaction / inaction.
14. I am tired of this obsessive and narcissitic obsession with ONE of the speeches I made during my 2.5 years tenure in Parliament. Perhaps my detractors would like to review the range of my speeches, from organ donation to foreign workers to women’s rights to by-election motions to the right to vote, before they so readily condemn me. Perhaps they would like to review my academic record before sitting in judgment, with such hubris and incivility. Perhaps they need to reflect that the ‘culture wars’ are called ‘wars’ for a reason but that they can model reasoned and civil discourse rather than perpetuate a culture of vulgarity and violence.
15. What seems to be getting activists in a twist is my speech in support of the government’s stance to retain the sodomy law. Please note, it was not even up for discussion until another MP raised it in a specific targeted parliamentary petition, full of fine sounding rhetoric and little substance. This matter was debated in Singapore for months. I played my role in the democratic process by uttering the views of the majority of Singaporeans. Most MPs who spoke to it supported the retention of the law. They recognise Singapore is a socially conservative society and were faithfully expressing the views of their constituents, to rebut the homosex activist campaigners who also had their mouthpiece in Parliament. Anyone concerned with the democratisation of Singapore society should view this as a progressive step. Anyone only concerned with their agenda will of course only seek to attack their detractors. But then, is politics about the common good or just partisan agendas? Is this not a fit subject to academic enquiry?
I had the support of the vast majority of the House as well (though of course, it may surprise you, there are dissenting voices in Parliament and even within the ruling party). After the debate, many were grateful that I had not bowed down to the intimidatory tactics of the homosexual community and been their voice. Many within and without the House came to thank me personally. Some weeping. Many were concerned with my welfare after the flurry of vicious attacks I received after the speech, as they recognised how vile many were. I am sure Mr Graves-Pryor will say: serves you right for speaking such bigoted views. I wonder whether he sees the bigotry and intolerant ‘tolerance’ in that kind of reaction and the double standards rife in this type of discourse? I am against physical violence towards all people as a fundamental norm, but ironically, those who paint themselves as advocates of personal liberty have no hesitation in squelching mine. Lets be tolerant but not tolerate whom we consider intolerant. That is totalitarianism by any other name
16. Now, I do not expect you to agree with my views. But does Mr. Graves-Pryor expect me to conform with his? What bullying. But that is something I have come to recognise as a common tactic of some activists. This is in fact a threat to a free society, whether to equality of citizenship, religious freedom and free speech.
17. Mr Graves-Pryor and I am sure, many in the NYU community may dislike the tenor of my speech, but it boils down in substance to differing conceptions of the common good and the good life, over epistemology, ethics, morality. And let me put things in context
a. I am not a member of the Singapore government. I am not in the position to “oppress” anyone. I am in the position as an individual, to be oppressed. Which is what has happened.
b. My support for what you sir may consider an oppressive law is a function of my right to speak to matters of law and policy as a Singapore citizen and as I was then, a member of Parliament.
c. My objection is not to gay people; it is towards the nature of the homosexual political agenda and the vicious and degrading tactics of some activists. I say “some” because there were gays in Singapore who (a) agree that homosexuality should not be mainstreamed or coercively taught as having moral equivalence with heterosexuality as a social norm) (b) disagree with me but reject the tactics of insult and death threats.
d. Does Mr Graves-Pryor believe that someone should be fired because they are gay? Or that someone should be subject to heterosexual sensitivity training to ‘cure’ their ‘deviant’ beliefs? Of course not. Now, does Mr Graves-Pryor believe that someone should be fired because they believe heterosexuality and family values (yes, we can debate ‘family’) should be socially supported and the social norm? Or that someone should be subject to homosex sensitivity training because they believe heterosexuality to be the norm?
e. One reason I spoke out as clearly as I did was because that was my constitutional function, to bring forth an alternative view. I am not a professional politician. I am interested in the soundness of argument rather than perception. I am aware of how politicised this issue is and how emotion drives most of the argument, particularly on the side of those who denigrate their detractors as emotional, while manifesting that same trait. That comes from my training as an academic.
f. Another reason is frankly, a tiredness with this sort of bullying towards anyone who opposes the gay agenda. (And I know gays who oppose the gay agenda). One of my colleagues, an untenured professor, wrote an Op Ed supporting the retention of the sodomy law and the policy of non active enforcement. An argument raised was that law has an educative function in signalling social mores.
Removing the law would signal a different set of values that colleague was opposed to. What happened? That colleague received a torrent of abuse. People wrote to our dean demanding that colleague
(a) be removed from her job
(b) be subjected to homosex sensitivity training
(c) be required to teach pro-gay cases from abroad (which in fact were referenced in lectures while not celebrated).
We do not tolerate such self-righteous intolerance in Singapore. At stake is genuine academic freedom and civil discourse. Who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor in this context? Or does an unrelenting hubris occlude the ability to see the truth of things in different contexts?
18. I wonder whether Mr. Graves-Pryor bothered to read the entirety of my speech and to appreciate the context and the fact that I will not let any of my junior colleagues be bullied by intemperate activism if I can help it. I also wonder whether Mr. Graves Pryor saw the bottom line in my parliamentary speech which was and remains this: “As fellow citizens, homosexuals are entitled to expect decent treatment from the rest of us; but they have no right to insist we surrender our fundamental moral beliefs so they can feel comfortable about their sexual behaviour.” I am sure it will not go far enough for him or those who share his views in this politics of identity. This disagreement is socially magnified many times.
If the NYU law community is unable to welcome me because of my convictions, they should say so. I am sure many faculty members are doing some soul-searching, perhaps regretting their original invitation. I am not naive. But just reflect on how this makes me feel. I do not feel welcomed as a person; I feel unfairly treated and greatly disrespected.
Would any academic (who is reasonably sane) want to go into a situation where hatred of a person, as oppose to “sharp disagreement” with their views, is the order of the day? Mr Graves-Pryor and those who share his views have succeeded in communicating their extreme disapproval of me / my views. They may rejoice in speaking freely, as the US Constitution protects, while seeking to intimidate others from exercising that same right through intimidation and abuse. I maintain my disagreement with their views and the viciousness of expression but this is perhaps to be expected, given the intractable nature of law and profound moral disagreement where an overlapping consensus is not possible or elusive.
If NYU Law as an institution is committed to a genuine diversity of viewpoints and respectful interlocution, it would be an institution I would be honoured to be given the privilege to teach at. If not, then be frank and say so.
Dean, if you wish to circulate my views and clarifications to the faculty, that is your prerogative. I have no desire to come into a hostile working environment where people believe half truths and false insinuations about me. If they wish to dislike me or my views, let it be for the views that I actually hold, not the ones maliciously imputed to me.
I remain respectfully,
Li-ann Thio
------------------------------
Even in USA, she's fighting a battle against the House of Mr S.A.Tan.
------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread: Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are
In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Helloooooooo ! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call !
2. Let me clarify some issues. I do not know if Mr Graves-Pryor is trying to be incendiary by suggesting I am racist or if he is trying to lump all forms of what he calls “discrimination” together and so to incite hatred towards me. As a woman and a person of colour, I find this incredibly offensive. As an Asian, I find this bullying and rage makes me wonder about the state of both academic freedom and civil discourse in the US – I was unaware that you had to subscribe to a certain orthodoxy before one could be welcomed into a certain academic community, as Mr. Graves-Pryor seems to be insinuating. As a scholar, I would point out that the norm prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is one that is
(a) very much depends on the issue at stake i.e. which right is being contended for and
(b) is not universally accepted as a matter of law, though it is probably universally contended for as a matter of politics. It is neither an “Asian” nor “Western” issue,it is something contested within all societies, including the US, though admittedly, a minority opinion in most law schools.
3. I am tired of the insinuations that I am in favour of oppressing any community in Singapore or elsewhere. I think an appreciation of the context of Singapore and of the truth of things is needed. The law on sodomy is a law on the books and was kept on the books after full free and very robust democratic debate. It has since been exercised a few times, to my knowledge. The government applies it with restraint and has adhered to its policy that it will not be pro-active (for example, in the 1980s there used to be police operations in public places where homosex activities were known to be taking place). In Singapore, people do not really care whether someone is homosexual or not, as we tend to look at the merit of a person, for example, in the workplace. I would be the first to oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or ideological persuasion in the my own academic environment. It is the truth or strength of an idea that counts in scholarship and teaching, and we teach, we do not propagate one ideology. Perhaps things are done differently in a foreign land. My own view, and the way I conduct my classes, is to subject any topic to scrutiny, presented as an object of analysis rather than one of allegiance or affection. People will have their own opinions as opinions are cheap and easy to have. But my task as a professor is to subject things to academic interrogation and let people draw their own conclusions.
4. I have colleagues and students who identify themselves as homosexual. Some are hostile to the views I have expressed as a politician, some are hurt (and I have had really difficult conversations with such students whom I greatly liked as individuals, who expressed their disappointment at me for my views but I had to point out that everyone is entitled to their convictions which are complicated things. Some understand and know I respect them as people and some do not want to have conversations with me anymore. That is their prerogative)
5. That said, there is in Singapore a great concern when activists campaign to change social norms and to equate heterosexuality with homosexuality as a basis for changing policies and cultural understandings. If you wish to enter into the free marketplace of ideas, you must contend with opposing views. As must I. What I object to is the colouring of any principled moral opposition to homosexuality as “bigoted” and ignorance or “hatred”. What I find ironical are the tactics of those who call themselves “oppressed” to oppress. Some activists have no qualms in destroying reputation, insulting, slandering those who do not agree with their political agenda.
6. I have friends who identify as ex-gay. They point out to me that the homosexual community is the most vicious when they try to speak out. What about this oppressed minority group? One of them said to me: If they have a right to sexual orientation, do I not have the right to sexual re-orientation? All they get is vilification and abuse and charges that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ and it is a fallacy to believe they can seek to mute unwanted same-sex attractions if that is their choice. I appreciate this is a controversial matter, but that is the point. It is controversial and unsettled. What I see as a scholar is an attempt by one side to censor another out of ideological preferences. That is intolerant and totalitarian. It is the attempt to impose a dogma about a theory of human good and nature in the name of a fake ‘liberal neutrality’ which is in fact a substantive and contested ideology, even if it is the ideology of preference to many in western democracies.
7. I trust that members of the academic community appreciate that in matters of public morality, as oppose to commercial legal frameworks, one is apt to find the greatest divergence of values on a global level though there are convergent trends as well. The Singapore government takes a pragmatic stance towards the issue of homosexuality. While I do not think anyone should lose their job because of sexual orientation (as this is irrelevant to the performance of the job), I would not support for example, same-sex marriage which is also based on a discrimination against sexual orientation paradigm. Sexual orientation is relevant to the institution of marriage. What A sees as an equality issue (and that is a substantive argument masquerading as a formal one), B see as an issue the definition of ‘marriage’ or ‘family.’ It is a substantive issue. Is there only one view in relation to moral controversies? Or, may only one view be taught at a law school while competing views are snickered at on the basis of a false intellectuality?
8. Homosexuals in Singapore are by and large affluent and literate; building developers target high quality residences for their consumption. They have space to lead quiet lives which is what most of us want. They are basically left alone in practice. However, when you enter the public arena and demand to change social norms, which others resist, do you expect a walkover? When reasoned arguments are presented against the homosexualism agenda, which any citizen in a democracy is entitled to do, what happens? Homosex activists hurl abuse, death threats. They have demonstrated nothing but abuse towards their detractors. This is not the way to win respect. This is not conducive to sustainable democracy in the long-term. I argue it is a horizontal chilling of speech by the most malicious of methods. Homosex activists may see it as a “rights” issues (and I have academic friends and feminists who disagree “sharply” with my viewpoints but refuse to vilify me because they know who I am and respect me as a scholar), others see it as a matter of a “goods” issue, about the nature of public morality and social norms. And these debates are played out on a global basis.
9. I appreciate I am in a minority in the context of US academia for holding this view, but does this then disqualify me as immoral (let me say what Mr. Graves-Pryor considers immoral, others recognise as highly moral, principled as well as the need to have moral courage to articulate views which elicit vicious responses) and “unfit to teach human rights?” That’s libel. Mr Graves-Pryor is wrong to assume that expressing viewpoints that attract vitriolic attacks is an opinion held “without repercussion.” Does he appreciate the repercussions I have sustained to my academic reputation for my political views expressed in the context of parliamentary debates in an independent country? I have paid the cost for my convictions and principles. Is he now wanting to be my debtor?
10. Now, as a scholar, I have not written about homosexuality and the law in any direct sense. Simply because it is not a research interest of mine, or has not been up till now. It is also an area which attracts a great deal of personal attack, which no sane person invites, as this current furore shows. The only time I can think of where I indirectly referenced it in a law review article was in relation to issues of definition and how one identifies a ‘human right.’ That is, is a human right natural, is it a subject of political preference, an object of political capture? If human rights are meant to be universal, why is there so much local resistance? Is same sex marriage, for instance, a human right? Some may like it to be as a matter of personal conviction or politics, but it is not a global right, certainly not a customary international law norm, though there have been treaty-based interpretations of it e.g. ICCPR and ECHR jurisprudence. That is how I teach the subject.
I see it as a regional legal right, a contested one at the UN (though as a scholar, I will observe that the dominant view is to see sexual orientation as a right without defining the broad term) and a constitutional/ civic rights issue in many countries, particularly those in western liberal democracies (though not limited to the ‘West’). For example, the Delhi High Court recently interpreted a sodomy law as unconstitutional, but that is limited to the state of Delhi and the next day, a famous guru took out a motion to challenge this. This shows that it has become a politicised issue of significance in India but it also shows the sharp divergences of views in that country. This is how I teach. I examine views of both sides. I let my students make up their minds. I do not evangelise my students into one way of thinking as I know some professors do, perhaps because they hold different views about teaching and the role of an academic. People will disagree.
As a scholar, I adhere to the principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side). As a Singapore citizen, I will defend my right to speak to my domestic politics. As a politician, when I was in the House, I did. I may have opinions about the US but I do not have the standing to speak to American politics. I do not presume to. Do Americans then presume to speak to Singapore politics? Of course they can express opinions, an the internet age facilitates the free spread of ideas, but
I would say, butt out, let Singaporeans debate it amongst ourselves. We have brains.
We do not wish to be neo-colonised. And if you think that the homosexual community is oppressed in this way, you speak from ignorance. The government of Singapore may be politically controlling in many areas pertaining to actual political power, but it takes a fairly hands off view on matters of public morality.
11. I am deeply offended at Mr. Graves-Pryor characterisation of me / my views as immoral. I disagree with his views but I do not threaten his job. I am offended by the insinuations of some that I am unable to teach in a manner which reflects both intellectual integrity and basic courtesy to colleagues and students, particularly those with “sharply disagreeing” views. Perhaps this is a function of American law schools where classrooms become political platforms rather than venues of academic enquiry. I do not know, I have no first hand experience.
12. I am disappointed at the basic lack of reciprocity. When some NYU professors come to Singapore and articulate views which may be disagreeable to official policy of the government, or the views of academic colleagues, we afford them the basic courtesy in the interests of authentic intellectual exchange, to express their views. We do not allow a song and dance and vicious attacks to be made on them. Perhaps, (some) Asians are more polite after all.
13. I was invited to NYU by the Law School. I was honoured by this recognition of my academic scholarship. I looked forward to meeting a new community of scholars of a respected institution. Now my ‘colourful’ political views have been “outed” so to speak (it is old to me, I have already gone through a local round of abuse in 2007, death threats and other acts of viciousness) and I have been roundly insulted and attacked. This is how you treat your visitors? Do you mean only those with acceptable political views or those who keep their political views personal for fear of such vicious responses are to be entertained? You will breed academic cowardice and a paralyzing homogenisation if this is the case. I am not suggesting that NYU in fact does this, I am merely pointing out the logical consequences of this kind of action / reaction / inaction.
14. I am tired of this obsessive and narcissitic obsession with ONE of the speeches I made during my 2.5 years tenure in Parliament. Perhaps my detractors would like to review the range of my speeches, from organ donation to foreign workers to women’s rights to by-election motions to the right to vote, before they so readily condemn me. Perhaps they would like to review my academic record before sitting in judgment, with such hubris and incivility. Perhaps they need to reflect that the ‘culture wars’ are called ‘wars’ for a reason but that they can model reasoned and civil discourse rather than perpetuate a culture of vulgarity and violence.
15. What seems to be getting activists in a twist is my speech in support of the government’s stance to retain the sodomy law. Please note, it was not even up for discussion until another MP raised it in a specific targeted parliamentary petition, full of fine sounding rhetoric and little substance. This matter was debated in Singapore for months. I played my role in the democratic process by uttering the views of the majority of Singaporeans. Most MPs who spoke to it supported the retention of the law. They recognise Singapore is a socially conservative society and were faithfully expressing the views of their constituents, to rebut the homosex activist campaigners who also had their mouthpiece in Parliament. Anyone concerned with the democratisation of Singapore society should view this as a progressive step. Anyone only concerned with their agenda will of course only seek to attack their detractors. But then, is politics about the common good or just partisan agendas? Is this not a fit subject to academic enquiry?
I had the support of the vast majority of the House as well (though of course, it may surprise you, there are dissenting voices in Parliament and even within the ruling party). After the debate, many were grateful that I had not bowed down to the intimidatory tactics of the homosexual community and been their voice. Many within and without the House came to thank me personally. Some weeping. Many were concerned with my welfare after the flurry of vicious attacks I received after the speech, as they recognised how vile many were. I am sure Mr Graves-Pryor will say: serves you right for speaking such bigoted views. I wonder whether he sees the bigotry and intolerant ‘tolerance’ in that kind of reaction and the double standards rife in this type of discourse? I am against physical violence towards all people as a fundamental norm, but ironically, those who paint themselves as advocates of personal liberty have no hesitation in squelching mine. Lets be tolerant but not tolerate whom we consider intolerant. That is totalitarianism by any other name
16. Now, I do not expect you to agree with my views. But does Mr. Graves-Pryor expect me to conform with his? What bullying. But that is something I have come to recognise as a common tactic of some activists. This is in fact a threat to a free society, whether to equality of citizenship, religious freedom and free speech.
17. Mr Graves-Pryor and I am sure, many in the NYU community may dislike the tenor of my speech, but it boils down in substance to differing conceptions of the common good and the good life, over epistemology, ethics, morality. And let me put things in context
a. I am not a member of the Singapore government. I am not in the position to “oppress” anyone. I am in the position as an individual, to be oppressed. Which is what has happened.
b. My support for what you sir may consider an oppressive law is a function of my right to speak to matters of law and policy as a Singapore citizen and as I was then, a member of Parliament.
c. My objection is not to gay people; it is towards the nature of the homosexual political agenda and the vicious and degrading tactics of some activists. I say “some” because there were gays in Singapore who (a) agree that homosexuality should not be mainstreamed or coercively taught as having moral equivalence with heterosexuality as a social norm) (b) disagree with me but reject the tactics of insult and death threats.
d. Does Mr Graves-Pryor believe that someone should be fired because they are gay? Or that someone should be subject to heterosexual sensitivity training to ‘cure’ their ‘deviant’ beliefs? Of course not. Now, does Mr Graves-Pryor believe that someone should be fired because they believe heterosexuality and family values (yes, we can debate ‘family’) should be socially supported and the social norm? Or that someone should be subject to homosex sensitivity training because they believe heterosexuality to be the norm?
e. One reason I spoke out as clearly as I did was because that was my constitutional function, to bring forth an alternative view. I am not a professional politician. I am interested in the soundness of argument rather than perception. I am aware of how politicised this issue is and how emotion drives most of the argument, particularly on the side of those who denigrate their detractors as emotional, while manifesting that same trait. That comes from my training as an academic.
f. Another reason is frankly, a tiredness with this sort of bullying towards anyone who opposes the gay agenda. (And I know gays who oppose the gay agenda). One of my colleagues, an untenured professor, wrote an Op Ed supporting the retention of the sodomy law and the policy of non active enforcement. An argument raised was that law has an educative function in signalling social mores.
Removing the law would signal a different set of values that colleague was opposed to. What happened? That colleague received a torrent of abuse. People wrote to our dean demanding that colleague
(a) be removed from her job
(b) be subjected to homosex sensitivity training
(c) be required to teach pro-gay cases from abroad (which in fact were referenced in lectures while not celebrated).
We do not tolerate such self-righteous intolerance in Singapore. At stake is genuine academic freedom and civil discourse. Who is the oppressed and who is the oppressor in this context? Or does an unrelenting hubris occlude the ability to see the truth of things in different contexts?
18. I wonder whether Mr. Graves-Pryor bothered to read the entirety of my speech and to appreciate the context and the fact that I will not let any of my junior colleagues be bullied by intemperate activism if I can help it. I also wonder whether Mr. Graves Pryor saw the bottom line in my parliamentary speech which was and remains this: “As fellow citizens, homosexuals are entitled to expect decent treatment from the rest of us; but they have no right to insist we surrender our fundamental moral beliefs so they can feel comfortable about their sexual behaviour.” I am sure it will not go far enough for him or those who share his views in this politics of identity. This disagreement is socially magnified many times.
If the NYU law community is unable to welcome me because of my convictions, they should say so. I am sure many faculty members are doing some soul-searching, perhaps regretting their original invitation. I am not naive. But just reflect on how this makes me feel. I do not feel welcomed as a person; I feel unfairly treated and greatly disrespected.
Would any academic (who is reasonably sane) want to go into a situation where hatred of a person, as oppose to “sharp disagreement” with their views, is the order of the day? Mr Graves-Pryor and those who share his views have succeeded in communicating their extreme disapproval of me / my views. They may rejoice in speaking freely, as the US Constitution protects, while seeking to intimidate others from exercising that same right through intimidation and abuse. I maintain my disagreement with their views and the viciousness of expression but this is perhaps to be expected, given the intractable nature of law and profound moral disagreement where an overlapping consensus is not possible or elusive.
If NYU Law as an institution is committed to a genuine diversity of viewpoints and respectful interlocution, it would be an institution I would be honoured to be given the privilege to teach at. If not, then be frank and say so.
Dean, if you wish to circulate my views and clarifications to the faculty, that is your prerogative. I have no desire to come into a hostile working environment where people believe half truths and false insinuations about me. If they wish to dislike me or my views, let it be for the views that I actually hold, not the ones maliciously imputed to me.
I remain respectfully,
Li-ann Thio
------------------------------
Even in USA, she's fighting a battle against the House of Mr S.A.Tan.
------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread: Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are
In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Helloooooooo ! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call !
Presentation1
View more presentations from guestfe7fdf.
Sleeping With The Devil
An Ardent Gay In The USA Democratic Party
Your Say - Posted : 15/07/2009 1:26 PM
- This is what's in store for us in Singapore & Asians in the near future if we carry on sleeping:
- Who's sleeping with Mr S.A.Tan?
USA Honors Anti-Christian Radical -By that definition: Anti-Religious.
The Administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director John Berry — an open homosexual and ardent “gay” activist apologized to and honored homosexual activist icon Frank Kameny. Kameny calls religious conservatives like AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera " Christiaofascists" and says “gay is godly” — even though he is an atheist. President Obama’s agenda on homosexuality and transsexuality is as unknown to the public as it is radical. If he fulfills all of his promises to the self-styled “Queer” movement — including homosexualizing the U.S. military — the American people will be less free than we are today. Obama meets in the White today with homosexual and transsexual activists as part of his celebration of June as "Lesbian, Gay, and Transgender Pride Month".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda"
– Helloooooooo ! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call !
Your Say - Posted : 15/07/2009 1:26 PM
- This is what's in store for us in Singapore & Asians in the near future if we carry on sleeping:
- Who's sleeping with Mr S.A.Tan?
USA Honors Anti-Christian Radical -By that definition: Anti-Religious.
The Administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director John Berry — an open homosexual and ardent “gay” activist apologized to and honored homosexual activist icon Frank Kameny. Kameny calls religious conservatives like AFTAH’s Peter LaBarbera " Christiaofascists" and says “gay is godly” — even though he is an atheist. President Obama’s agenda on homosexuality and transsexuality is as unknown to the public as it is radical. If he fulfills all of his promises to the self-styled “Queer” movement — including homosexualizing the U.S. military — the American people will be less free than we are today. Obama meets in the White today with homosexual and transsexual activists as part of his celebration of June as "Lesbian, Gay, and Transgender Pride Month".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda"
– Helloooooooo ! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call !
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Effeminate School Students & The Pressure To Compromise
Your Say – Posted : 14.07.09
1) School life is rough for a lot of people. Most teenagers get picked on, and sometimes hurt, to one degree or another throughout their school experience.
2) Students who struggle with their sexual or gender identity (or who are perceived as gay) are no exception, you’ll know that bullying and isolation during youth is almost par for the course.
3) Some people blame people of faith for this problem–that anyone who doesn’t celebrate homosexuality is in some way perpetuating the violence..
4) The solution, they say, is to exclusively promote a viewpoint that says people are born gay, can’t change, and there’s nothing wrong with it.
5) Gay advocacy groups encourage teens to identify as “allies,” friends who celebrate homosexuality–supposedly the only way to make their campus safe.
6) As a result, these students often find themselves in a bind. Either they must compromise their belief in that there is another way or they compromise on their religion and say that homosexual behavior is okay–and be called an “ally,” a “safe person”–or they can refuse and be labeled a bigot.
7) We believe this is unfair to these students, who don’t hate their gay-identified (or struggling) peers, and have good reasons for believing what they do about sexuality and gender.
8) It’s also unfair to students who identify as gay. Imagine how it must feel to believe that the “normal” people everywhere hate you!
9)This problem is exacerbated by the “Gay Activists” like AWARE telling them that they are born gay and that sex with “same sex” is normal and “a*** sex” is normal.
10) In the diversity of opinion, people with differing–and even opposing–viewpoints can still work together to build a community of tolerance and respect.
11) That is why MOE has FINALLY come out with a new syllabus and tackles these issues but with the stated aim of “upholding” our family values.
12)Tolerance doesn’t mean conformity of beliefs. It doesn’t mean one point of view is upheld and others are silenced. It doesn’t mean a person can label a belief they don’t agree with as hatred so they don’t have to deal with it.
13) Tolerance means we can respectfully express our differences, but then put them aside and cooperate on the things we can agree on, like safety, fair treatment, and kindness.
14) Tolerance means You don’t try to convert our society secretly to accept your ideas.
15) Tolerance means You don’t try to deviously put your ideas into our children’s mind at a young age so that when they grow up, you hope that they will be “converted” to “gay practices & lifestyle”
---------------------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
1) School life is rough for a lot of people. Most teenagers get picked on, and sometimes hurt, to one degree or another throughout their school experience.
2) Students who struggle with their sexual or gender identity (or who are perceived as gay) are no exception, you’ll know that bullying and isolation during youth is almost par for the course.
3) Some people blame people of faith for this problem–that anyone who doesn’t celebrate homosexuality is in some way perpetuating the violence..
4) The solution, they say, is to exclusively promote a viewpoint that says people are born gay, can’t change, and there’s nothing wrong with it.
5) Gay advocacy groups encourage teens to identify as “allies,” friends who celebrate homosexuality–supposedly the only way to make their campus safe.
6) As a result, these students often find themselves in a bind. Either they must compromise their belief in that there is another way or they compromise on their religion and say that homosexual behavior is okay–and be called an “ally,” a “safe person”–or they can refuse and be labeled a bigot.
7) We believe this is unfair to these students, who don’t hate their gay-identified (or struggling) peers, and have good reasons for believing what they do about sexuality and gender.
8) It’s also unfair to students who identify as gay. Imagine how it must feel to believe that the “normal” people everywhere hate you!
9)This problem is exacerbated by the “Gay Activists” like AWARE telling them that they are born gay and that sex with “same sex” is normal and “a*** sex” is normal.
10) In the diversity of opinion, people with differing–and even opposing–viewpoints can still work together to build a community of tolerance and respect.
11) That is why MOE has FINALLY come out with a new syllabus and tackles these issues but with the stated aim of “upholding” our family values.
12)Tolerance doesn’t mean conformity of beliefs. It doesn’t mean one point of view is upheld and others are silenced. It doesn’t mean a person can label a belief they don’t agree with as hatred so they don’t have to deal with it.
13) Tolerance means we can respectfully express our differences, but then put them aside and cooperate on the things we can agree on, like safety, fair treatment, and kindness.
14) Tolerance means You don’t try to convert our society secretly to accept your ideas.
15) Tolerance means You don’t try to deviously put your ideas into our children’s mind at a young age so that when they grow up, you hope that they will be “converted” to “gay practices & lifestyle”
---------------------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
Is There A Gay Agenda That I Should Be Worried About?
Your Say - Posted : 14.07.09
When people use the term “gay agenda,” it can bring many different things to mind.
While it’s important to reach out to and love those people in your world who call themselves gay or lesbian, or who are struggling, you also need to be aware that there is a movement to reshape our culture–and it pays no small attention to the hearts and minds of young people.
Not every gay-identified person participates in these often militant efforts, but the efforts are very real and they have specific goals when it comes to youth. Those goals include:
• Promoting homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyles as healthy, positive and normal.
• Disintegrating all meaning of gender.
• Silencing and vilifying any different point of view.
• Undermining parental authority to indoctrinate kids.
• Rewriting Religious principles to suit their Agenda.
• Polarizing students, so that anyone who is not “gay-affirming” is labeled a bigot.
These may seem like pretty extreme statements, but there are several organizations and tens of millions of dollars a year dedicated to these goals.
---------------------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
When people use the term “gay agenda,” it can bring many different things to mind.
While it’s important to reach out to and love those people in your world who call themselves gay or lesbian, or who are struggling, you also need to be aware that there is a movement to reshape our culture–and it pays no small attention to the hearts and minds of young people.
Not every gay-identified person participates in these often militant efforts, but the efforts are very real and they have specific goals when it comes to youth. Those goals include:
• Promoting homosexual, bisexual and transgender lifestyles as healthy, positive and normal.
• Disintegrating all meaning of gender.
• Silencing and vilifying any different point of view.
• Undermining parental authority to indoctrinate kids.
• Rewriting Religious principles to suit their Agenda.
• Polarizing students, so that anyone who is not “gay-affirming” is labeled a bigot.
These may seem like pretty extreme statements, but there are several organizations and tens of millions of dollars a year dedicated to these goals.
---------------------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
Peril At Our Doorstep
Your Say - Posted : 14/07/2009 2:17 PM
Homosexuality is becoming a way of life for many young people who are buying the lie that they are born homosexuals. The world equates same-sex attraction with an innate homosexual identity, so those who struggle with homosexual feelings are told it must be who they are. This what the gay activists are PUTTING INTO OUR CHILDREN'S HEAD"
The APA (American Psychiatric Association) has recently changed their stance on homosexuality. This article was posted on onenewsnow.com:
The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.
For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a “gender-identity” problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” states the following:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….”
----------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
Homosexuality is becoming a way of life for many young people who are buying the lie that they are born homosexuals. The world equates same-sex attraction with an innate homosexual identity, so those who struggle with homosexual feelings are told it must be who they are. This what the gay activists are PUTTING INTO OUR CHILDREN'S HEAD"
The APA (American Psychiatric Association) has recently changed their stance on homosexuality. This article was posted on onenewsnow.com:
The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there’s no homosexual “gene” — meaning it’s not likely that homosexuals are born that way.
For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a “gender-identity” problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality,” states the following:
“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles….”
----------------------------------------
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
Comment Taken From DorkyDawg:
Your Say - Posted : 14.07.09
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in public schools. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of Parker v. Hurley.
- A.W.A.R.E. did it and now trying to insert itself into mainstream again with so-called pro-women activities for now.
- Another face has reared up – “New Charter of Compassion” raised by people from present A.W.A.R.E leadership.
This agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called After the Ball, by gay rights activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:
"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior."
"Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."
Focus on the Family provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:
1. "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."
(Such as - Pink parade, Sentosa parties, etc in S'pore)
2. "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
(Such as - Gays vs. Religion as in AWARE saga)
3. "Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
(Media coverage & Corporate Singapore)
4. "Make gays look good."
(Such as - Media coverage in Singapore)
5. "Make the victimizers look bad."
(Such as - Josie group & Media coverage at EGM)
6. "Get funds from corporate America."
(Corporate Singapore doing same for A.W.A.RE.)
United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:
“ Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.
“SLEEP ON Singapore while the MENACE continues its work to convert you, your children & our Nation”
Mission Of This Thread:
Dedicated To Bringing The WORD To YOU that Our Children & Society Are In Great Danger From "The Gay Agenda" – Hello! Singapore! This Is Your Wake-Up Call!
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in public schools. This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of Parker v. Hurley.
- A.W.A.R.E. did it and now trying to insert itself into mainstream again with so-called pro-women activities for now.
- Another face has reared up – “New Charter of Compassion” raised by people from present A.W.A.R.E leadership.
This agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called After the Ball, by gay rights activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:
"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior."
"Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."
Focus on the Family provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:
1. "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."
(Such as - Pink parade, Sentosa parties, etc in S'pore)
2. "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
(Such as - Gays vs. Religion as in AWARE saga)
3. "Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
(Media coverage & Corporate Singapore)
4. "Make gays look good."
(Such as - Media coverage in Singapore)
5. "Make the victimizers look bad."
(Such as - Josie group & Media coverage at EGM)
6. "Get funds from corporate America."
(Corporate Singapore doing same for A.W.A.RE.)
United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:
“ Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.
“SLEEP ON Singapore while the MENACE continues its work to convert you, your children & our Nation”
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Concerned Parent & Citizen
A letter sent to the Cabinet & MPs c/o REACH email.
09.07.2009
Dear
Prime Minister,
Senior Minister,
Minister Mentor,
Cabinet Ministers
& Members of Parliament,
From: Citizen
RE: Concerned Parent & Citizen
I am a regular contributor of REACH@reach.gov.sg since the start of the AWARE saga which enlightened me on the apparent dangers faced by our society today. Do forgive me if my letter is meet protocol due to my poor grammar and humble ignorance.
It is with a deep-seated concern for our children and our society and what the future will hold for us if citizens such as me and like-minded citizens do not start to take active participation in our own well-being and also our society that I am writing to you now.
As we journey into a new millennium, it is understandable that our society has to evolve within and without to keep step with the changes in and around us to stay relevant, be more cosmopolitan and survive the challenges facing our little Red Dot.
My family and I fully empathize with and support our Govt’s various initiatives & actions, as has been shown in the sacrifices which we have made past and present.
Nevertheless, the deep-seated concern we have is, albeit, my own opinion, is that our society is now beset by an organized and vocal “Minority” with “moral” issues, such that, it is now assailing the very bastion of our society, which is; the family unit, and where the “Minority” amongst the gay society is pushing for a change using our very private/ public institutions, media and also into the corridors of power in private business & in Govt, to subtly effect the very changes on our moral fabric as an Asian Nation.
What is happening in USA should not be a template for us as an Asian nation to follow. It is heartening that MOE did finally follow through on its stated objective to make the family unit as the moral backbone in our society. But, it will not be enough if nothing is done to forestall or even restrict the “unimpeded access and opportunities” that the vocal “Minority” presently has in penetrating all sectors of our society to convert our young and naïve children and a generally passive public. If Govt is not careful and watchful, we will one day turn into another “USA”.
I have attached an article on the “Gay Agenda” which of course is from a Christian movement, but, take away the Christian contents and you will see how the “Gay Agenda” is being implemented in our little Red Dot. Slowly and quietly.
Without doubt, our security agencies are competent and ever watchful but as a stake-holder, I wish to convey my apprehensions regarding these “Minority” and how it will affect our society. How has it come to that and why is it still allowed such “space” is a mystery which is still not being addressed? How is it that so many major companies are supporting them in kind?
Realizing the inadequacy of REACH as an instrument to voice out our disquiet, as a parent and concerned citizen, I speak for others of my kind when I say that we are unhappy about how a major media, ST, has not shown impartiality as was seen in the recent article on AWARE which was accorded a full page when our new NMPs were announced.
Hopefully, MOE and all departments in our Govt, on it’s part, will stay vigilant in accepting AWARE or any of it’s kind which comes in various shape & colour such as the new entity, “New Charter of Compassion” which, in my opinion, may be another “front” by the same people who espouses and actively promotes gay Rights. The “Gay Agenda” is very real and has been working overtime within our society as we sleep. It veils itself in “sheep’s clothing” and usurps the position of fighting for “Human Rights” & “Diversity” & “Inclusiveness” while surreptitiously pre-positions itself in promotion of the “Gay Agenda” in our own backyard.
As Govt has stated clearly that ‘gays” have now been openly accepted into the Govt fold and even into our various political organizations such as PAP Youth, I am fearful that the “Minority” will try to effect changes within our organizations, such as attempted by an individual, who joint PAP Youth for some years and openly stated her intentions in public. I am fearful that one day we may see (maybe not in my lifetime but in my children’s lifetime) it may culminate into another “Lee Teng Hui” who destroyed the primacy of the Kuomintang from within; which is how the “Gay Agenda” works.
My letter to your Excellency and honoured Members of Parliament is to highlight this creeping danger within our society. That is all we, as concerned parents and like-minded people can do as I have indicated earlier in this letter that we have only one avenue to voice out our concerns and that is REACH where our concerns and opinions hardly reach the masses. We hardly have any defenses against such machinations and manipulation. We do not even have a support organization.
Furthermore, this is hardly a religious angle but actually an issue which concerns our very well-being as a Nation state, its ideals and its promotion of family values.
Last but not least, on behalf of concerned parents and citizens, I wish Govt will come to the fore on these matters to assuage our concerns and fears and consider looking into this “Gay Agenda” issue, creeping into our society and Govt; with utmost urgency and speed.
Thank you.
09.07.2009
Dear
Prime Minister,
Senior Minister,
Minister Mentor,
Cabinet Ministers
& Members of Parliament,
From: Citizen
RE: Concerned Parent & Citizen
I am a regular contributor of REACH@reach.gov.sg since the start of the AWARE saga which enlightened me on the apparent dangers faced by our society today. Do forgive me if my letter is meet protocol due to my poor grammar and humble ignorance.
It is with a deep-seated concern for our children and our society and what the future will hold for us if citizens such as me and like-minded citizens do not start to take active participation in our own well-being and also our society that I am writing to you now.
As we journey into a new millennium, it is understandable that our society has to evolve within and without to keep step with the changes in and around us to stay relevant, be more cosmopolitan and survive the challenges facing our little Red Dot.
My family and I fully empathize with and support our Govt’s various initiatives & actions, as has been shown in the sacrifices which we have made past and present.
Nevertheless, the deep-seated concern we have is, albeit, my own opinion, is that our society is now beset by an organized and vocal “Minority” with “moral” issues, such that, it is now assailing the very bastion of our society, which is; the family unit, and where the “Minority” amongst the gay society is pushing for a change using our very private/ public institutions, media and also into the corridors of power in private business & in Govt, to subtly effect the very changes on our moral fabric as an Asian Nation.
What is happening in USA should not be a template for us as an Asian nation to follow. It is heartening that MOE did finally follow through on its stated objective to make the family unit as the moral backbone in our society. But, it will not be enough if nothing is done to forestall or even restrict the “unimpeded access and opportunities” that the vocal “Minority” presently has in penetrating all sectors of our society to convert our young and naïve children and a generally passive public. If Govt is not careful and watchful, we will one day turn into another “USA”.
I have attached an article on the “Gay Agenda” which of course is from a Christian movement, but, take away the Christian contents and you will see how the “Gay Agenda” is being implemented in our little Red Dot. Slowly and quietly.
Without doubt, our security agencies are competent and ever watchful but as a stake-holder, I wish to convey my apprehensions regarding these “Minority” and how it will affect our society. How has it come to that and why is it still allowed such “space” is a mystery which is still not being addressed? How is it that so many major companies are supporting them in kind?
Realizing the inadequacy of REACH as an instrument to voice out our disquiet, as a parent and concerned citizen, I speak for others of my kind when I say that we are unhappy about how a major media, ST, has not shown impartiality as was seen in the recent article on AWARE which was accorded a full page when our new NMPs were announced.
Hopefully, MOE and all departments in our Govt, on it’s part, will stay vigilant in accepting AWARE or any of it’s kind which comes in various shape & colour such as the new entity, “New Charter of Compassion” which, in my opinion, may be another “front” by the same people who espouses and actively promotes gay Rights. The “Gay Agenda” is very real and has been working overtime within our society as we sleep. It veils itself in “sheep’s clothing” and usurps the position of fighting for “Human Rights” & “Diversity” & “Inclusiveness” while surreptitiously pre-positions itself in promotion of the “Gay Agenda” in our own backyard.
As Govt has stated clearly that ‘gays” have now been openly accepted into the Govt fold and even into our various political organizations such as PAP Youth, I am fearful that the “Minority” will try to effect changes within our organizations, such as attempted by an individual, who joint PAP Youth for some years and openly stated her intentions in public. I am fearful that one day we may see (maybe not in my lifetime but in my children’s lifetime) it may culminate into another “Lee Teng Hui” who destroyed the primacy of the Kuomintang from within; which is how the “Gay Agenda” works.
My letter to your Excellency and honoured Members of Parliament is to highlight this creeping danger within our society. That is all we, as concerned parents and like-minded people can do as I have indicated earlier in this letter that we have only one avenue to voice out our concerns and that is REACH where our concerns and opinions hardly reach the masses. We hardly have any defenses against such machinations and manipulation. We do not even have a support organization.
Furthermore, this is hardly a religious angle but actually an issue which concerns our very well-being as a Nation state, its ideals and its promotion of family values.
Last but not least, on behalf of concerned parents and citizens, I wish Govt will come to the fore on these matters to assuage our concerns and fears and consider looking into this “Gay Agenda” issue, creeping into our society and Govt; with utmost urgency and speed.
Thank you.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Unmasking The Gay Agenda
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/14696/CFI/family/index.htm
Excerpts from Concerned Women of America (CWA). Although it is a Christian movement but by no means irrelevant to what’s happening in our own backyard. For non-christians, just delete away the religious aspects and look at how the “Gay” activists “conquered” America.
This will provide you the “Reader” an insight as to how and in what manner our home-grown “Gay” activists in Singapore have been working overtime to influence our children, our young, our society, in our educational institutions, in our public spaces such as in the Arts, theatre, Media and in Govt. While you are sleeping, they are always working. Many Companies are supporting them and their programs financially:
The Goal:
As with every major political movement, the homosexual lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the gay agenda. At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of sexual morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of sexual relativism. That is to say, when it comes to sex, there is never right or wrong. All sexual appetites are equal. If it feels good, do it.
Ultimately, the homosexual lobby’s primary objective is to radically redefine our foundational institutions of legitimate marriage and the nuclear family by unraveling God’s natural design for human sexuality. In so doing, they hope to elevate their own spiritual and biological counterfeit and establish a sexually androgynous society wherein natural distinctions between male and female are dissolved.
This creates cultural and moral anarchy.
Plan of Attack:
Ironically, sexual relativists are anything but relative. They are quite affirmative in principle. But the principles they foist demand comprehensive acceptance of homosexual conduct by force of law through federal edicts such as hate crimes legislation, the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and by imposing government sanctioned same-sex marriage. All such government mandates grant special protected minority status to those who define themselves by aberrant sexual preferences and changeable sexual behaviors. These laws put people with traditional values directly in the crosshairs of official government policy.
Throughout society, homosexual activists demand that homosexual behaviors not only be tolerated, but celebrated. (That’s what the euphemistic slogan celebrate diversity supposes). They have masked their true political agenda by hijacking the language of the genuine civil rights movement and through the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of tolerance and diversity.
Anyone who believes the Biblical directive that human sexuality is a gift from God, to be shared between man and wife within the bonds of marriage, is branded homophobic, hateful or discriminatory. They are to be silenced by all means possible.
Homofascist persecution continue to mount. And they’re by design. Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein addressed the gay agenda in a 2005 article candidly titled,
The Gay Agenda:
• On hate crimes laws: Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.
• On hate thoughts and hate speech laws: Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.
• On influencing public policy: Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.
• On same-sex marriage: Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.
• On gays in the Church: Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.
The homosexual lobby’s goals have been clearly defined for decades. But for any goal to be successfully achieved, clever stratagem and sound methodology must be diligently applied.
In their manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby’s blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda.
They devised a three-pronged approach that the homosexual lobby has masterfully implemented in subsequent years: Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion.
Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:
• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
• Give potential protectors a just cause.
• Make gays look good.
• Make victimizers look bad.
Desensitization:
Desensitization, wrote Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.
As previously stated, glamorizing and normalizing homosexual conduct in our public schools is a full time endeavor. But the schools represent only one field of battle in the war over America’s body, mind and soul.
With the aid of a willing mainstream media and a like-minded Hollywood, societal desensitization has been largely achieved. Blockbusters like Tom Hanks Philadelphia, the late Heath Ledger’s Brokeback Mountain, and television programs like Will and Grace and Ellen represent a modern-day fairy tale, creating a dishonest and sympathetic portrayal of a lifestyle which is emotionally, spiritually and physically sterile.
Reality is replaced with fantasy. Gone are references to, or images of, the millions of homosexual men wasting away in hospice due to behaviorally related diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis and Syphilis. (Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. As Romans 6:23 says, The wages of sin is death.)
And gone are references to, or images of, men and women trapped in the homosexual lifestyle who aimlessly seek to fill a spiritual and emotional void through promiscuous and meaningless sexual encounters.
The homosexual group, GLAAD, even offers awards to the television networks that most effectively carry the homosexual lobby’s water. The more distorted and positive the portrayal of homosexual conduct and the more frequently the networks shows such portrayals; the more likely networks are to win the coveted awards.
As Kirk and Madsen put it, homosexuals should be portrayed as the Everyman. In no time, they said, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.
Prophetic words from two very smart men.
Jamming:
Jamming refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda. Jam homo-hatred (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror, wrote Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.
In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable, they suggested.
But, perhaps Kirk and Madsen’s most revealing admission came when they said, [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.
And so words like homophobe and heterosexism were pulled from thin air, not because they had substance, but because they were effective jamming tools. Anyone who holds traditional values relative to human sexuality suddenly became a homophobe, a hatemonger, a bigot.
Not even churches are safe.
Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of Old Time Religion one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. Such an unholy alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. [T]hat alliance can work for gays.
And, oh, how it has.
Conversion:
Conversion means, in the words of Kirk and Madsen, conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.
In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.
Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent and only later his unsightly derriere!
So, as Kirk and Madsen both astutely understood and surprisingly admitted, homosexual activism is really a big game of hide the ball. In order to achieve widespread acceptance of gayness, they had to remove the focus from what homosexuality really is (deviant sexual conduct) and shift it onto the craftily manufactured specter of gay civil rights.
In order to cut through much of the propagandist sugarcoating, one need only consider what two men must actually do in order to consummate a so-called gay marriage. Kirk and Madsen understood that. Most people are repulsed by the mechanics of homosexual conduct, but everyone is for civil rights. Of course, in reality, the homosexual lifestyle has nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with conduct.
Therein lies the deception.
But There’s Hope
There’s hope for people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle or who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction.
Gayness is not an immutable or unchangeable condition as homosexual apologists would have you believe. People can find freedom from homosexual behaviors and even from same-sex attractions. It’s not easy, but untold thousands of former homosexuals have done it.
There’s also hope in the ongoing battle between the gay agenda and our national moral integrity.
With God’s help, we can turn back the tide of sexual and moral relativism that has both permeated our society and offended our founding principles.
Excerpts from Concerned Women of America (CWA). Although it is a Christian movement but by no means irrelevant to what’s happening in our own backyard. For non-christians, just delete away the religious aspects and look at how the “Gay” activists “conquered” America.
This will provide you the “Reader” an insight as to how and in what manner our home-grown “Gay” activists in Singapore have been working overtime to influence our children, our young, our society, in our educational institutions, in our public spaces such as in the Arts, theatre, Media and in Govt. While you are sleeping, they are always working. Many Companies are supporting them and their programs financially:
The Goal:
As with every major political movement, the homosexual lobby is pushing a specific agenda. It is often called the gay agenda. At its core is a concerted effort to remove from society all traditional notions of sexual morality and replace them with the post-modern concept of sexual relativism. That is to say, when it comes to sex, there is never right or wrong. All sexual appetites are equal. If it feels good, do it.
Ultimately, the homosexual lobby’s primary objective is to radically redefine our foundational institutions of legitimate marriage and the nuclear family by unraveling God’s natural design for human sexuality. In so doing, they hope to elevate their own spiritual and biological counterfeit and establish a sexually androgynous society wherein natural distinctions between male and female are dissolved.
This creates cultural and moral anarchy.
Plan of Attack:
Ironically, sexual relativists are anything but relative. They are quite affirmative in principle. But the principles they foist demand comprehensive acceptance of homosexual conduct by force of law through federal edicts such as hate crimes legislation, the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and by imposing government sanctioned same-sex marriage. All such government mandates grant special protected minority status to those who define themselves by aberrant sexual preferences and changeable sexual behaviors. These laws put people with traditional values directly in the crosshairs of official government policy.
Throughout society, homosexual activists demand that homosexual behaviors not only be tolerated, but celebrated. (That’s what the euphemistic slogan celebrate diversity supposes). They have masked their true political agenda by hijacking the language of the genuine civil rights movement and through the crafty and disingenuous rhetoric of tolerance and diversity.
Anyone who believes the Biblical directive that human sexuality is a gift from God, to be shared between man and wife within the bonds of marriage, is branded homophobic, hateful or discriminatory. They are to be silenced by all means possible.
Homofascist persecution continue to mount. And they’re by design. Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein addressed the gay agenda in a 2005 article candidly titled,
The Gay Agenda:
• On hate crimes laws: Hate Crime laws are just the beginning. Once those are passed either federally or in all 50 states, begin campaign to eliminate homophobia entirely.
• On hate thoughts and hate speech laws: Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law.
• On influencing public policy: Make sure that gay representation permeates every level of governance.
• On same-sex marriage: Demand the institution and then wreck it. James Dobson was right about our evil intentions. We just plan to be quicker than he thought.
• On gays in the Church: Reclaim Jesus. He was a Jewish queer to begin with, and don’t let anyone forget it.
The homosexual lobby’s goals have been clearly defined for decades. But for any goal to be successfully achieved, clever stratagem and sound methodology must be diligently applied.
In their manuscript, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s (1989, Doubleday/Bantam), Harvard educated marketing experts Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen meticulously laid out the homosexual lobby’s blueprint for success in what is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda.
They devised a three-pronged approach that the homosexual lobby has masterfully implemented in subsequent years: Desensitization, Jamming and Conversion.
Kirk and Madsen summarized their approach this way:
• Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.
• Give potential protectors a just cause.
• Make gays look good.
• Make victimizers look bad.
Desensitization:
Desensitization, wrote Kirk and Madsen, means subjecting the public to a continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.
As previously stated, glamorizing and normalizing homosexual conduct in our public schools is a full time endeavor. But the schools represent only one field of battle in the war over America’s body, mind and soul.
With the aid of a willing mainstream media and a like-minded Hollywood, societal desensitization has been largely achieved. Blockbusters like Tom Hanks Philadelphia, the late Heath Ledger’s Brokeback Mountain, and television programs like Will and Grace and Ellen represent a modern-day fairy tale, creating a dishonest and sympathetic portrayal of a lifestyle which is emotionally, spiritually and physically sterile.
Reality is replaced with fantasy. Gone are references to, or images of, the millions of homosexual men wasting away in hospice due to behaviorally related diseases such as HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis and Syphilis. (Unnatural behaviors beget natural consequences. As Romans 6:23 says, The wages of sin is death.)
And gone are references to, or images of, men and women trapped in the homosexual lifestyle who aimlessly seek to fill a spiritual and emotional void through promiscuous and meaningless sexual encounters.
The homosexual group, GLAAD, even offers awards to the television networks that most effectively carry the homosexual lobby’s water. The more distorted and positive the portrayal of homosexual conduct and the more frequently the networks shows such portrayals; the more likely networks are to win the coveted awards.
As Kirk and Madsen put it, homosexuals should be portrayed as the Everyman. In no time, they said, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western Civilization.
Prophetic words from two very smart men.
Jamming:
Jamming refers to the public smearing of Christians, traditionalists or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda. Jam homo-hatred (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror, wrote Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.
In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable, they suggested.
But, perhaps Kirk and Madsen’s most revealing admission came when they said, [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.
And so words like homophobe and heterosexism were pulled from thin air, not because they had substance, but because they were effective jamming tools. Anyone who holds traditional values relative to human sexuality suddenly became a homophobe, a hatemonger, a bigot.
Not even churches are safe.
Gays can undermine the moral authority of homo-hating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying [them] as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of Old Time Religion one must set the mightier pull of science and public opinion. Such an unholy alliance has already worked well in America against the churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. [T]hat alliance can work for gays.
And, oh, how it has.
Conversion:
Conversion means, in the words of Kirk and Madsen, conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.
In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.
Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent and only later his unsightly derriere!
So, as Kirk and Madsen both astutely understood and surprisingly admitted, homosexual activism is really a big game of hide the ball. In order to achieve widespread acceptance of gayness, they had to remove the focus from what homosexuality really is (deviant sexual conduct) and shift it onto the craftily manufactured specter of gay civil rights.
In order to cut through much of the propagandist sugarcoating, one need only consider what two men must actually do in order to consummate a so-called gay marriage. Kirk and Madsen understood that. Most people are repulsed by the mechanics of homosexual conduct, but everyone is for civil rights. Of course, in reality, the homosexual lifestyle has nothing to do with civil rights and everything to do with conduct.
Therein lies the deception.
But There’s Hope
There’s hope for people who are trapped in the homosexual lifestyle or who suffer from unwanted same-sex attraction.
Gayness is not an immutable or unchangeable condition as homosexual apologists would have you believe. People can find freedom from homosexual behaviors and even from same-sex attractions. It’s not easy, but untold thousands of former homosexuals have done it.
There’s also hope in the ongoing battle between the gay agenda and our national moral integrity.
With God’s help, we can turn back the tide of sexual and moral relativism that has both permeated our society and offended our founding principles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
