Tuesday, February 21, 2006
The latest chic thing is for young teens to say they're "bi". We hear that many of the 9th-grade girls at a west suburban Boston high school are claiming this identity -- "to get attention," say the slightly older girls who are our sources. And we've witnessed 13 to 14-year-old girls wildly making out (with each other, not with boys) in public, at a "safe" teen club in southern New Hampshire. It's the latest chic thing. (Needless to say, adult authority figures are nowhere to be found when this is going on in the school or club settings.)
A "bi-clique" is detailed in "The Cuddle Puddle of Stuyvesant High School," from New York Magazine. This is where sex ed and homosex ed have brought us. Excerpts (with emphasis added):
[Students at the school] are in the process of working up their own language to describe their behavior. Along with gay, straight, and bisexual, they’ll drop in new words, some of which they’ve coined themselves: polysexual, ambisexual, pansexual, pansensual, polyfide, bi-curious, bi-queer, fluid, metroflexible, heteroflexible, heterosexual with lesbian tendencies—or, as Alair puts it, “just sexual.” The terms are designed less to achieve specificity than to leave all options open....
Their sexual behavior is by no means the norm at their school; Stuyvesant has some 3,000 students, and Alair’s group numbers a couple dozen. But they’re also not the only kids at school who experiment with members of the same sex. “Other people do it, too,” said a junior who’s part of a more popular crowd. “They get drunk and want to be a sex object. But that’s different. Those people aren’t bisexual.” Alair and her friends, on the other hand, are known as the “bi clique.” In the social strata, they’re closer to the cool kids than to the nerds. The boys have shaggy hair and T-shirts emblazoned with the names of sixties rockers. The girls are pretty and clever and extroverted....
It’s true that girls have always experimented, but it’s typically been furtive, kept quiet. The difference now is how these girls are flaunting it. It’s become a form of exhibitionism, a way to get noticed at an age when getting noticed is what it’s all about. And as rebellions go, it’s pretty safe. Hooking up with girls won’t get them pregnant. It won’t hurt their GPA. It won’t keep them out of honor societies, social groups, the Ivy League....
In the end, the Stuyvesant cuddle puddle might just be a trickle-down version of the collegiate “gay until graduation.” On the other hand, these girls are experimenting at an earlier age, when their identities and their ideas about what they want in a partner are still being formed. Will it affect the way they choose to live their adult lives? ...
Monday, February 20, 2006
The first, available on the Culture and Family Institute/CWA website, focuses on the exploitation of vulnerable teenagers by homosexual activists who are clearly recruiting. See "Fairy Tales Don't Come True: Impressionable Kids and the Selling of Homosexuality." Excerpts:
... We've opened up access to our children by those who are not trustworthy. When people have views supporting homosexuality, they should not be involved with youth in any way, period....
Can a society create more homosexuals? The answer quite clearly is yes. That is how current homosexuals, in fact, came to be. There is no credible evidence for a genetic origin for homosexuality....
New research has revealed what many have predicted for years because of the media culture's constant promotion of homosexuality: More and more Americans, especially youth, are experimenting with same-sex sexual acts. A report from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) shows that among people surveyed in 2002, 11 percent of the females have had a "same-sex" sexual experience. This is up from 4 percent in a similar report in 1992. Among just teen and young adult females, the number was even higher-14 percent. Among males, homosexual experimentation increased to 6 percent in 2002 compared to 4.9 percent in 1992.4
Another piece by Harvey on the Renew America website is "A plea to pastors and Christian leaders: What's at stake for Christians in the war over homosexuality." Excerpt:
I am increasingly convinced that much of the Church will have a lot of explaining to do. Why did most pastors allow evil to be "sold" to our young people with barely a whimper of protest? Why did you allow this tragic behavior to become a chic cause celebre in the media without trying to take a stand against it? Why did you let seminaries teach this blasphemy? Why did you spend little or no time in the pulpit dealing with this and all the related sexuality issues — promiscuity, pornography, adultery, fornication — sins that are tearing apart the families and personal lives of even Bible-confessing Christians? Why did you constantly decry "political involvement" when this is a deeply moral issue, one for which there are ready arguments to be made in the public square had more Christian leaders been willing to make them?
And the big question is: why do you let the world define what's right to do? What will be "accepted" or not? What is "hate" or not? This defense of inaction completely undermines who Christ is and what God is able to do. Such cowardice should make us tremble....
Sunday, February 19, 2006
But the problem is, we in Massachusetts are beyond thinking in terms of metaphors about homosexual relationships. We have state-sanctioned sodomitic "marriage". And we have a bill pending in our Massachusetts legislature which would eliminate altogether the crime of bestiality. (See House Bill H819, which among other things would overturn Ch. 272, sec. 34 of Massachusetts law which criminalizes sodomy and bestiality.)
So when we look at this play, we need to think concretely about the impact of its focus on bestiality. Isn't there really something more than "metaphor" going on here, whether the playwright consciously intended it or not?
The deconstruction of Western-Judeo-Christian values has followed this pattern: A dangerous or taboo idea takes hold in the academic and/or arts community, then filters down to the popular culture, and then gains accession by our elected representatives. If it's playing on Broadway, it must be the next with-it thing. Hop on board!
Edward Albee's "The Goat, or Who Is Sylvia" opened on Broadway in 2002, even receiving the Tony Award for Best Play. Now it's at the Lyric Stage in Boston. It's about a family man, a renowned architect, who has a love affair with a goat named Sylvia.
The subtitle of the play is "Notes toward a definition of tragedy." The actress playing the betrayed wife said she was drawn to the role by the epic scale of the story, saying, "It feels universal and cataclysmic," like a Greek play about the downfall of a family.
The Boston Globe reviewer says, "It also feels, to everyone's surprise, extremely funny," and the first scene is highly comic in the style of Noel Coward.
The humor of "The Goat" is apparently a ruse to get people to "go there" and approach the concept of bestiality. After the humorous opening of "The Goat", you get to "the deep dysfunction." But, according to the Globe, audiences are left confused. That's because this is no Greek or Shakespearean tragedy. It's a "postmodern" jumble, intentionally confusing the audience, attempting to detach them from all their commonsense or moral moorings.
Greek tragedy did not juxtapose tragedy and levity. "Oedipus Rex" has no laughing moments, and its tragedy sprang from fate, not a man's choice to do it with a goat. Or take Shakespeare's "King Lear", where the fool's wisecracks are never purely humorous, but are connected to the very dark undercurrent of that story. Human pride and lust for power are at the bottom of Lear, not something as base as sexual lust for an animal.
"Albee asks the audience to buy into something almost inconceivable, [the actress] says: that Martin is not just having sex with a goat, but is genuinely in love with her."
"[I]t's perhaps especially magical when the play is so insistent on testing boundaries, pushing toward the edge of what audiences will accept, asking where passion becomes perversion" [says the reviewer].
Well, Massachusetts residents are beginning to learn that there are no more boundaries. There is no such a thing as perversion. There are only different "sexual orientations." And the "tragic" figure in "The Goat" just happens to have a sexual orientation towards beasts. Who are we to judge?
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Remember Judge Suzanne DelVecchio's recent opinion on letting a convicted rapist off with a suspended sentence, though his student/victim was an under 16? The judge said that since the boy who was raped was almost 16 and the sex was supposedly "consensual" (even though the victim was too young to legally consent!) -- the rapist goes free!
And today's Boston Globe runs another foul piece of "advice" in its "Ask Beth" column. A mother is worried because her 5th-grade daughter "confided that she had a sexual experience with another girl her own age." But Beth assures the mother that consensuality is all that matters, and that "experimenting" is perfectly normal. And of course even if the young girl is "gay", neither mother nor daughter should be concerned!
Beth also implies that "teen sexuality" (including "experimenting" -- as long as it's "consensual"?) should be accepted as normal. (Oh - and at what age does same-sex"experimenting" become an inborn "sexual orientation"? No answer.)
Kids her age are extremely curious and often experiment with someone of the same sex. Kissing or making out, even pretending to have sex, is common play. It is normal if it is mutual and doesn't involve coercion. Enjoying experimenting with a friend of the same gender does not mean she is gay or that it will lead to anything more.
Because your daughter was concerned that she might be gay, it is important to talk with her about why this worried her so much.... Teen sexuality is too often viewed negatively, which makes normal sexual development appear to be a disease.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
We found the photos awfully hard to look at. But you'd better look at them so you know what this generation of college students is being fed as their avant-garde art. As MassResistance has pointed out frequently, our young people are being moved beyond "homosexuality" and "bisexuality" into queer realms even their participants can't label:
One artist is... "a photographer interested in bending the classical ideas of gender and sexual identity, including labels. She doesn’t identify as bisexual, but prefers ambisexual to get away from the 'problem of binary language,' as she calls it."
One of her revolting pieces is "a large scale photograph featuring a gender-bending female posing in her underwear. George wanted it to be a spoof of the Calvin Klein underwear commercials of the 90s, featuring a woman with large breasts in a white t-shirt, strategically placed above a shot of her lower body sporting an immensely large package. A tattoo that reads 'Daddy' appears on her lower abdomen. It greets you as you walk into the gallery, and [the reviewer] was struck by the simplicity of the set up and the complexity of the issues it was bringing up: identity, sexuality, looks and in your face humor. Currently an assistant art professor at Bridgewater State College, her work (including a call for children of same-sex married couples) can be found on her website, ivanadamiengeorge.com."
Another exhibitor is a transgendered graduate of this fine university who "currently lives in Jamaica Plain. In Queer Eye, he has a series of photographs depicting the same head (his) placed on several different bodies, in part to confront people and their uncomfortableness with questions of gender, as he says. He then asks the viewer to decide which body is the 'correct' one, but for [him] the right one isn’t the point. 'It’s partly biographical, dealing with my own body image issue and gender stuff,' he says. Currently, [he] identifies as 'figuring it out,' having stopped hormone therapy and gender reassignment surgery."
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
... has waived a self-imposed deadline for ruling whether gay couples from other states can legally marry in Massachusetts.... The Supreme Judicial Court notified lawyers on Feb. 9 that it would not issue a decision within the 130-day window after oral arguments on Oct. 6, according to the court's Web site.
Eight gay couples from surrounding states, all of whom were denied marriage licenses in Massachusetts, are challenging a 1913 law that forbids nonresidents from marrying here if their marriages would not be valid in their home states.
If the Supreme Judicial Court strikes down the law, same-sex couples from across the country could come to Massachusetts to wed and demand marriage rights at home.
We suppose the Court is hoping that Sen. Jarrett Barrios and other proud sponsors will soon pass their bills allowing out-of-state couples to marry. See Senate Bill #835 and House Bill #806.
It wasn't enough to create chaos in Massachusetts with the homosexual "marriage" ruling. The liberal elitists want the virus to spread across the country.
Again, the Boston Globe claims that "same-sex marriage became legal" here in May 2004. No, it never became legal. There was simply a court ruling. If it were law, how could there be BILLS PENDING to make it law? See House Bill #977 and Senate Bill #967.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
"The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement"
by Ronald G. Lee
Monday, February 13, 2006
The Governor has it in his powers (through executive order) to eliminate the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth." And its director knows this. Why doesn't he do this? You can call the Governor at 617-725-4005, or email him.
[From Bay Windows, 2-2-06:]
Gov. Mitt Romney seems determined to gut the state’s groundbreaking Safe Schools program, created and championed by his predecessors Govs. William Weld and Paul Cellucci. In his Fiscal Year 2007 budget proposal, released Jan. 25, Romney proposed cutting the Department of Public Health (DPH) funding for the Safe Schools program from the $350,000 it receives in the current fiscal year to just $100,000. In the current fiscal year, the Safe Schools program also receives an additional $75,000 from the Department of Education (DOE), but Romney’s FY07 budget has no specific funding from DOE set aside for the programs. Kathleen Henry, chair of the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, said it is possible that there could be some funding for Safe Schools in the DOE budget that is not specifically earmarked, but she said there was no way to discern that from the governor’s proposal....
While last year’s gains were modest at best, Henry said the Governor’s Commission plans to ask the Legislature later this month to restore the full $1.6 million in funding that the programs received prior to the cuts. She said the additional funds will be in large part targeted at what advocates believe are some of the highest risk LGBT youth, LGBT young people of color....
Romney proposed modest spending increases in his past two budget proposals, yet he spent last summer working to defund the programs recommended by what at least nominally is his own commission. [This thanks to efforts by Article 8/MassResistance.] His approach to LGBT youth issues has been such a marked difference from his predecessors that some advocates are thankful for even small favors. “Our major thing with this particular governor is to remind ourselves and people that we exist at the governor’s discretion, at his whim, and he could do away with us in a heartbeat if he wished to, and that he doesn’t gives us the platform that we need to then go to the Legislature and educate those budget folks as to what LGBT youth needs are,” said Henry.
MassResistance has left several voice mails for the "Chair" of the Governor's Commission on Gay & Lesbian Youth, Kathleen Henry. For some reason, she has not gotten back to us yet. All we wanted to know was:
(1) How exactly the Commission planned to spend the $1.6 million she's hoping the Legislature will give it next year; and
(2) How many "Gay/Straight Alliance" clubs there are in our Massachusetts high schools now, and would she please send us that list.
Now, as a state employee, she is bound to answer this call for information. Maybe she'll tell you? You can reach Ms. Henry at: State House, Room 280, Boston, MA 02133, phone 617-725-4000 ext. 35312. (You can tell her that the propaganda on her publications page needs updating: It's all 6-13 years old.)
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Gay pride parades, the "Queer Games" in Chicago, drag/queer proms, "bareback mounting" movies, Orbitz queer travel pages, "Queer As Folk" TV shows, etc. are all the rage, with heteros expected to approve or keep quiet. But Rev. Crouse has had enough of such propaganda, and thought he'd counter it with a little truth.
The Mr. Hetero website calls the event, "A real competition that will bring fun and laughter as we celebrate God's design." From that site:
Tom has been called by the homosexual activists everything from Osama Bin Laden- to Hitler. Why? Because he has the nerve to have an event celebrating Gods design of Heterosexuality, and also has the nerve to have at the event someone who will give testimony to the fact that Jesus Christ freed them from all their sins.
Due to all of the pressure from those activists, the original venue, the Sturbridge Host- cancelled the event two days after assuring Tom that everything was fine with having the event at their facility. Not to be deterred, Tom went to Mechanics Hall to see about the possibility of holding the event there, and that is where it will be. A bigger and better venue!
The radical homosexuals are labeling this is a "hate" event, and they're organizing a demonstration outside Mechanics Hall starting at 5:30. QueerToday.com, which organized the assault on the Focus on the Family/Love Won Out Conference at the Tremont Temple last October, is also rallying troops.
Guess who has to pay for extra police to keep the peace? Wouldn't it make sense that the disrupters should pay? But we've heard that Rev. Crouse has been told to cover for the extra police, if he wants his event to proceed!
Quotes from the founder of the monthly "trans" event called "GenderCrash" (see recent profile in Bay Windows) illustrate this confusion. (Identified as "he" in the article, the photo appears to be of a woman):
An organizer and outreach coordinator for The Network/La Red (a Boston area domestic violence organization serving lesbian, and bi women and transgender people), and an abuse survivor, Scott admits he’s seen his share of trauma. He says one of the most difficult things about his work with The Network/La Red is raising awareness about domestic violence within the GBLT community.
“I think we can have conversations about violence that happens to us from outside the community but when it comes to violence within the community, people get really hush-hush and want to justify and excuse it away. And we just can’t do that.”
Scott says its critical for gay, lesbian and trans people to accept that partner abuse happens in our community — because we are likely to experience it ourselves. “With GLBT folks — across the board — we see one in four being a victim of partner abuse at one point in their lives.”
Early trans activism, Scott argues, revolved around issues of older, white middle class MTFs [male-to-females] who pressed for such rights as having insurance companies cover medical transitions. But working class trans people and trans people of color, Scott says, don’t have the luxury of those concerns. “Their main issue is getting a job and having a place to live. We can’t skip over that step. We need to start there and work our way up.”
“We are still a pretty racially divided city, both mainstream and GLBT and you can see that playing out in the trans community as well. I think that in some places that transwomen have been accepted into some lesbian and dyke spaces like the Dyke March and other things. And then in other spaces it’s not so accepted.
There are definitely gay FTMs [female-to-males] who are in the gay male community that have made a space for themselves and aren’t necessarily spending a lot of time in the FTM community but are in the non-trans gay male community. So I think it’s like having to choose which label is going to be predominant. There’s not a lot of space for someone to be their whole selves. There is [still] homophobia within the trans community; there’s transphobia in the gay and lesbian community.”
Thursday, February 09, 2006
The Bristol County District Attorney "said it remains unclear what triggered Robida's crime spree, but he said he hopes to release a report next week providing as much information about the events and Robida that investigators have been able to uncover. 'Some things we are never going to know,' he said."
We now know that Robida shot himself in the head, after killing an Arkansas policeman and the woman traveling with him. We ask again [still no answer from the homosexual radical activist crowd...]: Were these two murders "hate crimes"? Was killing himself a "hate crime"? Might he have hated himself? Why? Maybe he was conflicted on his own sexual identity, and in the midst of a severe psycholgical struggle.
Can we know with any certainty what led Robida to commit his horrible crimes? No. Even if he were still alive, we would likely not be able to discern his deepest motives.
But the very concept of "hate crimes" requires knowledge of motive. Realistically, won't there will always be "reasonable doubt" when it comes to a criminal's motive or "bias" in this sort of crime? So a "hate crime" cannot be proven. It can only be surmised.
Massachusetts is one of few states with "hate crimes" statutes including "sexual orientation" along with religion, race, disability. But a precise definition of "hate crimes" is hard to come by. The statutes are vague, and do not spell out clear standards or thresholds for determining whether a crime was in fact motivated by "hate." In fact, it's sometimes up to the victim (if alive) to determine if they're distressed enough to call the offense a "hate crime"! And "hate crimes" can include non-violent acts, such as speech and written words -- if the "victim" doesn't like them.
The Massachusetts Attorney General's "hate crimes task force" page says little. That office has produced a document called "Erasing Hate" directed at our schools! It states, "Certain types of language or conduct may indicate that a hate crime has occurred. Some indicators that a crime was hate-motivated include..." You get the idea -- it's all highly subjective. (This is "law"?)
The resources at the end of "Erasing Hate" include such dangerous organizations as the ACLU; Anti-Defamation League; Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian & Transgender Youth (BAGLY); Boston Gay & Lesbian Adolescent Social Services (GLASS); Fenway Community Health Center (that gave out the Little Black Book to teenagers last April); Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD).
And it's interesting that we find a list of applicable statutes on a Mass. Dept. of Education web page -- not on the Attorney General's site!
From a Massachusetts Governor's Hate Crimes Task Force document (2001):
A "hate crime" is a crime in which the perpetrator's conduct is motivated, in whole or in part, by hatred, bias, or prejudice, based on the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of another group or individual.
Hate crimes are characterized by bias indicators: "objective facts, circumstances or patterns attending a criminal act(s) which, standing alone or in conjunction with other facts and circumstances, suggest that an offender's actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by any [prohibited] form of bias..." The most common bias indicators are verbal slurs, epithets, and bigoted language, written or spoken. Careful attention to bias indicator evidence is essential to appropriate investigation and charging of these offenses.
Massachusetts hate crimes laws increase the penalty that applies to crimes of violence, threats and harassment, and property damage whenever a prohibited bias motive is found to have existed. For example, the hate crimes statutes increase the penalty applicable to a simple assault and battery, which causes even minor injury to its victim, from a mere two and one-half years, to as much as seventeen and one-half years incarceration. Hate-motivated activity also exposes perpetrators to the risk of being subjected to a civil rights injunction.
A particularly bad strain of chlamydia not usually seen in this country appears to be slowly spreading among gay and bisexual men, an infection that can increase their chances of getting or spreading the AIDS virus....
[T]his illness is incredibly hard to diagnose: Few U.S. clinics and laboratories can test for it. Painful symptoms can be mistaken for other illnesses, such as irritable bowel syndrome.
And because LGV chlamydia doesn't always cause noticeable symptoms — right away, at least — an unknown number of people may silently harbor and spread it, along with an increased risk of HIV transmission.
"My feeling is that what we're seeing now is still the tip of the iceberg," says Dr. Philippe Chiliade of the Whitman-Walker Clinic in Washington, D.C., which diagnosed its first few cases of LGV last month and is beginning to push for asymptomatic men to be screened....
Chlamydia, caused by bacteria, is among the most common sexually transmitted diseases. As many as 3 million Americans a year may become infected with common strains, best known for causing infertility in women if left untreated.... LGV can infect both sexes, although new cases diagnosed so far are among men having sex with men.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
The usual suspects -- a group at the Unitarian church -- are putting on a production partly funded by the Massachusetts Cultural Council. (You can check your own town to see what's being funded there.)
Here's a list of VM productions around Massachusetts. Will it will be performed at the college your child attends -- or that you donate to?
Monday, February 06, 2006
At last week's Education Committee hearing on mandatory sex/homosex ed (Bill H1641), some testimony addressed these public health dangers. Notably, Dr. Gilbert Lavoie, an epidemiologist, pointed out that the risk of contracting HIV through anal intercourse is five times greater than through vaginal intercourse. (This is from CDC statistics.)
Yet many sex ed curricula never warn our children of this, instead treating both types of intercourse as equivalent and equally acceptable behaviors. And the whole propaganda movement in the schools -- the gay clubs, "Day of Silence", "Ally Day" etc. -- ignore the health aspect, and just present homosexuality as a "civil rights" issue.
(We're still waiting for someone to address the plague of so-called "bisexuality", which spreads diseases from "men who have sex with men" to females.)
WorldNetDaily recently published an outline of the public health concerns with homosexuality:
- the higher incidence of sexually transmitted disease, not only HIV/AIDS
- risky behaviors, such as "unprotected sex" [and we might add "bug chasing"]
- domestic abuse [a big problem in the lesbian community]
- shortened life span: sexually active homosexual male lifespan shortened by 8-20 years (1997 study in Journal of Epidemiology)
Rep. Alice Wolf, chief sponsor of H1641 -- the bill that would mandate sex/homosex ed -- has told the majority of Massachusetts citizens that they need to agree with her, or they have no business living in Massachusetts! If you don't think the state should have the final say on the moral education of your children in matters of sexuality, just leave the state!
That's a message pro-family activists are harassed with frequently in Massachusetts. The initial signers of the new marriage referendum are barraged with travel brochures in their mailboxes. Signers of the marriage petition receive phone calls from "gay" activists, calling them "homophobes." The MassResistance/Article 8 office gets emails urging their relocation to "Georgia, with the other bigots." And a pro-family activist's home has been broken into, with the message "LEAVE" left as a calling card.
The Boston Globe reported (Jan. 30, 2006 before the hearing on H1641):
The bill's main sponsor Representative Alice K. Wolf, Democrat of Cambridge said parents can have their children taken out of the sex education classes. [How can this be if it's a requirement?!] But she said the health education standards simply reflect a changing world. Same-sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts, and popular television shows portray gay and lesbian relationships.
"That's the way life is," said Wolf, who is also a member of the Legislature's Joint Education Committee. "If people don't want to accept that, I don't know where they can live."
Apparently, she doesn't want them to live in Massachusetts and bother her. This is typical of the arrogance of the liberals in our state legislature.
Not only is Wolf spreading the myth that "gay marriage is legal" in Massachusetts, she has actually performed the "marriage" ceremony for a "gay" activist (who writes about how to sneak homosexual propaganda into the public schools). And she is endorsed by all the culture-of-death groups (pro-abortion, pro-radical feminist, pro-homosexual "rights").
"HOMOPHOBIA," DEMOGRAPHIC DECLINE, ISLAMIC IMMIGRATION AND THE EUROPEAN DEATH WISH":
Instead of death by the slow poison of modernism, the Europeans might consider mass suicide. Either way, the outcome will be the same. Europe today is pathological.
Healthy societies exalt the family. Sick societies celebrate perversion -- and seek to ban healthy aversion to the same, in the name of equality.
Healthy societies have a clear understanding of who they are and how they arrived where they are. They both acknowledge and honor their religious roots. Sick societies are militantly secular. They engage in historical revisionism, pretending that faith played no part in their development.
Healthy societies have children. Sick societies are marked by below-replacement birthrates. They refuse to reproduce themselves. Having rejected faith, family and future, they lack an incentive for procreation.
The foregoing is crucial for understanding the resolution Homophobia in Europe, which was overwhelmingly enacted by the parliament of the European Union last month. ...
Note also that the numbers from Fenway are not of prosecuted crimes. Who knows where their numbers come from. Reliable sources indicate that the incidence of crimes based on sexual orientation are declining.
See Robert Knight's citations, 'Hate Crime' Laws: An Assault on Freedom:
Homosexual activists often exaggerate the incidence of "hate crimes," which make up less than 1 percent of all crimes. Over the past several years, even with more law enforcement agencies reporting, the number of "hate crimes" based on "sexual orientation" has dropped.
In 2003, Americans were victimized by approximately 11 million "non-hate" crimes such as muggings, beatings, murders and property crime, such as burglaries, car theft and vandalism. Nearly 1.4 million of the crimes were classified as "violent crimes."
By contrast, there were 7,489 "hate crime" incidents, of which 1,239 were attributed to "sexual orientation" bias. That's a drop of five from the 2002 total of 1,244, and down 154 from 1,393 in 2001.3
Meanwhile, homosexual activist groups and law enforcement agencies tracking "gay-on-gay" domestic violence reported 6,523 cases in 2003, up 13 percent from 5,718 in 2002.4
People involved in homosexual behavior are astronomically more likely to be assaulted by another homosexual than to become the victim of a "hate crime."
What's more, the "hate crime" concept is profoundly subjective. According to FBI statistics,5 five forcible rapes in 2003 were classified as "hate crimes." Overall, 93,433 forcible rapes were reported in 2003, which means the other 93,428 rapes were not "hate crimes."
Also in 2003, some 16,503 criminal homicides were reported, of which 14 were classified as "hate crimes." Six were said to be based on "sexual orientation," and five were said to be based on racial bias.
Sunday, February 05, 2006
Among other things, the author makes clear that there's no such thing as monogamous "gay" relationships. In his 20 years living as a "gay", he never encountered one such couple.
Think about this: There's never been a definition of ethical standards (for sexual behavior) by any of the "religious" leaders of the homosexual movement, only a demolition of traditional religious/ethical standards. (Since this is a Catholic magazine, there's an interesting discussion of an ex-priest behind the so-called Catholic homosexual activist "Dignity" movement.)
In the February issue of The New Oxford Review, "The Truth About the Homosexual Rights Movement; The Books Were a Front for the Porn," by Ronald G. Lee. Here are the opening paragraphs:
There was a "gay" bookstore called Lobo's in Austin, Texas, when I was living there as a grad student. The layout was interesting. Looking inside from the street all you saw were books. It looked like any other bookstore. There was a section devoted to classic "gay" fiction by writers such as Oscar Wilde, Gertrude Stein, and W.H. Auden. There were biographies of prominent "gay" icons, some of whom, like Walt Whitman, would probably have accepted the homosexual label, but many of whom, like Whitman's idol, President Lincoln, had been commandeered for the cause on the basis of evidence no stronger than a bad marriage or an intense same-sex friendship. There were impassioned modern "gay" memoirs, and historical accounts of the origins and development of the "gay rights" movement. It all looked so innocuous and disarmingly bourgeois. But if you went inside to browse, before long you noticed another section, behind the books, a section not visible from the street. The pornography section. Hundreds and hundreds of pornographic videos, all involving men, but otherwise catering to every conceivable sexual taste or fantasy. And you would notice something else too. There were no customers in the front. All the customers were in the back, rooting through the videos. As far as I know, I am the only person who ever actually purchased a book at Lobo's. The books were, in every sense of the word, a front for the porn.
So why waste thousands of dollars on books that no one was going to buy? It was clear from the large "on sale" section that only a pitifully small number of books were ever purchased at their original price. The owners of Lobo's were apparently wasting a lot of money on gay novels and works of gay history, when all the real money was in pornography. But the money spent on books wasn't wasted. It was used to purchase a commodity that is more precious than gold to the gay rights establishment. Respectability. Respectability and the appearance of normalcy. Without that investment, we would not now be engaged in a serious debate about the legalization of same-sex "marriage." By the time I lived in Austin, I had been thinking of myself as a gay man for almost 20 years. Based on the experience acquired during those years, I recognized in Lobo's a metaphor for the strategy used to sell gay rights to the American people, and for the sordid reality that strategy concealed.
And don't miss the link to Mark Steyn, who explains that multiculturalist arguments (Muslim husbands with multiple wives) will be the vehicle to get this really rolling in Canada.
[Kurtz:] The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage. Legalize gay marriage, followed by multi-partner marriage, and pretty soon the whole idea of marriage will be meaningless. At that point, Canada can move to what [the legal "scholars" behind the reports] really want: an infinitely flexible relationship system that validates any conceivable family arrangement, regardless of the number or gender of partners.
The Canadian public cannot bring itself to believe that the abolition of marriage is the real agenda of the country’s liberal legal-political elite. That is why everyone was surprised by [the recent] polygamy report, even though the judicial elite’s intentions had been completely public for five years.
One tidbit in the Kurtz piece: The recent riots in France might very well be linked to all those young men being the products of poor, polygamist families, where there's no strong fatherly presence. BBC News reported (11-16-05):
[S]enior officials from President Jacques Chirac's centre-right party have suggested that polygamy is one factor in the riots, arguing children of polygamous families have less of a father figure and are more likely to live in overcrowded conditions.
"Polygamy... prevents people being educated as they should be in an organised society. Tens of people cannot live in a single flat," Bernard Accoyer, leader of the Union for a Popular Majority (UMP) in the National Assembly lower house of parliament, told French radio. Polygamy is illegal in France but until 1993, it was possible for immigrants to bring more than one wife from their home country to join them.
Is this a good model for Canada to follow?
Were these murders "hate crimes"? Was the killer motivated by some special animus against police or women? How will we know? If not "hate crimes", do they deserve lesser punishments than if the victims were homosexuals?
Update, 2-5-06 afternoon: Suspect in Bar Attack Dies After Shootout. Now we'll never know whether his murder of the policeman and woman were "hate crimes"!
Saturday, February 04, 2006
(We're thinking of what you see on the buildings along the pike, Rt. 2, or even the condition of Storrow Drive and its exit ramps. Amazing how fast our civic pride and order have deteriorated. Mumbles Menino really needs to learn the lesson of Rudy Giuliani: FIX THOSE BROKEN WINDOWS, and COVER THAT GRAFFITI!)
Well, to our great surprise and horror, traveling along Great Road (Rts. 2A/119) in Acton, we saw ... GRAFFITI! Of all places, it was on the office building occupied by Vision New England, a consortium of Evangelical churches in New England, best known for their annual "Congress" at the Hynes Convention Center in February. Interesting choice for this rare suburban posting. The graffiti says:
SUBURBS = CLOSED MINDS
Now what might the "graffiti artist" be thinking of? Apparently, the hideous urban graffitied blight we see along the pike is a sign of "open minds." Hmm ... Does graffiti equate with "open minds" ... key words for "progressive" causes such as "gay marriage"?
Or ... does graffiti indicate lack of concern for civil society and lawlessness?
Here's MassResistance's contribution to the (online) graffiti wars:
Graffiti = VANDALISM
Yes, the BARBARIANS ARE AT THE GATES !
Friday, February 03, 2006
US Representative Barney Frank, who represents New Bedford, said the incident was a tragic aberration. ''This is the vicious act of one degenerate; it's not a city problem," he said. ''This is in no way reflective of any significant opinion in New Bedford."
Yes, it was the vicious act of one degenerate. But no, "opinion" has no role to play here! Use of that word implies that people who hold opinions critical of special rights for homosexuals are indeed dangerous, but they just don't happen to live in New Bedford!
The 18-year-old punk who attacked innocent people in a bar was clearly a mess, a Neo-Nazi wannabe, his room full of anti-black and anti-Semitic garbage. He went to a school for kids with discipline problems. The state had investigated his home in 2000 on suspicions of child neglect. A young man with serious mental health issues and social problems. Sick people exist in a world of their own. It's not anyone else's fault what a crazy man does.
Yet the media can't resist trying to link this crime to legitimate critics of "gay marriage". One photo (in the print editon of the Boston Globe) highlights a spokesman from the "Marriage Equality Coalition of the Southcoast" speaking at a candlelight vigil outside the bar. What does the political and moral argument over "gay marriage" have to do with some crazy guy's meltdown?
Then the Boston Globe inserts a quote intimating that this crime is the fault of anyone who objects to special rights for homosexuals:
''Again and again we have seen that as efforts to marginalize or, in the case of Massachusetts, remarginalize our community escalate, sick and violent people take those efforts as license to step up violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered people," said Clarence Patton, acting executive director of the National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. ''It's been happening across the nation, as our community has come under increased political and rhetorical fire."
Why aren't "hate crimes" committed by homosexual activists (criminally harassing emails, stolen credit cards, house break-ins) against leaders of the pro-family movement investigated and prosecuted?
Maybe it's time to review the dangers of so-called "hate crimes" statutes. See Robert Knight's article, " 'Hate Crime' Laws: An Assault on Freedom."
Liberal activists increasingly invoke such phrases as "hostile speech" and a "climate of violence" to describe pro-family opinion on homosexual issues. The net effect is to reclassify legitimate opinion and free speech as "hate speech" that can be censored....
Thursday, February 02, 2006
But chief sponsor Rep. Alice Wolf (at the hearing, and in her letter to other reps) and DOE spokewoman Melanie Winklosky (quoted in the Boston Herald) say this isn't true! Wolf says parents could still opt their children out of sex ed (can students opt out of other required courses?), and Winklosky says individual school systems could do as they please. They are simply not telling the truth. Here's what Bill H1641 actually says:
AN ACT TO PROVIDE HEALTH EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
Section 1D of chapter 69 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2000 Official Edition, is hereby amended by inserting after the words “foreign language,” in line 6, the words:— health education, as defined by the Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Education Framework.
And if you turn to Chapter 69: Section 1D, you see this:
Statewide educational goals; academic standards; vocational training; grant program
Section 1D. The board shall establish a set of statewide educational goals for all public elementary and secondary schools in the commonwealth.
The board shall direct the commissioner to institute a process to develop academic standards for the core subjects of mathematics, science and technology, history and social science, English, foreign languages ["health education, as defined by the Massachusetts Comprehensive Health Education Framework" to be inserted here by H1641] and the arts. The standards shall cover grades kindergarten through twelve and shall clearly set forth the skills, competencies and knowledge expected to be possessed by all students at the conclusion of individual grades or clusters of grades.... Satisfaction of the requirements of the competency determination shall be a condition for high school graduation.
(Brian Camenker, director of MassResistance/Article 8 Alliance, sent a letter to the Herald to correct Winklosky's "misinformation", but it has not yet appeared.)
They tried to sneak the bill past us all in their last hearing of the year. But they failed! (Originally, it was scheduled to be heard on the same day as our new parents' rights opt-in bill H1050 in late October ... but mysteriously dropped off the radar screen only to resurface on a day with "miscellaneous" bills when no one was paying attention ... or so they thought.)
Are we surprised that Rep. Matthew Patrick was on the deadbeat list? His demeanor during the recent Education Committee hearing on the mandatory sex ed/homosex ed bill was appalling, rudely badgering witnesses as he tried to deny reality.
Apparently, everyone but Rep. Patrick has has heard first-hand stories about our schools training children in condom use, showing films pushing homosexuality, and directing young girls to Planned Parenthood clinics. But since the witnesses didn't have dated films and recordings of such incidents, he insinuated that no such stories could be believed!
How can anyone trust anything that comes out of the mouth of an elected official who can't even abide by the laws the rest of us have to follow? Not only does Rep. Patrick think tax laws don't apply to him, he also thinks he knows better than parents what sex ed and morals ed is appropriate for their children.
March 10, 2005
Six House reps fail to file income tax returns
By David R. Guarino (Boston Herald)
Didn't file for 2003: Rep. Matthew Patrick, 3rd-term Democrat from Falmouth
It's all spend but no tax these days for six state lawmakers who revenue officials say failed to file income tax returns while voting to spend billions of dollars paid by others.
The delinquent pols, all Democratic members of the House, include Rep. Byron Rushing (D-South End), a top lieutenant to Speaker Sal DiMasi, and Rep. David Linsky (D-Framingham), a former prosecutor eying a run for Middlesex district attorney. They were joined on the Department of Revenue non-filing list by fellow lawmakers Colleen M. Garry (D-Dracut), chairwoman of the Personnel and Administration Committee; Rep. Anne M. Gobi (D-Spencer), Rep. Sean Curran (D-Springfield), and Rep. Matthew Patrick (D-Falmouth).
The DOR list, obtained under a public records request by the Herald, also included freshman Rep. Patrick M. Natale (D-Woburn). But Natale said he wasn't working at the time and didn't have to file. Another lawmaker, Rep. Benjamin Swan (D-Springfield), filed his 2003 return just last week after questioning by a reporter.
[Note: A month after the Herald Story, the State House News Service reported: "Rep. Matthew Patrick (D-Falmouth) pointed out recent publicity surrounding his failure to file tax returns. Patrick said he forgot to mail his taxes, and has since paid his liability of $29.35."]
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
"Homosexual acts are socially and morally inferior . . . To describe a behavior which is not beneficial for society is not discriminating against those who make the choice of homosexuality."
Our legislature is now trying to codify homosexual propaganda as "fact" in our K-12 statewide "health" curriculum. The Governor, Legislature, and Supreme Judicial Court all participate in the charade of "legal" same-sex "marriage". So ... can "hate speech" laws be far behind?
See the report from LifeSiteNews.com:
LILLE, France, January 26, 2006 - A court in Lille handed down its sentence on a French Parliamentarian Tuesday, fining him 3000 Euros and forcing him to pay an additional 6000 Euros to be split between three homosexual activist groups who brought the charges against the MP. Christian Vanneste, a member of the UMP representing the Lille region was found guilty in December on charges of violating a French law barring "hate speech" against homosexuals.
However, Vanneste in the remarks upon which the charges were based and in his defence, was clear that he was not speaking against homosexual persons but homosexual sex acts.