Thursday, June 01, 2006

The Effects of Homosexual Indoctrination on Kids

Whenever homosexual indoctrination bills come up in the CA legislature, there is usually more at stake than what initially meets the eye. The following Q & A vividly demonstrates why S.B.1437 should never be implemented into our public schools. Thankfully, Gov. Arnold has pledged to veto the bill if it reaches his desk.



May 23, 2006

Q&A: Dr. Bill Maier on the Effects of Homosexual Indoctrination on Kids

by Pete Winn, associate editor

California legislation mandating textbooks take a flattering view of homosexuality could have devastating effects on kids.

California lawmakers are a step away from giving their approval to S.B. 1437, a bill which would mandate that all public school materials include a "positive portrayal" of homosexuality -- as well as bisexuality and cross-dressing.

Dr. Bill Maier, vice president and psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family, said the impact on children would be devastating.
CitizenLink talked with Maier, who expressed concerned about the psychological and moral implications of the bill on Californians and, eventually, on children across the country.

Q. The author of S.B. 1437, California state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, said her bill will simply update school anti-discrimination policy, but, in fact, what kids are taught in the classroom about sexuality can definitely affect them, can't it?

A. Without a doubt. Even the very liberal Los Angeles Times has editorialized against this bill. They question why history textbooks should deliberately go out of their way to spotlight a personal characteristic of an individual when, in fact, in our society we have a long tradition of celebrating individuals because of their accomplishments, their achievements and what they have contributed to society -- not spotlighting them because of a particular attribute or their “status”; in this case, sexual orientation. It really seems to me to be a very obvious ploy to change the hearts and minds of our children.

Several years ago, those who founded the gay-rights movement laid out what they called The Gay Manifesto – a detailed plan for transforming society’s view of homosexuality. One of their methods is to indoctrinate children from a very early age, using the public school system to teach kids that homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgendered behavior is normal and natural -- and that it is inborn and unchangeable; all of which is contradicted by scientific research. That is exactly what Senator Keuhl's bill seeks to do -- to indoctrinate our kids and, in many cases, to subvert the moral values of parents.

Let me give you an example which I find really striking. There is an organization called GLSEN -- the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network -- which is behind the “Gay-Straight Alliances” in thousands of high schools around the country -- and increasingly they are moving into junior high schools. This group is committed to indoctrinating America's children on the issue of homosexuality.

In a GLSEN workshop, titled "Inclusive Kindergartners," a New York teacher and lesbian activist named Jackie Williams told other gay teachers that "5-year-old children are developing their superego, and that's when the saturation process needs to begin."

In order to initiate conversations on gay issues in the classroom, Williams has her kindergarteners read from an assortment of pro-gay children's books, including Heather has Two Mommies and One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads.

When a lesbian teacher tells her colleagues that “we need to start the saturation process” when children are 5-years-old, it’s obvious that gay activists will stop at nothing in order to co-opt the hearts and minds of our kids.

This legislation would virtually mandate that kids as young as 5 be exposed to homosexuality, to transgendered behavior, to cross-dressing -- you name it. What will the effects be upon children's minds if they are exposed to these at such an early age?

We have to understand that, developmentally, young children are very impressionable. They look to authority figures in their lives to tell them what is good and bad, right and wrong, healthy and unhealthy. Young children look to both their parents and their teachers in order to determine these things.

If their school teacher -- an authority figure in their lives and an adult they respect -- is providing them with information in a classroom setting or through a textbook, they are going believe that information is true. They have not developed the intellectual capacity to discern some of the nuances here. They don’t have the abstract thinking ability to be able to parse out what may be true or not true -- they are simply going to buy it hook, line and sinker.

If they are being told that homosexuality and bisexuality and transgendered behavior are positive and should be embraced by society, of course they are going to believe it. And gay activists know that -- they know the way to change the culture in America is to focus on the children—if you can change their hearts and minds, ultimately you can change the entire society. Interestingly, the Communist party in the former Soviet Union used the same strategy.

We can see this very clearly in some of the polling data: Younger Americans -- teenagers and college students -- have very different views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage than their parents and grandparents do. These young people haven’t been told about the devastating consequences of homosexual behavior; instead, they’ve been brainwashed by a barrage of pro-gay messages found in the popular media, the curriculum in many public schools and -- tragically -- in the so-called “gay theology” espoused by many liberal churches and denominations.

What saddens me most about this is that kids who are struggling, who are confused about their sexual identity, are being told to “embrace their gayness,” as if homosexuality is something they were born with.

I know that research has been done on teens who experiment with homosexuality? It's not very encouraging, is it?

It's not. Let me just cite one example. According to research conducted at the Harvard Medical School, and cited in the journal Pediatrics, teens who experiment with homosexual behavior are more likely engage in a variety of other high-risk behaviors, such as marijuana and cocaine use before the age of 13; sexual intercourse before the age of 13; sexual intercourse with four or more partners; and, perhaps most disturbingly, sexual contact against their will.

Now, if we are telling kids that homosexuality, bisexuality and transgenderism are normal and natural and simply another "lifestyle option," many of them may walk down a path that leads to pain and suffering.

Recent research from the Netherlands, the most gay-friendly nation on the face of the planet, has found that both gays and lesbians are more likely to suffer from psychiatric illness, to abuse drugs and alcohol and to commit suicide. The researchers concluded that these ailments can’t be due to social stigma or “homophobia,” because Dutch society fully embraces homosexuality. Research here in the US, cited in the American Journal of Public Health, indicates that gays are more likely to be a victim of domestic violence at the hands of a sex partner.

And the medical evidence is overwhelming—homosexual men are plagued by AIDS, certain types of cancer and hepatitis. Tragically, gay men die seven to twenty years prematurely compared to heterosexual men.

But Senator Kuehl’s education bill will prohibit teachers or school districts from providing kids with any of that information, because the bill expressly prohibits any material that would “reflect adversely” on a group because of their sexual orientation.

Not only will schools and teachers be prohibited from talking about the very consequences of homosexual behavior, no teacher will be allowed to even discuss the fact that homosexuality has moral implications for many individuals and cultures – or that every one of the world's major religions have proscriptions against it.

Then, there is also the fact that because the bill prohibits any statements that reflect adversely on a particular sexual orientation, it’s likely that teachers and schools will be forbidden to teach facts such as "Children do best when they are raised in a married household by a mother and father" or that "Natural marriage is the foundation of every society and every civilization." Those comments would seem to "reflect adversely" on sexual minorities -- therefore, they will be expressly prohibited.

In effect, if this bill becomes law, the children of California will be given a biased, one-sided message -- one that flies in the face of scientific and medical research and thousands of years of cultural history.
This would seem to be the height of politicization of education.
Without a doubt. It's been going on for some time in California on a variety of levels. What I find particularly disturbing, however, is that it seems for years, parents in California have been strangely silent on this issue. They are standing idly by while their children are being propagandized and co-opted by gay activists and being force-fed these dangerous ideas.

But now, wait a minute. Shouldn't California parents want their kids to be open-minded and tolerant? Why, then, shouldn't they support their kids being taught in accordance with that?

Well, for one there's a big difference between tolerance and approval. Tolerance, if we use the dictionary definition, involves "being tolerant of views, beliefs and practices different from one's own." One can be tolerant while at the same time expressing informed disapproval of a particular idea or behavior.

But what the gay activists and their allies in the California Legislature are demanding is complete and unconditional approval of their lifestyle, their behavior and their agenda -- and anyone who dares to stand up against that is termed "homophobic" and "bigoted."

I believe parents should teach their kids to be open-minded and tolerant of other people and other ideas -- but that is very different from approval, particularly when we are talking about approving of behavior that negatively impacts human well-being, and in many cases, will lead to untold pain and suffering.

California residents are encouraged to contact their elected officials and ask them to oppose S.B. 1437. You can contact them through the new CitizenLink Action Center. (CitizenLink Daily Update subscribers can click on the blue "Take Action" button in the e-mail to be automatically logged in to the Action Center.)

What's the big deal about gay marriage? The seismic waves from same-sex marriage and parenting have the potential to deconstruct humanity. In Marriage on Trial, Dr. Bill Maier and Glenn T. Stanton offer compelling reasons why legalizing this arrangement will be harmful to the larger community and future generations.

(Paid for by Focus on the Family Action.)

You can receive family news stories by email. Sign up now for this complimentary service.

Copyright © 2006 Focus on the FamilyAll rights reserved. International copyright secured.

Restrictions on Use of Our Online Materials
All materials contained in the Focus on the Family Web sites (“Online Material”) are the copyrighted property of Focus on the Family. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are proprietary to Focus on the Family. No Online Material from our Web sites may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way, except that you may download one copy of the materials on any single computer for your personal, noncommercial home use only, provided that you 1) retain all copyright, trademark and propriety notices, 2) you make no modifications to the materials, 3) you do not use the materials in a manner that suggests an association with any of our products, services, events or brands, and 4) you do not download quantities of materials to a database, server, or personal computer for reuse for commercial purposes. You may not, however, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute our Online Material in any way or for any other purpose unless you get our written permission first. Neither may you add, delete, distort or misrepresent any content on the Focus on the Family sites. Any attempts to modify any Online Material, or to defeat or circumvent our security features is prohibited.


Juan Buhler said...

Dr Bill lost me as soon as he mentioned the "gay manifesto."

Christine, you know that this was a sarcastic text, which has been purposedly misinterpreted by the religious right. Look here.

I know you know this, because of a comment in this blog several months ago. By not acknowledging the disingenuous misrepresentation, you are participating in a lie.

Christine, you know what your God does to liers, don't you?

I think you might be going to hell.

Christinewjc said...

Whether or not Dr. Maier may have chosen the wrong label, the facts he lists in his answer remain that:

1. Gay activists devised a detailed plan for transforming society’s view of homosexuality. (See Kirk and Madsen's "After the Ball" book.)

2. One of their methods is to indoctrinate children from a very early age, using the public school system to teach kids that homosexuality, bisexuality, and transgendered behavior is normal and natural -- and that it is inborn and unchangeable; all of which is contradicted by scientific research. That is exactly what Senator Kuehl's bill seeks to do -- to indoctrinate our kids and, in many cases, to subvert the moral values of parents.

Speaking of liars, Juan, perhaps your gay activist buddies should look in the mirror. (See the sentence in bold at the end of excerpt).

The following is an excerpt from, "The Marketing of Evil" Chapter one:

War conference

In February 1988, some 175 leading activists representing homosexual groups from across the nation held a war conference in Warrenton, Virginia, to map out their movement’s future. Shortly thereafter, activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen put into book form the comprehensive public relations plan they had been advocating with their gay-rights peers for several years.

Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys – very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, worked with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing. Together they wrote "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s."
"As cynical as it may seem," they explained at the outset, "AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America's special protection and care. At the same time," they warned, "it generates mass hysteria of precisely the sort that has brought about public stonings and leper colonies since the Dark Ages and before. … How can we maximize the sympathy and minimize the fear? How, given the horrid hand that AIDS has dealt us, can we best play it?"

The bottom line of Kirk and Madsen's master plan? "The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising."

Arguing that, skillfully handled, the AIDS epidemic could conquer American resistance to homosexuality and form the basis of a comprehensive, long-term marketing campaign to sell "gay rights" to straight America, "After the Ball" became the public-relations "bible" of the movement.

Kirk and Madsen's "war goal," explains marketing expert Paul E. Rondeau of Regent University, was to "force acceptance of homosexual culture into the mainstream, to silence opposition, and ultimately to convert American society." In his comprehensive study, "Selling Homosexuality to America," Rondeau writes:

"The extensive three-stage strategy to Desensitize, Jam and Convert the American public is reminiscent of George Orwell’s premise of goodthink and badthink in "1984." As Kirk and Madsen put it, "To one extent or another, the separability – and manipulability – of the verbal label is the basis for all the abstract principles underlying our proposed campaign."
Separability? Manipulability? Allow me to translate this psychological marketing jargon: We can change what people actually think and feel by breaking their current negative associations with our cause and replacing them with positive associations."

Simple case in point: homosexual activists call their movement "gay rights." This accomplishes two major objectives: (1) Use of the word gay rather than homosexual masks the controversial sexual behavior involved and accentuates instead a vague but positive-sounding cultural identity – gay, which, after all, once meant "happy"; and (2) describing their battle from the get-go as one over "rights" implies homosexuals are being denied the basic freedoms of citizenship that others enjoy.

So merely by using the term gay rights, and persuading politicians and the media to adopt this terminology, activists seeking to transform America have framed the terms of the debate in their favor almost before the contest begins. (And in public relations warfare, he who frames the terms of the debate almost always wins. The abortion rights movement has prevailed in that war precisely because it succeeded, early on, in framing the debate as a question, not of abortion, but of choice. The abortion vanguard correctly anticipated that it would be far easier to defend an abstract, positive-sounding idea like choice than the unrestricted slaughter of unborn babies.)

Okay, you might be wondering, even granting the movement's cutting-edge marketing savvy, how do you sell middle America on those five hundred sex partners and weird sexual practices? Answer, according to Kirk and Madsen, you don't. Just don't talk about it. Rather, look and act as normal as possible for the camera.

"When you're very different, and people hate you for it," they explain, "this is what you do: first you get your foot in the door, by being as similar as possible; then, and only then – when your one little difference is finally accepted – can you start dragging in your other peculiarities, one by one. You hammer in the wedge narrow end first. As the saying goes, allow the camel's nose beneath your tent, and his whole body will soon follow."

In other words, sadomasochists, leather fetishists, cross-dressers, transgenders, and other "peculiar" members of the homosexual community need to keep away from the tent and out of sight while the sales job is under way. Later, once the camel is safely inside, there will be room for all.

Rondeau explains Kirk and Madsen's techniques of "desensitization," "jamming," and "conversion" this way:

"Desensitization is described as inundating the public in 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." But, the activists did not mean advertising in the usual marketing context but, rather, quite a different approach: "The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome." They add, "[S]eek desensitization and nothing more. … If you can get [straights] to think [homosexuality] is just another thing – meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders – then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won."

This planned hegemony is a variant of the type that Michael Warren describes in "Seeing Through the Media" where it "is not raw overt coercion; it is one group's covert orchestration of compliance by another group through structuring the consciousness of the second group."
"Structuring the consciousness" of others? If that phraseology is uncomfortably reminiscent of various mind control and brainwashing tales you might have heard over the years, don’t be surprised. Manipulating the emotions and thereby restructuring the thoughts and beliefs of large numbers of people is what modern marketing is all about.
"Jamming," explains Rondeau, "is psychological terrorism meant to silence expression of or even support for dissenting opinion." Radio counselor and psychologist Dr. Laura Schlessinger experienced big-time jamming during the run-up to her planned television show. Outraged over a single comment critical of homosexuals she had made on her radio program, activists launched a massive intimidation campaign against the television program's advertisers. As a result, the new show was stillborn.

But perhaps the highest-profile example of jamming occurred after the 1998 murder of University of Wyoming freshman Matthew Shepard. Lured from a bar, robbed and savagely beaten by two men, Shepard died five days later of head injuries. In the frenzied, saturation media coverage that followed, the press and homosexual activists singled out conservative Christians as having created a "climate of anti-gay hate" in which such a brutal act could happen.

NBC's Today show took the lead, focusing on a Christian ad campaign running at the time that offered to help homosexuals change their orientation. Reporter David Gregory narrated: "The ads were controversial for portraying gays and lesbians as sinners who had made poor choices, despite the growing belief that homosexuality may be genetic. … Have the ads fostered a climate of anti-gay hate that leads to incidents like the killing of Matthew Shepard? Gay rights activists say the ads convey a message that gay people are defective."

And in a now-infamous interview, Today's Katie Couric asked Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer: "Some gay rights activists have said that some conservative political organizations like the Christian Coalition, the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are contributing to this anti-homosexual atmosphere by having an ad campaign saying if you are a homosexual you can change your orientation. That prompts people to say, 'If I meet someone who's homosexual, I'm going to take action to try to convince them or try to harm them.' Do you believe that such groups are contributing to this climate?"

Consciously or not, the media were following Kirk and Madsen's playbook to the letter, discrediting anyone who disagreed with the homosexual agenda by associating them with lowlife murderers. In reality, none of the Christian groups smeared by NBC had ever condoned mistreatment of homosexuals – in fact, they had explicitly condemned it.
As if to add even more shame to the whole-hog jamming of Christians after the Shepard murder, in 2004 a comprehensive new investigation by ABC News 20/20 concluded that homosexuality very likely wasn't a factor in Shepard's murder, but rather Shepard had been targeted for his money.

So much for desensitization and jamming. But what about "conversion"? Here, Kirk and Madsen announce defiantly:

"We mean 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. We mean "subverting" the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends – using the very processes that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard – whether they like it or not."

Transforming another person’s hatred into love ("warm regard") is the object of classic brainwashing. As Kirk and Madsen explain:

"In Conversion, we mimic the natural process of stereotype-learning, with the following effect: we take the bigot's good feelings about all-right guys, and attach them to the label "gay," either weakening or, eventually, replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype. … Whereas in Jamming the target is shown a bigot being rejected by his crowd for his prejudice against gays, in Conversion the target is shown his crowd actually associating with gays in good fellowship. Once again, it's very difficult for the average person, who, by nature and training, almost invariably feels what he sees his fellows feeling, not to respond in this knee-jerk fashion to a sufficiently calculated advertisement."

We're talking about some serious messing around with Americans' minds here. Do the homosexual activists thus engaged really know they're deceiving the public, or are they convinced they're just telling the truth?
"It makes no difference that the ads are lies," write Kirk and Madsen, "not to us, because we're using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones."

Susan Smith said...

Hi Christine:

We are inborn with a sinful nature. What is normal and natural for one who has not been transformed by the power of God is sin. The sin may be sexual immorality or telling lies... we are all born in the flesh with a sinful nature.

This Q&A is very interesting and well worth the time to read in its entirety. Keep up the good work.

Love to my sister on the West Coast from a sunny (70 degree) Friday morning at almost 8 a.m. Pentecost holiday weekend in Jerusalem. Shabbat Shalom, my friend. (ss)

Juan Buhler said...

Whether or not Dr. Maier may have chosen the wrong label[...]

It's not a matter of choosing a wrong label, Christine. It is a purposeful misrepresentation. He, and you, *know* that that "Gay manifesto" was a satirical work. The fact that you keep pushing it as serious, and will not acknowledge its real nature, says a lot about how much you are willing to do in order to maintain this paranoid fantasy you have built for yourself, where gays are out there to convert your husbands and children into sodomites.

It is a sad, tragic and in a way very funny situation. The fact remains though--you are lying--and your God doesn't make exceptions for what you'd call a "white" lie.

Christinewjc said...

Whether or not "The Gay Manifesto" was a "satirical" work or not is irrelevant. The fact that many of the goals and methods described in that "satirical" work have undeniably been purposefully used cannot be overlooked. Such "marketing techniques" have been documented by the likes of Kirk and Madsen and their ilk. Their plan to "desensitize," "jam," and "convert" the general public cannot be denied no matter how much you want to scream "liar" Juan.

I wonder. Would you say the same thing about what a formerly gay man says in this post too?

Juan Buhler said...

"Convert"? Christine, do you sincerely believe you (or say, your husband) could be "converted" into homosexuality? I do think sexuality is a continuum, but I also think most people fall near the two extremes. As a straight guy, who cannot imagine being "converted" into anything else, I have to wonder when people talk about "conversion." Since I cannot imagine any other reason for their behavior, my gut feeling tells me they are fighting homosexual fantasies themselves.

BTW Christine, do you personally know any gay people? I really think you would benefit a lot from having one or two gay friends. Believe me, they are normal people and won't try to convince you of anything.

I wonder. Would you say the same thing about what a formerly gay man says in this post too?

I'll comment on that post later.

But what would it be to "say the same thing"? I'm sorry, I don't follow.

You know, I don't really believe you're going to hell, in pretty much the same way I don't believe there's a three ton pink elephant in your kitchen right now. I do think though that if I were using the tactics you are using, my conscience would be bothering me right about now.