 | |
| |
Translate this page 
Thursday, May 15th, 2008. Issue 20, Volume 12. Story Last Updated : Jul 27th. Regarding responses to a previous letter on risks associated with homosexual behavior – comparisons to smoking and obesity bring to mind the old adage, "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Smoking is neither celebrated nor accorded special days of silence or recognition in the schools and workplace. Public schools don’t provide obese students with support groups to encourage them to "come out" about their desire to overeat. Obese people and smokers have not lobbied to ensure that textbooks present their unhealthy behaviors positively, nor are they working overtime to bestow legitimacy on their behavior by insisting on a redefinition of civilization’s fundamental institution. Smokers and the obese do not attempt to silence discussion of the facts by accusing Advertisement However, the systematic and persistent dissemination of lies and suppression of truth about homosexuality has accomplished these things. The fear of being labeled intolerant or hateful has made us so foolish we even allow the deception of (vulnerable) children. For example, in some school districts, children are encouraged in sex ed. classes to explore their sexual preferences (if they think they are exclusively heterosexual). The courage to say "the emperor has no clothes" is what’s needed now if our nation is going to escape the fate of every nation in history that has normalized homosexuality. Dare to be one small voice.
Margot Holman
28 comments
What you see here is part of the Dominionist plan to convert the U.S. to a theocracy operating under Mosaic law. In its first phases, objectives include painting te U.S as in a state of moral decline and politicizing religious beliefs so that it would seem reasonable to incorporate them into law. The Southern Baptist Convention is involved in this effort, as evidenced by Mike Huckabee's stating that the Constitution should be changed to be in accordance with "God's law" and "all (the law) we need is the ten commandments."
Ms Holman makes the false assumption that only indoctrinations that are disseminated through public schools. She disregards totally the indoctrination that reaches the public through the advertising media - TV, publications, radio, even movies - which push fat burgers and other deadly foods. Perhaps she is too young to remember the pervasive advertising by cigarette manufacturers. Smoking harms nearly every organ of the body, causing many diseases and reducing quality of life and life expectancy. During 1997--2001, cigarette smoking and exposure to tobacco smoke resulted in approximately 438,000 premature deaths in the United States. The list of smoking-attributable diseases now includes stomach cancer and acute myeloid leukemia and hypertension (high blood pressure, the silent killer). Yet Holman would dismiss these two sins. Dare to be a big, loud voice for the worst killers.
Ten bucks says Margot's first husband left her for a man.
To John the Baptist: You're absolutely right - I'm not sure what the "Dominionist plan" is, but I see the religious right claim exclusive knowledge of moral certainty, while many of their leaders are caught in the most tawdry scandals. The fear and loathing of homosexuality in others is a very curious thing; makes me think it’s mostly a fear within themselves. Is homosexuality so appealing that our youth and married couples are only prevented from engaging in it, because of laws? All of the homosexuals I have known are in honest, open, long-term, monogamous relationships. Many others, who are openly gay and promiscuous, are at least honest about it. When you have a homosexual person actually in your family, you suddenly become much more tolerant and understanding – as in the Cheney family. These are real people with deep feelings of love and commitment – not the cartoon stereotype you see in the San Francisco gay pride parade. The dishonesty of heterosexuals who cheat of their wives (such as John McCain and Newt Gingrich) or closet homosexuals (such as Rev. Ted Haggard and Senator Larry Craig) are much more destructive to our society, as thousands of people look up to them as the moral standard. I’m a hardcore liberal and have been married to my high school sweetheart 40 years. Most of my liberal friends are also in long term marriages.
to Jon Monday: Roger that! I used to be a moderate--until the ultra right reset the scale, so now I'm a liberal--and (faithfully) married to my (first and only) wife for 54 years, and counting. I've worked with gay men and I know two lesbian couples very well. My experience has been very positive. I certainly don't consider them threats. And I'm still amazed at how many people have so little empathy that they can think anyone would choose to be homosexual. Re Dominionism: you can get some background from Wikipedia, and there's a good expose by Chris Hedges, titled "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America." Regards 
Re "...in some school districts, children are encouraged in sex ed. classes to explore their sexual preferences (if they think they are exclusively heterosexual)." Can anybody cite a source for this? The action indicated in the quote would be in violation of recent legislation that requires neutrality in matters of sexual orientation. 
Re: "Smokers ...do not attempt to silence discussion of the facts by accusing those who present them ... of advocating the restriction of personal choices ..." Since when did that stop happening? Purpose is better served when ALL the facts are considered, whether the topic is smoking or homosexuality.
Re : "Smokers ... do not attempt to silence discussion of the facts by accusing those who present them ... of advocating the restriction of personal choices..." They don't do much of that now, but they and the Tobacco Industry did it in spades when non-smokers began to be heard. And the Tobacco Industry perpetrated one of the larger conspiracies in suppressing the actual facts about nicotine. Purpose is better served when ALL the facts are considered, whether the topic is smoking or homosexuality.
I apologize for my premature post of 5/17, 3:37pm. To atone, I’m providing the following additional information. James Dobson, who heads up Focus on the Family, and is a major purveyor of anti-homosexual “facts”, apparently has fudged some of his “facts” more than just a little. New York University educational psychologist Carol Gilligan wrote: "I was mortified to learn that you had distorted my work this week in a guest column you wrote in Time Magazine." "My work in no way suggests same-gender families are harmful to children or can't raise these children to be as healthy and well adjusted as those brought up in traditional households." For more on this, and other fudging, see: www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Scientist_blasts_Focus_on_Family_chief_1215.html
Children need a mother and a father first of all to conceive a child and this is nature's way of showing some of us ignorant people just who is supposed to be raising them.
To Leah, That "Children need a mother and a father" is a very limited point of view, even within the context of hetrosexual relationships. There are many single parent families that are succesfull, due to divorce, death, or people who were never married. Many hetrosexual couples also need medical intervention (over-riding nature) to conceive. The main ingredients for a good and successful childhood are love, emotional support, good nutrition, and education. That can be provide by biological parents, adopted parents, a man, a woman, two men, two women, grandparents, etc.
Bryan T., You owe me ten bucks!
Adrian, You read a lot into my letter that isn't there! First, I did not call anything a sin. Secondly, I did not dismiss the danger or risk of either smoking or overeating. Thirdly, I did not suggest that school was the only place where the normalization of homosexuality was being promoted. I can't think of any place it isn't being promoted other than some families and some churches! I was merely making the observation that though it is scientific fact that homosexual behavior (like smoking and over eating) is unhealthy --- rather than an attempt to discourage it (like smoking and over eating), our culture goes overboard to sanction it -- even to the point of granting special celebrations and rights! Doesn't it seem odd that we so actively approve of something that is harmful to individuals and society? There is a high likelihood for tragic consequences for any who 'discover' they are 'bisexual' because the barrier between normal and abnormal has been broken down. Incidentally, this breakdown is virtually complete and it has been largely accomplished by branding as hateful those who dare to question the wisdom of promoting societal approval of this particular self-destructive behavior!
Jon Monday, Fear and loathing? Where in the world did you come up with that out of a list of the current scientific facts about homosexual behavior and my observation that though the evidence indicates that the behavior is unhealthy, we are promoting it as a society? We don't usually encourage unhealthy, dangerous, or risky behaviors, do we? I did not say homosexuality should be outlawed. I wouldn't outlaw smoking either though I am glad it's lost the popularity it enjoyed when I was young (and a smoker) -- mostly because of popular opinion and laws that make it unappealing. I stated and believe homosexuals should be treated with compassion and understanding just as you do. Most of the homosexuals I have known were nice people. I really don't care what they do in private. I'd much prefer a little discretion when it comes to sexual preference or even exploits for that matter. What I object to is the charade that homosexual behavior is as healthy and normal as heterosexual behavior and the attitude that anyone who dares to assert that it isn't is a religious bigot and a hater. Your intolerance for a viewpoint other than your own (even when it is supported by science) is betrayed by your use of words like 'fear and loathing'. As to the law being required to keep people from engaging in homosexual behaviors, l would have thought the answer was self-evident. (Incidentally, we don't have a law, I didn't advocate one, and if homosexuals didn't insist on 'celebrating' it wouldn't matter because no one would know). Youngsters who are taught from a very young age to be comfortable with same-sex relationships are not likely to feel committed to a heterosexual choice. This is especially during adolescence when hormones are raging and the boys are less inhibited, pregnancy is a risk, and friendships are easiest among those of your own sex. For many of these experimenters, the behavior will stick because as behavioral scientists have discovered pleasurable experiences create a longing for repetition. We are already experiencing an increase in lesbianism in our young people. You would be wise to do some research on human sexuality if you truly don't understand the dangers of wholesale approval of homosexual behavior.
To Margot: Hi there. My comment about "Fear and Loathing" is not necessarily about you, but there certainly is a lot of fear and loathing about homosexuality around these days. If the shoe doesn't fit - don't put it on. Sorry. My analogy to overeating, as a lifestyle choice, was a poor one in that homosexuality is not inherently harmful, as is overeating and smoking. Analogies are like leaky buckets, they can carry water, but only so far. In any case, I was being sarcastic. The thing that makes homosexuality dangerous is unprotected sex with multiple partners – exactly the same thing is true with heterosexual sex. Sex education and condoms are a good solution. Regarding your statement that, “if our nation is going to escape the fate of every nation in history that has normalized homosexuality”, I don't think this point of view is based in fact. What examples are you thinking of? If you’re referring to the Roman Empire, read historians such as Chalmer’s Johnson, who will point out that it was the inability to maintain a costly, far-flung military in their empire that caused the collapse, not homosexuality. A point I think we should all be more aware of. Since homosexuality has been in every society for as long as there have been humans, you could say that it has caused every society to fail - or every society to succeed. Like illegal immigrants, it’s easy to single out homosexuals as being the cause of all our problems (even, in your case, to the point of threatening the fate of our nation), but they are not the real problem. The economy, pollution, health care cost, under funded public education, the deficit, corrupt government, war; these are some of the problems we need to address. If there were no homosexuals at all, all these issues would still be pressing on us. You also seem to believe that homosexuality is a choice – that has been disproven (although the religious right resists the finding). Better to let people be comfortable with who they are, than try to force them to be what you would characterize as “normal”.
to Margot Holman: You did avoid calling homosexuality a sin, but your presumption that homosexuality is a choice flies in the face of current scientific findings. Where are you finding your scientific data? I get mine from the American Psychological Association (APA). See www.apa.org/ppo/issues/lgbfamilybrf604d.html
To Jon: If I am not mistaken, you have identified yourself in the past as an athiest. We need to agree to disagree on this one because you and I ascribe to a completely different world view. Our view of man is different. I am not limited in my view that a mother and father are best suited for a child. We were created for the optimal family to be a mother and a father raising children. Your examples of other situations that come up is part of this life and does not in any way undercut my belief. Give me a great father and mother and then give me a great mother and mother and hands down, the great mother and father is the way family life was created and intended to be.
To Jon: I forgot to mention that you left out a very important part of raising happy and healthy children....DISCIPLINE.
To Leah: You are quite mistaken. I am not an athiest - far from it. I consider myself to be a very religious person. Always have been, since my early youth. My wife and I been members of our church for over 35 years, and for the last ten years, before moving to Fallbrook, I was on the board of directors. I have published articles on religious topics, and study the world's religions.
Jon and John, Thanks for your comments. I think you, like most Americans, are victims of the filters in our politically correct culture that silence unwanted facts while championing the dissemination of misinformation that agrees with the politically correct opinion. Even the APA has recently issued a report in which it begins to acknowledge what most scientists have long known: that a bio-psycho-social model of causation best fits THE DATA. Science has tried with no success to link any 'behavior' to a gene. They thought for a while that they could link a change of 4 I.Q. points to genetics, but with further research even that small link could not be established. I suggest you visit www.narth.com, where you will be able to read about research into the causes and effects of homosexuality. One of the articles that is an easy read with a good basis in research and study is titled, "What Has Been Concluded From1000 Recent Articles On Homosexuality?" You will also find a recent article about APA's new pamphlet on homosexuality that de-emphasizes the biological argument and supports a client's right to self determination. If you are going to champion homosexuality you owe it to yourself and your circle of influence to acknowledge that the language of homosexual acivists like accusations of fear and loathing, homophobia, and intolerance are the tactics employed by liars throughout history to suppress truth. What we need is a healthy and open discussion of the facts. Truth sets us free, afterall.
To Jon: There is an argument here about parenthood. Jon seems to think a man and a woman style of parenthood deemed to be the most optimal is "limited" because it is not necessary. I would argue that any other configuration of parents would be limited in its effectivness for the survival of a species. For those of you who do not subscribe to the biblical reasons behind the understanding that children are a blessing fron God to a man and a woman, as I know to be true, but instead follow a more Darwinian school of thought, my question is, why didn't nature figure out a way for Jon's expansive point of view to occur in naturally? You may have heard of such methods of conception as autogenesis. Even this method is intelligently engineered to be usefull in procreation but still does not offer any validity to Jon's opinion. Darwinians have come to the conclusion that the only method of procreation provided to us, that is to use one part of a man and one part of a women, intelligently engineers a male and female bio-parent for the conceived. Even Darwinians understand that there must be credit given to this because according to them everything has an evolutionary purpose for the survival of a species. As for your argument that other forms of parenting work I would make the point that just because one is able to keep a fruit tree from dying and maybe provide a little fruit does mean you are going to have people lining up to have you manage their grove.Best to leave that to the professionals, if you know what I mean.
to Leah: I agree with you that a great mother and father make an optimal parent set and constitute an ideal. But, to quote a Rolling Stones song: "You can't always get what you want." Considering the largely unskilled labor set from which parents are drawn, and that no parenting license is required, the majority of children reared by a husband and wife combo will be reared under suboptimal conditions. I think being reared by two great same-sex adults is a lot better than that.
To John the Baptist: I am glad to know that you agree that a mother and father make an optimal and ideal "parent set". You are corrrect that we cannot always have what we want, however, with certain disciplines, choices and decisions, you can get pretty darn close to what you want. We all lie in our own bed. I disagree with you completely on the "unskilled labor set". It is society that has broken down the optimal family and unfortunately, many have succumbed to this by their lack of discipline, choices and decisions. Please do not undermine the optimal family by catering to those that have shattered the blessed family by their choices and decisions. People that throw their arms up in the air and say,"Oh well, that didn't work very well!" Doesn't mean we seek to lower our standards and seek a less optimal choice.
To Jon: My apologies to you. I thought I had read a previous article of yours that you had referred yourself as an athiest.
to nothing but the truth: I can't speak for Jon, but in my reading of his posts, I believe he is suggesting supplementing hetero parents, not supplanting them. I believe the biological drive to reproduce is more than strong enough to ensure that the great majority of couplings will continue to be hetero. I believe homosexuality is biologically-based, not chosen. Gender determination is a complex process, and occasionally physically evident errors occur. Though rare, true hermaphrodites are produced. Somewhat more often, there is a spectrum of development of both male and female organs. Extrapolating from that, I believe that unobservable errors occur, resulting in misaligned sexual orientation.
to Margot Holman: I am familiar with NARTH. It was founded in 1992 by Joseph Nicolosi, Benjamin Kaufman, and the late Charles Socarides. NARTH is a very vocal critic of the American Psychiatric Association's decision to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Did you know that Charles Socarides, who strongly touted reparative therapy, had a gay son, Richard Socarides? Richard went on to become a prominent gay-rights activist, serving as a White House adviser under President Clinton from 1993 to 1999 in a variety of senior positions, including as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Adviser for Public Liaison for gay and lesbian issues.
to Leah: I agree totally that we have serious societal problems, problems that began with the destabilization resulting from our move from a primarily agrarian economy to an industrial one. Today, when so many people's lives can be devastated by the whims of a few mega-corporation CEO's, it's no wonder why there are so many dysfunctional families. I stand by my use of the expression "unskilled labor set," by which I meant, with no prior experience in parenting. In a less-broken society, new parents would have the benefit of access to other family members' counsel and support. I'm a pragmatist. While we strive toward optimum conditions, we need to work to ameliorate conditions that exist right now. The major problem I see is divorce. If you conducted a survey today, I can assure you, you would not find the threat of same-sex marriage to be in the top 50 causes of divorce. The threats to marriage come from within. Regards
To John the Baptist: As far as "divorce" goes with same sex marriages, I do not believe you can give ANY top causes for their "divorce"- as far as I know the only place it is legal for them to be married is Massachusettes...and now here in Calif. which has only been days. You are correct in that our lives are very much controlled by powers that many are not aware of, however, we still have choices within our marriages. With the "feel good hype" the media puts out about "love" and the loss of principles within a marriage, it is no wonder we have so many divorces, which I guarantee will also be in the gay communitry. You are correct about the anihilation of the family- you have two parents off in different cities working and then the children dropped at daycare all day- where in the heck are they supposed to learn about being in a family and what it takes to be a successful and close family? I still stand by the fact that nothing is bettter than mom and dad- a belief I will not compromise on! I experience the grace and gifts of it everyday. |
       Recent VideoMost Commented
298 Medical marijuan... 229 13-year-old Fall... 178 Vote ‘yes’ on Pr... 163 Marine commits s... 158 Man hit, killed ... 124 Increased Noise ... 124 13-year-old Fall... 118 Authorities dist... 111 Base fire now 90... 108 ‘Yes’ on Prop. 8 103 Fallbrook Tax Da... 102 22 suspected ill... 102 Little Mexico in... 99 Good Samaritans ... 96 19-year-old fata... |
Subscribe via RSS (all)
