Is the "certification of homosexuality" movement largely a Western phenomenon?

[MarcoPolo]

Parenting is a homosexual behavior? Marriage is a homosexual behavior? Being a family is a homosexual behavior?

I’m not sure who said any of this, but I think your concerns have ultimately been addressed.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Teaching the legitimacy of homosexual behavior is not teaching kids about the “world” if that’s what you are trying to say.

From what I read the book didn’t say anything about homo- or heterosexuality. It showed that there are families composed of same gender parent figures, something that the students may end up seeing at PTA meetings or events where parents and guardians are involved. As far as I can tell the school seemed to be making the children aware of other family organizations before an awkward situation results from ignorance of it.

 

[edwest2]

From what I read the book didn’t say anything about homo- or heterosexuality. It showed that there are families composed of same gender parent figures, something that the students may end up seeing at PTA meetings or events where parents and guardians are involved. As far as I can tell the school seemed to be making the children aware of other family organizations before an awkward situation results from ignorance of it.

That is not the school’s call. Parental rights come first. If it was my boy, I’d opt him out of any book that taught that gay and lesbian couples are married.

amazon.com/Daddy-Papa-Me-Lesl%C3%A9a-Newman/dp/1582462623

amazon.com/Mommy-Mama-Me-Lesl%C3%A9a-Newman/dp/1582462631/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373559255&sr=1-1&keywords=mommy+mama+and+me

This would not be an issue except for the 24/7 news/propaganda pieces.

Peace,
Ed

 

[marymary1975]

This movement is actually an American/European movement instead of a western movement. The minute that international organizations starts conditioning financial aid to countries in Latin America and Africa onto passing laws allowing homosexual marriage (which is the reason why Argentina did it, to get financial aid) it becomes a movement of first world countries forcing their.culture onto others.

 

[marymary1975]

The book read in kindergarten was not about gay sex. You cease to be convincing when you are unfamiliar with the very example you cite.

Parenting is a homosexual behavior? Marriage is a homosexual behavior? Being a family is a homosexual behavior?

What you are saying it is not true. I had my daughter in public school in first grade…FIRST grade, seven years old, when she came home one day telling a lady had gone to the schools to tell them two boys can kiss each other and two girls can love each other and get married and a girl kissing a girl on the lips was Ok. After my shock I went to the school and found out Planned parenthood had been to the school from kindergarden to fifth grades “tracing kids” about homosexuality and lecturing them on gay marriage. My daughter at seven years old doesn’t need to hear that girls should be kissing girls on the lips, or boys either. I send her to elementary school to learn to read and write not to learn about people of the same sex kissing each other. And before you say it is to teach “tolerance” this is in Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal a long time ago and where most people don’t mind about it, so why do PP has to go to an elementary school to teach about gays?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That is not the school’s call. Parental rights come first. If it was my boy, I’d opt him out of any book that taught that gay and lesbian couples are married.

I’ve got no problem with some one objecting against the book itself or the objecting against it being in a school. My only objection is against labeling the book as talking about sexuality if it doesn’t talk about sexuality.

 

[edwest2]

What you are saying it is not true. I had my daughter in public school in first grade…FIRST grade, seven years old, when she came home one day telling a lady had gone to the schools to tell them two boys can kiss each other and two girls can love each other and get married and a girl kissing a girl on the lips was Ok. After my shock I went to the school and found out Planned parenthood had been to the school from kindergarden to fifth grades “tracing kids” about homosexuality and lecturing them on gay marriage. My daughter at seven years old doesn’t need to hear that girls should be kissing girls on the lips, or boys either. I send her to elementary school to learn to read and write not to learn about people of the same sex kissing each other. And before you say it is to teach “tolerance” this is in Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal a long time ago and where most people don’t mind about it, so why do PP has to go to an elementary school to teach about gays?

These organizations have two primary agendas, destroy heterosexual families and population control.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I’ve got no problem with some one objecting against the book itself or the objecting against it being in a school. My only objection is against labeling the book as talking about sexuality if it doesn’t talk about sexuality.

The topic title: “certification of homosexuality” says it all. Homosexual behavior is being marketed like a product. Not only, according to the propaganda, is it OK to be gay, but to engage in gay behavior. Propaganda 101 tells us to influence the population, you, among other things, must turn non-normative behavior into no big deal, as if it’s been normative forever. Softening up your targets to believe it, even if sexual activity is not explicitly mentioned.

Peace,
Ed

 

[livingwordunity]

These organizations have two primary agendas, destroy heterosexual families and population control.

That’s actually the same agenda since destruction of tradition marriage in favor of so-called “same-sex marriage” has the same end result of reducing the population. Homosexual behavior is the ultimate form of contraception. And it reduces the population in two ways, through reducing the amount of new births and by the fact that “gays” have a much shorter life expectancy and die of AIDS in much higher proportions than do heterosexuals. The agenda is to attack both the value and the dignity of human life and to get people to call evil good and good evil.

 

[Michael_Allen]

I ask this because it seems popular among leaders in the U.S. and many European nations, but has not had as profound an effect, say in Russia or Africa.

I suppose it depends what period of history you are looking at. Ancient Greece and Persia were known to be open to same-sex relationships.

 

[Michael_Allen]

That’s actually the same agenda since destruction of tradition marriage in favor of so-called “same-sex marriage” has the same end result of reducing the population. Homosexual behavior is the ultimate form of contraception. And it reduces the population in two ways, through reducing the amount of new births and by the fact that “gays” have a much shorter life expectancy and die of AIDS in much higher proportions than do heterosexuals. The agenda is to attack both the value and the dignity of human life and to get people to call evil good and good evil.

Most estimates put the incidence of homosexuality at about 5% of the population. It seems unlikely that such a small proportion would significantly affect population sizes.

Of course asking them to be celibate won’t help increase the population (if we really want to do that).

God bless +

Michael

 

[edwest2]

That’s actually the same agenda since destruction of tradition marriage in favor of so-called “same-sex marriage” has the same end result of reducing the population. Homosexual behavior is the ultimate form of contraception. And it reduces the population in two ways, through reducing the amount of new births and by the fact that “gays” have a much shorter life expectancy and die of AIDS in much higher proportions than do heterosexuals. The agenda is to attack both the value and the dignity of human life and to get people to call evil good and good evil.

I agree with what you say but aside from adopting kids, and confusing young and old alike about the true nature of marriage, “same-sex marriage” does not figure into reducing the population as greatly as abortion. I mean, we’re talking millions dead. The gay adoption experiment will have the intended “See. Gay couples are exactly like heterosexual married couples.” The primary goal there is to get to kids, whose emotional and mental maturity have not yet formed, to “accept” a great deception and - they hope - get them walking around and spreading this belief. But don’t despair, because these same children who will become voting-age adults, will hear the truth.

Peace,
Ed

 

[livingwordunity]

I agree with what you say but aside from adopting kids, and confusing young and old alike about the true nature of marriage, “same-sex marriage” does not figure into reducing the population as greatly as abortion. I mean, we’re talking millions dead. The gay adoption experiment will have the intended “See. Gay couples are exactly like heterosexual married couples.” The primary goal there is to get to kids, whose emotional and mental maturity have not yet formed, to “accept” a great deception and - they hope - get them walking around and spreading this belief. But don’t despair, because these same children who will become voting-age adults, will hear the truth.
Peace,
Ed

Abortion does currently prevent more children from being born than does so-called “same-sex marriage”. But abortion is decided upon by people after a child is conceived, and they can always decide to have the child that was conceived. But in the homosexual act there is an absolute guarantee that no child will be conceived in the first place. In that sense it’s the ultimate form of contraception. And if the numbers of homosexuals increase with increased social acceptance and approval of it as “the new normal” (I believe that it’s a socially learned behavior) then it could even one day become so common that heterosexuals could become a minority. And that’s when it could become more of a population reducer than abortion. Also, remember the point that homosexual behavior reduces the population in a two-fold way, one in reducing the numbers of new child births and in how homosexuals have a much shorter life expectancy.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Abortion does currently prevent more children from being born than does so-called “same-sex marriage”. But abortion is decided upon by people after a child is conceived, and they can always decide to have the child that was conceived. But in the homosexual act there is an absolute guarantee that no child will be conceived in the first place. In that sense it’s the ultimate form of contraception. And if the numbers of homosexuals increase with increased social acceptance and approval of it as “the new normal” (I believe that it’s a socially learned behavior) then it could even one day become so common that heterosexuals could become a minority. And that’s when it could become more of a population reducer than abortion. Also, remember the point that homosexual behavior reduces the population in a two-fold way, one in reducing the numbers of new child births and in how homosexuals have a much shorter life expectancy.

The number of homosexuals is still so low that I don’t know how you could assert that the increased acceptance of homosexuality will lead to a significant amount of the population becoming homosexual. It doesn’t seem to have increased that much in the last few decades, and it’s honestly too early now to know for sure whether the increase is due to more people becoming homosexual. It’s only very recently that homosexuality has become as accepted as it is.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I suppose it depends what period of history you are looking at. Ancient Greece and Persia were known to be open to same-sex relationships.

The Ancient Greeks viewed same-sex relationships as the same/equal to heterosexual relationships? Yeah, no they didn’t. To start with, same-sex marriage activists would label them as bigots since they held the view that homosexual marriage =/= heterosexual marriage in terms of social, legal, religious, family, etc rights and concerns. Second, these same “open to same-sex relationships” Greeks viewed homosexuality not so much as “I’m born that way” but as “it’s a phase you go through” or “hey, it’s advantageous for my son’s/my education/social status/political status/economic condition to “sleep” with that guy.” Third, the adult males of marriage age who stayed in a same-sex relationship as the passive partner were looked down upon socially (doesn’t really mesh with the viewpoint currently being pushed) as being weak and/or inferior men.

As for Persia and same-sex relationships, all I know about that is that the Ancient, as you labeled them “open to same-sex relationships”, Greeks took a rather dim view toward their practices (similar to how the Romans viewed the Greek practices).

 

[edwest2]

Abortion does currently prevent more children from being born than does so-called “same-sex marriage”. But abortion is decided upon by people after a child is conceived, and they can always decide to have the child that was conceived. But in the homosexual act there is an absolute guarantee that no child will be conceived in the first place. In that sense it’s the ultimate form of contraception. And if the numbers of homosexuals increase with increased social acceptance and approval of it as “the new normal” (I believe that it’s a socially learned behavior) then it could even one day become so common that heterosexuals could become a minority. And that’s when it could become more of a population reducer than abortion. Also, remember the point that homosexual behavior reduces the population in a two-fold way, one in reducing the numbers of new child births and in how homosexuals have a much shorter life expectancy.

OK. A guy meets a girl tomorrow and they decide to get married and have kids. The ‘Gay is OK’ propaganda effect will have zero to do with that. Zero.

What will increase the number of children being born, is the realization, especially among younger Catholics, that “sex is NOT the be all and end all of married life.” That is a message for life. The message for death will not endure. Have hope.

I pray that homosexual/LGBT persons realize the truth and I have the hope that by God’s grace, at least some will.

Peace,
Ed

 

[clem456]

People are hard wired by God to have relations with the opposite sex. I don’t see that changing anytime soon, despite the small percentages of people who are same sex attracted.

Human beings like to exist…to exist we need sex between man and woman. There is no other way. Be hopeful that God’s gift of life will continue.

 

[JimG]

What you are saying it is not true. I had my daughter in public school in first grade…FIRST grade, seven years old, when she came home one day telling a lady had gone to the schools to tell them two boys can kiss each other and two girls can love each other and get married and a girl kissing a girl on the lips was Ok. After my shock I went to the school and found out Planned parenthood had been to the school from kindergarden to fifth grades “tracing kids” about homosexuality and lecturing them on gay marriage. My daughter at seven years old doesn’t need to hear that girls should be kissing girls on the lips, or boys either. I send her to elementary school to learn to read and write not to learn about people of the same sex kissing each other. And before you say it is to teach “tolerance” this is in Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal a long time ago and where most people don’t mind about it, so why do PP has to go to an elementary school to teach about gays?

It’s all about indoctrinating children at the earliest possible age. Allowing Planned Parenthood into the public schools to do this sort of indoctrination is the equivalent of child abuse.

 

[livingwordunity]

People are hard wired by God to have relations with the opposite sex. I don’t see that changing anytime soon, despite the small percentages of people who are same sex attracted.

Human beings like to exist…to exist we need sex between man and woman. There is no other way. Be hopeful that God’s gift of life will continue.

The fact that there is even a small percentage of people who have developed same-sex attraction means that the natural hard wiring for attraction to the opposite sex can be manipulated by social conditioning. And I say that it’s social conditioning because there no “gay gene” and no other conclusive evidence for it being anything other than socially learned. And there are examples of people converting from a heterosexual to a homosexual and some of these who later convert back to heterosexual (Anne Heche) as well as people who exhibit bisexual behavior which means that sexual attraction (in this fallen, sinful state of humanity) isn’t set in stone. And with enough propaganda and other forms of social peer pressure, that small proportion of homosexuals can grow into a large proportion. For example:

“In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation. This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls. Suggestions for future research were offered.” - California School of Professional Psychology

Source:
Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons, California School of Professional Psychology

 

[SMGS127]

These organizations have two primary agendas, destroy heterosexual families and population control.

Woah woah, I’m with you that PP should not be anywhere near schools at all, and that the same-sex family book shouldn’t either, but I am highly skeptical of a claim that any liberal organization is out to “destroy heterosexual families.” What is their benefit from it? I can buy population control [and in fact have heard arguments EXTOLLING that] and I can buy that many in the community want to bring down the Church (get in line and fail like the rest). But the destruction of heterosexual families serves no purpose.

The “gay” activists will never be satisfied. First they demanded “civil unions”. When they got that, it wasn’t enough so they demanded marriage to be redefined. Although governments are giving them what they want, it bothers them that the Catholic Church is not going to cave to their demands. So they stage naked protests at the Vatican, invade and disrupt holy Masses, and burn Vatican flags in protest despite the fact that there are thousands of other religions that will tell them the lies they want to hear.

People know the Truth at heart, and it really bothers them that it won’t change to fit their hedonistic desires. Everyone will always come back to the Church, even if it’s to admonish it out of a very deep-seated desire to be at one with the Church. Unfortunately, they seek to change the Church instead of changing themselves, and they will fail every time.