home > archive > 2006 > this article

Search this site Search WWW

Do the math

By Alisa Craddock
web posted October 9, 2006

Well, Rep. Foley has really stepped in it.  One is astounded at the compulsion that drives high profile figures to dance on a wire without a net.  I use the word compulsion because I truly believe that it is a compulsion, and one so strong that those afflicted with it are blinded to the inevitable personal disaster (and untold emotional damage to their victims) that their actions will cause, though I am in no wise making excuses for them.  They must be held accountable for their actions. Of course, most people don't have "spin doctors" advising them on how to wriggle out of their accountability, or a very powerful gay/lesbian political machine ready to stomp on anyone with the full force of civil litigation who dares to speak the truth about the evils of homosexuality, who might dare to mention that Rep. Foley's behavior might, in fact, be typical. 

In two previous columns (here and here) I described the stealthy effort at the university where I work to enact new regulations giving protected status to homosexuals, and my own solitary effort to prevent that from happening.  I have been successful, at least, in getting them to reword the new sexual harassment regulations, even though the truth is you don't have to be in a protected class to be protected from abuse under state and federal sexual harassment laws.  The protected class status, then, is not for protection, but to prevent "discrimination".  And you know what that means.  To prevent discrimination, you have to "teach" people about homosexuality, so that, with this new, deeper understanding, you will be more sensitive to the feelings of homosexuals, and more accepting of homosexuality.  But when you get down to the bottom line, it's about legitimacy

The recent spate of pro-homosexual bills in California which, thankfully, Gov. Schwarzenegger "terminated," are a case in point.  Under the guise of preventing "discrimination" they would have forced the state, among other things, to radically alter California textbooks to reflect positively on homosexuality, transexuality, bisexuality, transvestitism, gay marriage, and non-traditional families.  The bills were designed to indoctrinate the kids to the "new" morality before their parents or their churches even dreamed of discussing these things with them.  California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez stated openly his position, and that of the Democrats on the legislature: "The way that you correct a wrong," he said, "is by outlawing. 'Cause if you don't outlaw it, then people's biases tend to take over and dominate the perspective and the point of view."  The intent, then, was to outlaw viewpoint, perspective, opinion, free speech, morality and religious beliefs that favored traditional ideas of marriage and family, and sexuality.  They wanted to make it punishable to teach traditional morality.  He could not have summed up the gay agenda better.

In connection with the changes at my institution, interested members of the community were invited to join in an open forum which the university held to give the us the chance to weigh in with our objections to (or support for, in the case of the gays) the proposed changes in the regulations.  I read from a prepared statement, which I backed up with attachments.  One professor also came and charitably gave his scientific reasons not to give homosexuality protected class status that would cause them to have to promote the lifestyle, plus he added some alternative wording that would have easily satisfied the stated goal of the changes.  (He rightly pointed out that the term "sexual orientation" could mean anything—pedophilia, bestiality or any other "sexual preference".) My own statement was a somewhat less charitable exposé of the phony circumstances under which homosexuality was demedicalized, and the growing evidence that homosexuality is indeed a treatable pathology.  Then a "discussion" ensued in which I and the faculty member discussed our objections, and the gay contingent provided a series of rehearsed and entirely predictable answers.  "It's just about protection."  "I don't want to be a statistic."  "That's bad science." I, in frustration, (though I had never intended to bring it up, and still don't know what prompted me) reminded them of the admonition in the Didache against "seducing boys", and the sexual molestations in the Church having been over 80% post-pubescent male victims.  At this point, the screaming ensued, and I apologized (obliquely) for bringing up the touchy subject. 

I had attached to my own statement a copy of the 1972 Gay Rights Platform, which clearly states as one of their objectives "the repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent."  I was told (in a private discussion with a member of the gay leadership after the forum) that no "reputable" gay rights organization endorses that platform.  (He cited the Human Rights Campaign, The Gay Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, and the Lambda Legal Defense Fund—organizations that sue people for speaking the truth about homosexuality.  I took it as a veiled threat.)  But the fact is, the 1972 Gay Rights Platform  was hammered out by homosexual activists sent to the conference representing 85 gay rights organizations, so trying to distance themselves from it when it is convenient is a bit ludicrous.  The same agenda, incidentally, also appears in the 1993 Gay Rights Platform, though not in the 2000 Platform (probably because of the sexual molestation crisis in the Church that was just exploding on the scene at the time).

So if HRC, GLAAD, and Lambda are the "reputable" gay rights organizations, how about GLSEN—the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network?  They're the organization that goes into schools and teaches children about homosexuality and how to have safe sex, works toward creating "safe schools" and sets up gay/straight alliances.  Are they not considered "reputable"?  If they aren't, why are they allowed access to children?  If they are, well, you can judge for yourself whether "age of consent laws" are a target of Gay politics.  The Parents Rights Coalition in Massachusetts can fill you in.  Be sure and read about the infamous "Fistgate" Conference. (Warning:  Very explicit language!!!)  If that is not enough to convince you, try looking at the Traditional Values Coalition website. 

Especially, read about the "Little Black Book" (again, I warn you, this is appallingly graphic in its vulgar language and photographs) that was handed out to Massachusetts eighth graders (and up) last year.  This is supposedly intended to give advice on how to protect yourself from AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, but one look at the language and graphics tells you this is much more than a safe sex guide.  It's blatant promotion.  But the main reason I include it here is that it contains a list of gay bars at the end of it where boys can go to hang out with men who like younger guys.  The stated purpose for that in the brochure is that bars offer "real people and experiences.  Developing a social life and interpersonal communication can be very rewarding, and…bars have been a nexus of gay life for ages." 

It was, of course, a huge faux pas (politically speaking) to mention the pederasty scandal in the Church during the forum, but it was not irrelevant.  Like streams that bubble along and feed estuaries that flow into rivers that carry everything in them out to sea, you can't simply pretend that the micro agenda and the macro agenda are not linked.  If you give legitimacy at the local level, you are empowering the wider agenda, and that includes the repeal of age of sexual consent laws and also, incidentally, "repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers."  …Just as Mr. Nunez stated, more or less.  In fact, everything on that 1972 Gay Rights Platform has either already been enacted, or is gradually being enacted, including the elimination of the age-of-sexual consent by attrition (through sex education classes that encourage youth to engage in sexual activity, and efforts to legalize abortion on demand for underage girls). 

My opponent's response at the mention of the pederasty link was to scream that 90% of abused children were abused by heterosexuals.  "Heterosexuals are sick!" he exclaimed.  I reminded him that only three percent of the population is homosexual.  Even if the figure he gave is accurate, 3% of the population doing 10% of the molestation is a grave  imbalance.  The Family Research Council places the percentage of molestation victims who are male at nearly 30%.  Since nearly all child molesters are male, and homosexual males make up only about 2.5% of the population, well…do the math.  Homosexuals are heavily overrepresented among perpetrators of child sexual abuse.

I am perversely gratified with the events surrounding Rep. Mark Foley this past week.  The revelation that he sent sexually explicit and suggestive emails to teen-aged Congressional pages is not the source of my glee, because even words can damage young people, and I don't wish to see any young person wounded in that way.  The vindication I am experiencing is the source of my glee.  I watch with sadness but a peculiar feeling of satisfaction as the "spin" operation begins:  he declares he's an alcoholic and checks himself in for rehab.  He claims he was sexually abused by a member of the clergy, though he does not say it was a priest (he is a Roman Catholic), and refuses to name him.  The message we're getting:  He's not responsible.  The booze made him do it.  The priest made him do it. And the Democrats, hypocrites that they are, begin spinning it into a "Republican" cover-up.  How shocked they are at (Republican) Representative Foley's behavior toward innocent young people, while in the same week they torpedoed the Child Custody Protection Act (CCPA), S. 403, which would have prevented sexual predators from taking underage girls across state lines for an abortion to avoid parental notification laws in their own states.  There is also the problem of the Democrats' continued support for the homosexual political agenda.  The stink of hypocrisy is overwhelming as they try to put the blame elsewhere, demanding a probe to determine if the Republicans knew Foley was sending sexually explicit emails to Congressional pages, and whether there was a cover-up going on.  But a month before the elections, this seems a bit too well greased to be a spontaneous moment of righteous passion. 

The Democrats' support for the homosexual agenda coupled with their selective blindness to the link between homosexuality and child abuse is well established.   But it is erosion of the Republican opposition to it that fuels my fury.  It's hard to pretend you are concerned "for the children" when you support political agendas that are detrimental to their spiritual, emotional, psychological and physical wellbeing, in favor of the desires of adults for whom children are mere pawns.  I expect it from the Democrats.  That's who makes up their base.  They are yoked with the unrighteous.  But the Republican Party has been conspicuously distancing itself from the Religious Right in recent months, and so the Foley incident comes as a well-timed nip in their complacent butts.

But anti-Christian Republicans are out of the closet now.  Former Senator John Danforth is waging his own war against conservative Christians whom he claims have taken over the GOP.  Danforth, an ordained Episcopal priest, in his book Faith and Politics: How the 'Moral Values' Debate Divides America and How to Move Forward Together, makes the claim that the issues that divide America such as abortion, gay marriage, and so forth, have "little intrinsic importance except as wedges".  Now here is the kind of thinking that makes me clench my jaw in outrage.  He says "If Christianity is supposed to be a ministry of reconciliation, but has become, instead, a divisive force in American political life, something is terribly wrong and we should correct it."  Yes, something is definitely terribly wrong here.  What he is saying, in essence, is that we Christian conservatives should compromise with the law of God.  He is denying that there are moral absolutes. 

In my first column published on ESR, I addressed this issue of whether religion and morality are the same thing.  Senator Danforth had said at that time that he felt the GOP had been taken over by the Christian Right, and that it was divisive for the country.  I argued then, and I repeat now that it is not conservative Christians who are dividing the country, but those who have abandoned the sanity of wise and long-held morals, who have flouted generations of collective experience that taught us those morals, who are attempting to force the entire society to live in a manner that has a history of destroying children, families, communities, entire civilizations, and Senator Danforth thinks we should take a more moderate, conciliatory approach?  Father Danforth needs to examine his own conscience, and be reconciled with the Lord.  Senator Danforth must recognize that there are moral absolutes that quite simply are not sectarian, but universal truths of human existence.  Morality is the rock upon which civilization is built.  The Christian conservative base of the Republican party is the "rock, so to speak, upon which our party stands.  You cannot build a structure upon shifting sand and harbor any hope that it will survive.  If the Republican Party abandons its base, I'm sure they hope to make up for it with the cross-over (al la John McCain) voters, but they will sew the seeds of their own demise, and possibly the demise of our country as well. ESR

 Alisa Craddock is free-lance columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian.  In addition to Enter Stage Right, her columns have been published on Alain's Newsletter and Out2 News.  She may be contacted at acrock43_j@yahoo.com


Send a link to this page!
Send a link to this story



1996-2020, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights reserved.