If your initial response to the above statement is "Of course I have the right to protect my child from homosexuality!" your child is probably in pretty good hands.  If, on the other hand, you are a parent who feels you must defer to "experts" to find answers to difficult child-rearing questions, this chapter is essential reading.  Powerful forces are at work in our society to change your child's attitude about homosexuality and very few dissenting voices are able to make themselves heard.  You may be the only important role model your child ever hears making a case against homosexual behavior and the "gay" lifestyle.  You must be informed about the issue, certainly, but even more importantly, you must have confidence in your moral authority to contradict the "politically correct" propaganda of the "gay" movement.  It is not as easy as you might think.  This chapter will help you to affirm and to assert your parental authority in the face of those who would usurp it.

The "Gay" Movement Claims You Do Not Have This Right

The "gay" myth of sexual orientation claims that some children are "gay" by birth and cannot change.  Therefore, its proponents say, "gay" children should be affirmed in their homosexual identity and should not be forced into an "unnatural" heterosexual lifestyle.  As the reasoning goes, parental and societal efforts to impose heterosexual norms on "gay" children are cruel and harmful, leading to serious mental and emotional problems. It is the supposedly unenlightened and bigoted attitude behind these efforts which causes "gay" youth suicides and drug and alcohol addiction.

There are a couple of problems with this reasoning.  First, the conclusion that mere disapproval of homosexuality causes "gay" suicides is a classic post hoc fallacy.  (In formal logic, a post hoc fallacy is the attribution of a false cause to an effect: either mistaking what is not the cause of a given effect to be the cause, or inferring that because one circumstance follows another in time it must be caused by the earlier circumstance.)  There is absolutely no proof that the emotional problems of active homosexuals arise exclusively or even mostly from the disapproval of parents and society.  Second, conspicuously absent from the public discussion of the "gay" youth  issue is the question of whether suicidal and homosexual thoughts are each symptoms of yet deeper emotional problems.  

Ignoring this possibility appears grossly negligent considering the fact that if, as many doctors believe, homosexuality is itself an indicator of deeper emotional problems, affirming children in their supposed "gayness" actually puts them at far greater risk than discouraging them.  This risk is compounded by the presence of many other known health dangers (not only AIDS) faced by practicing homosexuals.  Additionally, the "solutions" offered by "gay" activists to the problem of at-risk "gay" youth are blatantly self-serving and raise serious questions about their motivations.  Such solutions include demands for direct access to schoolchildren to educate them about the "gay" identity and for referrals of questioning children to unsupervised homosexual-staffed "counseling" centers.

"Gay" Activists Claim a Moral High Ground They Don't Deserve

In taking the position that "gay" youths are endangered by those who decline to affirm their self-identification as homosexuals,  "gay" activists not only justify their own sexual activities, but also attempt to turn the tables on the rest of society.  By pretending to hold the moral high ground, the "gay" movement  puts parents on the defensive, portraying them as selfish and ignorant for wanting their children to have a normal heterosexual life.  Unfortunately, this notion has served as a very effective argument for getting "gay" activists into the schools to "find" and to "help" homosexual youths. Under the presumptions of sexual orientation theory, a parent's only defense against the charge of wrongfully suppressing a child's "gay" identity is to claim that the child is not "gay."  As we have seen, this is generally a losing proposition, since defining someone as "gay" is, according to this theory, totally within the control of the person himself.  Unfortunately, by the time the possibility is openly discussed, the child has often come under the influence of the local "gay" community, which works with impressive efficiency to assimilate and retain its members.

Although its defenders will never admit it,  "political correctness" is nothing more than a set of moral conclusions about social issues, which, its proponents insist, should be binding on all of us.  Ironically, the other moral system which makes this claim of being binding on all people is the Biblical one. We have heard ad nauseum from these very same proponents that religious Jews and Christians have no right to impose their morality on society; in the view of the "politically correct" types, that right belongs only to themselves. The Bible at least claims God as its authority, but we are expected to accept politically correct morality based on nothing but the opinions of politically correct people.

The cause of "gay rights" is, of course, central to political correctness.  In communities where political correctness holds sway, all of its coercive power is brought to bear on dissenters who oppose the view that "gay" is good. However, despite efforts by the "gay" movement to criminalize anti-"gay" speech (so far limited to hate crimes statutes) the only power homosexualists currently have to enforce politically correct doctrines is intimidation.  It follows that anyone who refuses to be intimidated is entirely free to oppose homosexuality in his own home and in society as a whole.  It is up to you to prevent the "gay" movement from imposing its distorted version of morality on your child!

You don't have to be a Christian, a Jew or a Moslem (the three religions which are rooted in the Bible) to confidently use traditional moral guidelines about sexuality for your family.  After thousands of years of successfully guiding civilization, these guidelines stand a much better chance of leading your child through a happy life than do the recently invented, self-serving theories of sexual freedom pushed by the "gay" movement and other libertine elements of society. Simply put, traditional sexual morality limits sex to monogamous, heterosexual, family-centered marriage.  This standard is known as the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic.

One of the common misconceptions about traditional morality is that people who preach it must be perfectly morally pure: if they're not, then they are hypocrites.  This notion constitutes an impossible standard — no one can measure up to such a level of perfection.  (Consider that those who preach sexual freedom are beyond such criticism, since they have no standard at all.)  The accusation of hypocrisy is frequently used to intimidate traditionalists and to discourage others from looking favorably at traditional morality.

Anyone who stops to think about it for a moment will recognize that an ideal is never diminished by a person's failure to live up to it.  The ideal of monogamous, heterosexual, family-centered marriage is not made less valuable or desirable just because someone who promotes the ideal gets divorced, or cheats on his or her spouse, or carries on a sexual relationship before marriage.  Certainly it hurts the credibility of the person promoting the ideal if it appears that he doesn't believe what he preaches, but his personal conduct has absolutely nothing to do with the worth or the validity of the ideal itself.

On the other hand, some of the best advice we can get about ideals is from people who have not lived up to them.  Consider the value of the advice given by the still-addicted lifetime cigarette smoker with emphysema who preaches against the dangers of smoking, or of the prison inmates who try to get touring groups of troubled youths "scared straight" by showing the results of failure to live up to the ideal of good citizenship.  The point here is that using your mistakes as an example, even sometimes when you are still living in the circumstances created by the mistake, can actually reinforce your credibility.

The Better Approach

Let us be very clear.  In teaching healthy sexual morality to children there is no substitute for setting a good personal example.  A parent's example may be the single most important factor in a child's decisions about his or her own conduct.  However, it is likely that many people who read this book are parents whose sexual conduct sets a bad example, not a good one.  If this is true of you, don't compound the problem by letting your personal failures (and the fear of being called a hypocrite) prevent you from teaching the ideal of traditional sexual morality to your child.  If your example has been a poor one, you can at least let your child know that you want something better for him or her.  Such a message in conjunction with an honest effort to set your own house in order could have a very powerful influence in your child's life.  In any case, if you allow yourself to be intimidated into denying the ideal for fear of what other people think, the biggest loser will be your child.

Reject "Gay-Speak"

"Gay-speak" is the language of "gay" propaganda.  As it relates to those who oppose homosexuality, "gay-speak" is a tool of intimidation and manipulation.  Take, for example, the word "homophobia."  Homophobia is a psychiatric term which means fear of the possibility that one might be homosexual oneself.  In recent years the "gay" movement invented a new meaning for the word and began using it as a tool to silence its critics.  The new meaning of homophobia is "an irrational fear and/or hatred of homosexuals."  A "homophobe" is someone afflicted with homophobia.  Through constant repetition in the popular culture by homosexualists, "homophobe" and "homophobia" have virtually become household words. Consider what the "gay" movement has gained by this tactic.  For the first time, "gays" have a popularly accepted derogatory term for people who oppose homosexuality (at a time when it is absolutely socially forbidden to use any such term for homosexuals).  Their new pejorative, at least subliminally, connects the person being described with homosexuality.  (It is a favorite tactic of "gay" activists to imply that their opponents are themselves latent homosexuals.)  More importantly, the accused "homophobe" must then rebut both the express accusation of being hateful toward homosexuals and the more subtly implied suggestion of mental illness (irrational fear).  The "gay" movement has used this term to put opponents on the defensive, and even to suggest that there is no such thing as a reasonable opposition to homosexual behavior, only an irrational one.

Don't Let Yourself Be Put On The Defensive

If you take any public stand against homosexuality, no matter how pure your motive, be prepared for the accusation that you hate homosexuals.  In a one-on-one conversation or debate, the accusation usually takes the form of a direct question: "Why do you hate homosexuals?" Don't get tricked into answering that question or into believing that you must prove that you don't hate homosexuals.  "Why do you hate homosexuals?" is not a genuine question, it is a rhetorical tactic designed to change the subject and put you on the defensive.  Another familiar version of this tactic is the question, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"  In the courtroom such a tactic is called "assuming facts not in evidence" and will always be thrown out by the judge upon a proper objection by the other side.  There is almost no way to respond to such a question without hurting your credibility with anyone listening to the argument, because the question plants the suggestion in the listener's mind that a case against your character has already been proved.  What is worse, if you fall into the trap, you will have allowed your opponent to change the subject — from a focus on the unacceptability of homosexuality to a focus on your character.

One effective response to "Why do you hate homosexuals?" is to turn the tables on your opponent and immediately say "Here's a better question.  Why do you hate my child?"  If simple moral opposition to homosexuality is presumed to be evidence of hatred, it is certainly no less reasonable to suggest that pushing the destructive "gay" lifestyle on children is even better evidence of hatred.  Another way to respond is to unmask the tactic for what it is.  You respond, "You're trying to change the subject and plant the suggestion that any opposition to homosexuality is hateful.  Opposition to homosexuality is not hateful and I'm not going to let you change the subject.  The subject is..."

You must recognize that no amount of evidence of how "nice" and how "goodhearted" you are will prevent you from being attacked as hateful for opposing homosexuality.  The accusation has nothing to do with evidence.  It is a tactic designed to cause you pain and embarrassment so that you will compromise your values or be silent.  Incidentally, if confrontation on such a subject does cause you pain, it is a pain that we hope you will be willing to endure for the sake of your child.

Homosexualists will typically rebut a parent's commonsense objections to homosexuality by invoking "experts" in the mental health field who assert that "gay" is normal.  These people often point to the fact that homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) official list of disorders in 1973.  This victory for the "gay" movement, however, was not the result of any scientific breakthrough, but of intra-organizational politics.  Homosexuality gained "normalcy" by a vote of APA members which was  largely organized and controlled by "gay" activists.  APA members who opposed the change were intimidated and harassed in a manner that is now recognized as a standard operating procedure for the "gay" movement.  The APA vote did not make homosexuality any less of a disorder.  It only changed the official policy of the association.  

In casting their votes, the psychiatrists who voted to "normalize" homosexuality had to ignore most of the scientific evidence available at the time, including the results of the successful treatment of many homosexuals.  To show how far the APA has drifted from reality under the continuing control of homosexualists, the organization has also voted to "normalize" sadomasochism and pedophilia.   We bring this up not to make a case against the APA, but simply to forewarn you of a commonly used rhetorical tool of homosexualists: if there is no evidence to support the claim that homosexuality is normal, create your own evidence and then act as if it came from a reliable independent source.  Throughout the writings of the homosexual advocacy movement you will find many references to such "end-justifies-the-means" tactics.

This book suggests that parents should avoid getting into a war of "experts," polls or statistics when dealing with homosexualists.  It's not that opponents of homosexuality lack strong evidence and compelling documentation to back their position.  On the contrary, the documentation provided throughout this book will prove valuable to anyone who decides to take on this issue as a community activist. As a parent, however, you do not need to prove anything to anybody to justify protecting your child from homosexuality. Your authority resides in your role as a parent and in the self-evident truth that heterosexuality is the most fulfilling and natural sexual relationship for human beings.  In other words, when it comes to your child, you are the only expert needed.  If you find yourself battling over studies and statistics you will be fighting for ground you already hold.  Some truths don't need special proof, a bare assertion is enough.  Your inherent authority over your child, your role as the child's advocate and protector, is one such truth.  

Among the ancient Greek philosophers was a group called the Sophists, who were Western civilization's original moral relativists (i.e. they believed that all truth is relative and nothing is absolute).  The Sophists were professional debaters whose goal was to persuade others to their point of view by any argument, truthful or not.  To this day, sophism is defined as a false argument having the appearance of truth, and sophistry is defined as subtly false reasoning.  "Gay" activists are modern America's leading sophists, dedicated to legitimizing their lifestyle at any cost, regardless of what may be best for our society and our children.   

The "gay" movement's response to AIDS is a prime example.  In the almost two decades in which the death rate of homosexual men from AIDS has soared, not a single "gay" leader has suggested publicly that young people should be discouraged from entering the "gay" lifestyle or from participating in anal sodomy, the principle means of AIDS transmission (and the reason why "gay" men have the highest and lesbians the lowest rates of infection).  On the contrary, the "gay" movement has used the epidemic, as well as multiple millions of dollars in AIDS funding, as an opportunity to gain access to schoolchildren and to propagandize them.  Many of our children then began receiving highly explicit and occasionally pornographic sex education instruction under the banner of "AIDS prevention."  Unlimited student access to free condoms in some school districts is another by-product of the successful sale of AIDS propaganda to school administrators.  

To "gay" activists, the end really does justify the means, and the truth is nothing but an obstacle to be overcome, if it conflicts with the "gay" political agenda.  Not every homosexual puts his own interests ahead of the interests of children or society, but as a whole, the "gay" movement has repeatedly demonstrated by its actions that it is thoroughly Machiavellian.  

People who believe that homosexuality is normal may react with "moral outrage" to claims such as we have made in the preceding section.  We have confidently claimed that the "gay" movement is guilty of cynically manipulating (or outright dispensing with) the truth in order to promote its agenda.  This claim is logically consistent, in our view, because of the intrinsic "moral" position of American homosexuals relative to their own culture.  In order to become openly and unapologetically homosexual, a person must forcefully reject one of the central tenets of Judeo-Christian morality, the sexual ethic.  The sense of having stepped out of the boundaries of one's moral culture tends to translate into a general rejection of many of its other principles, including truthfulness.  Thus, for many homosexual advocates, there is nothing wrong with deception in the service of their cause, since deception is only condemned by a morality they reject.  However, the "gay" movement cannot have it both ways.  It cannot reject traditional morality on the one hand, and then claim its protections on the other.  In other words, homosexualists forfeit any right to evince "moral outrage" at being denied the presumption of truthfulness.  By the same token they cannot evince "moral outrage" in defense of an immoral sexual lifestyle.  Any claims to morality rest with the traditional moral culture and cannot logically be granted to those who reject that culture.  

You as a parent, assuming you accept the traditional morality, do have the right to moral outrage in defense of your child.  Don't be cowed by those who claim moral authority with nothing to back it up but their own opinions.  Indeed, it is within your moral authority to condemn such a tactic.   

There is no requirement that you be "religious" in order to take an active role in shielding your children from "gay" recruitment.  You can, however, be righteous in your attitude and your arguments, whether you are religious or not.  Righteousness is simply doing what is right, acting with the courage of your convictions.  Righteousness is an important quality of leadership; it inspires our children when they see it in others and it will inspire them when they see it in us.  If you are not a religious person, you don't have to become one to be righteous in defense of your child, but it would be very useful if you became familiar with some of the Biblical teachings about sexuality.  Our recommended passages are listed on the opposite page.

Thus far we have introduced the most important issues related to taking authority on behalf of your child.  It is up to you to follow up these suggestions and admonitions with further research and study.  We have provided a list of resources that will help you become better informed on these and other issues which have to do with homosexuality.  We hope you will investigate some of these.  We also encourage you to adopt a deeply questioning attitude towards the messages on homosexuality that pour out of the entertainment and news media, the NEA-approved sex-education curricula, and the liberal political establishment.  Where do these messages originate?  On what authority do their claims rest?  Do such claims stand up to the test of your experience and common sense?  Remember that we are living in an era of propaganda, in which "spin" and intimidating attitudes are often used to push ideas which are contrary to the values and good sense of the audience.  It is very difficult to stand alone against the tactics of political correctness, but the odds change when you have even one other parent who shares your concerns and is willing to stand with you in your efforts.  And remember that the promoters of politically correct opinions about homosexuality do not have the best interests of your own child at heart.  You do.  Do whatever it takes to protect that child.