An essential part of any effort to recruit-proof a child is to limit his exposure to pro-"gay" influences. Such influences are so pervasive in our culture today that it would be nearly impossible to remove them all from a child's environment, so we will limit our discussion to the most harmful of them. Unfortunately, the most harmful pro-homosexual influences may be the ones that a parent finds the most difficult to remove (even if he already desires to do so). Hopefully, the knowledge that some changes will help a child avoid "gay" recruitment will make them easier for parents to carry out.

A common myth of parenting is that parents shouldn't be protective of their children, but should allow them to experience life on its own terms. This attitude might have been acceptable in earlier years in a rural America where even total strangers could usually be counted on to look out for a child's welfare, but it is not acceptable today. The parent who, in this day and age, chooses to let a child experience life on its own terms courts disaster. If ever there were a time for parents to be protective of their children, this is it.

"Protective" doesn't describe a parent who tries to shelter a child from all experience; it describes one who guides the child through experiences with a loving hand. A protective parent shields his child from unhealthy influences and actively intervenes on the child's behalf in every instance in which the child will encounter a potentially dangerous and hostile environment. Where there is no genuine danger, he stands back and lets the child learn his own lessons, but where there is danger, he walks with the child, pointing out the right path and the hazards to avoid.

In ancient Athens, there were many adults who sought children and adolescents for their sexual gratification. Pederasty became such a threat to children that all parents who could afford to hired chaperones to escort their children to school and back. Their culture was like ours in the sense that sexual freedom had gotten so out of hand that children were continually threatened by the number and the boldness of sexual predators in their communities. Today in America, people whose plans include the sexualization of children are quite possibly more prevalent than they were in ancient Greece, but they aren't necessarily lurking in the bushes waiting for children to walk home from school. Today they occupy positions of influence throughout the society. They are educators, activists in news and entertainment media, leaders in youth organizations, and government and academic sexuality "experts" who design and implement every type of sex-related program in which children are involved. In fact, there is no field relating to children which does not have its share of these determined and often influential people, working hard throughout their lifetimes to gain a society free from any form of sexual "repression." A parent should not blindly allow his child to learn the lessons which these people fervently wish to teach him.

One of the most harmful threats to a child's sexual health is the public school environment. Modern public schools have become an emotional jungle for children in which both peer pressure and the teaching of unconventional sexual values conspire to quickly rob a child of sexual innocence. The typical peer group alone is capable of undoing much of the moral training that a child receives in the home. This process is accelerated by public school policies based on the belief that sexual behavior by young people is not only acceptable but inevitable. The nature of our popular culture is such that some parents have not been overly concerned about educators' permissive attitudes towards heterosexual behavior. Now the circle of tolerance has been widened to embrace homosexual behavior as well. Many public schools have become active centers of "gay" propaganda, in which children are taught to view homosexual behavior as healthy and normal and are sometimes humiliated for expressing intolerance of homosexuality. Sadly, the climate is not much different in many private schools (excepting those with strong religious emphasis or very high levels of parental involvement). The problem seems to arise as much from the nature of group education in a culture with declining values as it does from the dysfunctional state of public education.  

In response to the deteriorating academic and moral standards which exist in public schools today, many parents have opted to teach their children at home. More than one million families currently home-school in the United States. Parents have learned that easy-to-get prepackaged curriculum materials can help anyone teach his own children effectively. Researchers have discovered that not only do children learn better (scoring higher on standardized tests) under the tutelage of the people who love them the most, but both the level and kind of social skills they acquire are markedly superior to those of their public school counterparts.

Home-schooled children tend to be more self-assured and less easily swayed by harmful peer pressure. Additionally, they interact better with adults, and do not develop the distrust and disrespect for authority that has become so common among public school children. Combined with group sports, scouting and other extracurricular activities, homeschooling gives a child everything he needs in the way of educational and social development without causing him to lose his positive self-image, his independent judgment, or his moral bearings along the way.

Rebellious Kids Are Made, Not Born

One of the most startling discoveries of the home-school movement is that (contrary to the conventional "wisdom") children do not have to be rebellious or at odds with their families at any age, even in their teen years. For the most part, teenagers who have been home-schooled from early childhood are surprisingly cooperative and pleasant human beings, perhaps because they perceive their parents as their advocates rather than their adversaries. The idea of having peaceful, close-knit families during their children's teenage years should be especially appealing to parents today. Incidentally, teenage rebelliousness among public school children has increasingly begun to manifest itself as "in-your-face" homosexual behavior, especially among girls.

Although a number of parents don't have the option of withdrawing their children from public school, we believe that most parents actually do have alternatives. A simple rearrangement of priorities and a willingness to rethink their material ambitions would allow many parents to protect their children from the effects of public education, both social and academic. In cases in which one parent can stay home (and most families — with careful budgeting — find that their standard of living stays about the same even without the second income), homeschooling is an excellent option. Homeschooling also works for many parents who work out of their home or who work part-time. Another option is private schooling, especially if your locality offers a voucher option, but we caution you to be extremely selective! Some private schools operate on an even more radical version of the social engineering philosophy we have encountered in the public schools.

Active Parenting Is the Next-Best Thing

For those who are limited to the public school option, active parental involvement is essential. Active parenting requires more than simply attending parent-teacher conferences, it requires an exercise of parental authority over the school environment itself. If you limit your interaction with the school system to the forums offered by school officials, you may come away with a false sense of security; controlled forums allow activist teachers to hide things which might offend parents. Many educators and school administrators believe and act on the assumption that a child becomes their property once he has passed through the schoolhouse door. Such an attitude, combined with strongly "politically correct" values, causes some of these educators to view the moral reeducation of children as their fundamental duty. Parents in our present-day moral culture should not be passive consumers, content to accept every official communication and decision at face value; they should become informed and powerful advocates for their children.

Everything a child needs to know about the mechanics of sexuality can be imparted in a half-hour conversation with his parent. The physical aspect of human sexuality is not at all complicated. If a school finds it necessary to schedule hours of class time to provide sex education for your child, then he is probably being taught specific behaviors and values. Do you really want to trust a stranger to teach your child someone else's version of sexual values and behavior? Especially the version of someone with a social agenda? America's leading sex educators do indeed have an agenda, and virtually all of them embrace Kinseyan sexual theory.

(We should mention that a frightening number of these "experts" openly advocate adult-child sex). These men and women design and write most of the sex education curricula used in American public schools.

A parent's best strategy in dealing with sex education is to alert school officials in advance that his child is not to be instructed about sexuality in school, either during regular classes or during special events or outings. We recommend that you do not wait until the issue arises during the school year. Activist teachers are specially trained by their special interest groups to circumvent parents. For example, regarding pro-"gay" instruction to children, the lesbian founder of Project 10 (an aggressive "gay" recruitment program for public schools), advises teachers to push through their agenda first and apologize later for not asking for permission. Unfortunately, "sorry" doesn't undo the damage to kids' emotions and attitudes.

Providing unequivocal instructions (preferably in writing) to school officials before any incident occurs is the only sure method of thwarting the possible sex education plans of activists. (Such an approach may also preserve a parent's legal standing in the event that his instructions are ignored).

Almost as harmful to young people's sexual health is today's television programming, where rank lewdness passes for humor in every situation comedy and "artistic" depictions of depravity pass for sophistication on "highbrow" public broadcasting stations. Increasingly, television shows are laced with pro-"gay" propaganda, and familiar T.V. faces are identified as active homosexuals. "Ellen" was the most blatant of the self-identified homosexuals on television. The "Ellen" show's "coming out" episode, with its enormous vanguard of media hype, demonstrated the power of the "gay" movement to force its agenda into prime-time programming. And, though the show's viewership later dwindled, the public's interest in that episode showed the ability of "gay" activists to gain the willing attention of the prime-time audience. The demise of "Ellen" was not in any sense a serious setback for the "gay" movement. Whereas the show proved to be too heavy a dose of "gay" propaganda for most viewers, it lasted long enough to achieve its intended effect: to desensitize the public about homosexuality on television, and to make other pro-"gay" efforts seem more palatable by comparison.

The important fact to keep in mind about television viewing is that it puts children under the near-hypnotic influence of this nation's most dedicated and persuasive homosexualists. Karl Marx described religion as the opiate of the masses, but no religion has ever come close to having the powerful narcotic effect of television. And who controls this medium of indoctrination? Unarguably, the people with the greatest control over television are the same sort of "politically correct" social activists who embrace the cause of "gay rights" as their own. The larger part of their programming appears to cater to middle-class values, but many shows have become vehicles for social change, especially change in favor of the "gay" political agenda.

Parents should keep in mind the power of repetition in selling an idea. We are very familiar with this phenomenon in Hitler's "big lie" tactic (repeat a lie often enough and most people will believe it) and in consumer advertising (we've all memorized dozens of useless jingles just by hearing them over and over). However, the process of repetition can be used to sell any message. Although we probably all recognize the process in television advertising, we may be less conscious of the use of repetition in television shows themselves to "sell" us attitudes about morals, values and behaviors. Social activists, such as homosexualist scriptwriters and program directors, use their positions to ensure that television "heroes" uniformly exhibit "politically correct" attitudes and views, while "villains" always profess "politically incorrect" attitudes and views. The continual repetition of these themes helps to shape the attitudes of television viewers themselves, often without them noticing it.

Due to the pervasiveness of "political correctness" in television programming, "selective" viewing may not be an entirely effective means of avoiding pro-"gay" indoctrination. There is also the problem that offensive programs are often advertised during more acceptable programs. These "promos" often contain some of the most offensive material and appear without warning during commercial breaks. Consumer product advertising also frequently contains offensive messages and imagery. One solution for families is to limit their television viewing to movie rentals; these have no commercial interruptions and parents can fast-forward past inappropriate scenes. In like manner, parents can fast-forward through objectionable parts of television programs if they tape them for later viewing.

The TV-Free Home

Not surprisingly, children who learn to get along without television tend to be better thinkers, readers, conversationalists and self-motivators. And shifting to a less TV-dominated lifestyle is not as difficult for children as you might think. Initial television withdrawal pains are quickly replaced by a newfound appreciation for books, hobbies and active play. Even teenagers can be weaned off the "boob tube" but as with most of the suggestions in this book, the younger the child, the more certain the positive effect. In our own home, the bookshelf gets more use than the television, although we enjoy lots of good movies from the video store.

Pornography is not only detrimental to the men who use it and the women who are exploited in its production, but the very presence of pornography in a home where there are children can contribute to their vulnerability to "gay" recruitment. We have pointed out that "gay" recruitment is fundamentally a process of changing a person's attitude about sexuality. As with TV, any influence which promotes the concept of sexual freedom outside of marriage contributes to the recruitment process. We define pornography broadly to include not only traditional forms such as "men's" magazines and X-rated videos (and now computer porn), but any sexually explicit material which promotes sex outside of marriage, including many broadcast and cable television programs, certain "women's" magazines (the ones which are emblazoned with lurid sexual messages at supermarket check-out lines), and, of course, many Hollywood movies of various ratings. Parents who openly bring pornography in any form into their home send a silent message to their child that sexual behavior outside of marriage is normal and acceptable. This lowers a child's motivation and ability to say "no" when an opportunity for sexual experimentation presents itself, even if he or she is reluctant to experiment. In fact, the child may think he is not normal (or like Dad) if he doesn't experiment. (It goes without saying that in our society, wherever there are opportunities for kids to have sex, opportunities for homosexual behavior will be among them.) It is a short journey from that attitude to active sexual experimentation of various sorts, including homosexual experimentation.

Monkey See, Monkey Do

Aside from any intellectual conclusions which a child may draw from his parent's tacit approval of pornography, the child may begin to use pornography himself, simply because it is available in his home. Such children are much more seriously endangered for several reasons. For one thing, a child or teenager who is already indoctrinated into the excesses and dehumanizing attitudes of pornography has already been "set up" as a victim (or worse, as a victimizer). His threshold of tolerance for sexual aggression is now very high. According to their testimonies, many young victims of homosexual molestation were shown pornography by their molesters as an introductory tactic. And all pornography has homosexual elements. Even so-called "soft-core" porn promotes homosexuality and the "gay" mind-set, while hard-core porn encompasses every imaginable perversion. Family issues researcher, Dr. Judith Reisman, has suggested that pornography use is itself a type of homosexuality since the typical chain of supply and demand consists of men (porn producers and distributors) providing other men (consumers) with sexual stimulation. In any case, pornography can itself be as addictive as homosexual behavior and should be kept far away from children.

Internet -- the Techno-Trojan Horse

A special danger which has arisen with the computer revolution is the Internet. The Internet is to computer technology what the American West was to pioneering in the last century: it is wild, raw and unpredictable. However, unlike the old West, the Internet frontier is available to children of any age from the comfort of their own homes, as well as from many schools and public libraries. A child with basic computer skills and Internet access can gain entry to any of literally hundreds of pornographic websites with a few simple keystrokes. What is more, the child needn't search for such material; many unscrupulous porn vendors send unsolicited e-mail invitations to family homes, complete with links to pornographic web sites which will open at the click of a button. Many of these sites claim to restrict access to adult members, but most offer samples of their wares for any Internet visitor to view, usually ultra-hardcore porn photos, including graphic homosexual scenes.

The "gay" movement has taken full advantage of the Internet to gain access to young people. Literally thousands of homosexual sites are on-line, many of which are also linked to porn vendors. The most threatening sites, however, are those of supposedly reputable organizations like Planned Parenthood, which lure young people with the promise of "family planning" advice, but which provide direct links to a number of homosexual web sites which in turn are directly or indirectly linked to porn vendors and to pornographic web sites of other "gay" groups. Many young people have been recruited into homosexuality on the Internet, often by adult predators posing as fellow teens.

We encourage parents to carefully monitor their child's Internet usage and to avail themselves of one of the many "blocking" programs which have become available to prevent access to harmful sites. A parent's best defense, however, will be his child's own self-restraint and judgment. The safest child in any dangerous or entrapping situation is the child whose home training has given him clear moral guidelines and the ability to reason soundly.

No Practicing "Gay" Role Models

A child should not be forced into a situation where his love and respect for a role model could be used to gain his acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle. In fact "gay" teachers have been encouraged by "gay" activists to "come out" to their students in the classroom for this very purpose. The best approach a parent can take is to maintain a policy of not allowing a child to come under the direct influence of any openly homosexual role model, even if the person does not appear to be a potential sexual predator. This policy should even include relatives who are not actively seeking help for their condition. The influence of homosexuals in the arts and popular culture poses a different problem. Such people are not true role models but can often influence young minds. Indeed, the "gay" movement points to famous "gays" in history and in our contemporary culture in their campaign to legitimize homosexual behavior. They imply that homosexuality must be normal if such and such great artist or statesman was "gay." A parent might wish to point out that artistic talent or high achievement does not validate a person's private lifestyle, whether it be homosexuality, drug addiction or any other destructive behavior.

We should also mention that many of the historical figures touted as "gay" by zealous homosexual activists were probably not homosexual. Bear in mind that some "gay historians" have claimed Abraham Lincoln and Jesus as their own.