The Importance of Community Involvement

While a healthy, family-centered home provides the best protection against "gay" recruitment of children, it is not in itself a complete defense. The larger community also influences a child's choices and attitudes. A parent's efforts on behalf of his child should include efforts to make his community more family-friendly. Indeed, the need for such involvement has become critical.

Law and public policy in our system of government is heavily influenced by public debate (often highly emotional and divisive) among those with competing ideas and philosophies. For good or ill, those who are hesitant or unwilling to promote and defend their ideas and interests are the inevitable losers in such a system. Parents must realize that reluctance to speak out on behalf of their children, especially on controversial issues such as homosexuality, grants a certain amount of control over their children's future to others. In today's political climate, those "others" include highly organized and dedicated "gay" activists. What is more, parents can no longer assume that their interests will be represented by other family-minded people. In past years when family values were more commonplace, parents could afford to "let the other guy do it," but not today. So many family-minded people have opted to "let the other guy do it" that there just aren't many "other guys" to "do it"any more. Parents must begin to take an active role in shaping the policies of their communities.

Unfortunately, in today's "politically correct" climate, a parent's pro-family efforts will not go unchallenged. Simply by standing up for traditional family values, a parent will be perceived by homosexualists as a political enemy to be defeated. What is more, the "gay" movement is not only very experienced at dealing with parents, but it is deeply entrenched in the power structure of many state and local governments and has strategies and mechanisms already in place to counter any opposition to its agenda. It is best, therefore, to proceed cautiously. Take the time to learn about the homosexual political agenda and its means of implementation. You will find that the larger part of this chapter is devoted to discussing the "gay" agenda, because effective parental response requires an awareness of how far this agenda has progressed in the local community.

Homosexualists usually affect puzzlement at the mention of a "gay" agenda. "What gay agenda?" they say. "Gays and lesbians only want what everyone else wants: equal rights and the chance to live their lives as who they are." The assertion that homosexuals only want equal rights is itself a calculated response, part of the tactics commonly used to further the "gay" agenda. Perhaps more than any other political activists, "gays" are thoroughly versed in the radical doctrines and goals of their cause. In this section we will examine the goals of the "gay" movement as well as the strategies and tactics which it employs in pursuit of them. This information is valuable for parents who want to understand how to recognize "gay" political maneuvering in their own communities.

"GAY" GOALS

The primary goal of the "gay" movement is to gain the political power to force acceptance of homosexuality upon all of society, including the power to punish dissenters. (This last point of the "gay" agenda can be seen in the heavy-handed use of authority to punish failure to go along with pro-"gay" policies in "politically correct" environments, and from the "gay" movement's history of relentless vilification of its adversaries.) The implications of this statement, however, may not be apparent unless we consider the fact that the "gay" philosophy of unrestricted sexual license is diametrically opposed to the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic which has held sway in this country from its beginnings. These two philosophies are utterly incompatible and irreconcilable. For the "gay" philosophy to prevail, the Judeo-Christian philosophy must fail; they cannot coexist because their beliefs and goals are mutually exclusive. Parents must fully appreciate this one important fact in order to understand why the "gay" movement is such a destructive force in our society.

The greatest danger of the "gay" movement does not lie in any single agenda item, such as "gay" marriage or anti-discrimination statutes, or even from the "gay" movement's campaign to recruit children. The "gay" movement's greatest threat to society arises from its fundamental and necessary goal: to eliminate the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic (monogamous, heterosexual, family-centered marriage) as the guiding moral standard for sexual behavior in our culture. Judeo-Christian sexual morality unequivocally condemns homosexuality. Therefore, to gain a status of legitimacy for their lifestyle, "gay" activists must put an end to society's commitment to the traditional husband-wife relationship in the nuclear family. In its place, they must promote an alternative sexual paradigm which embraces homosexuality and other wholly non-procreative forms of sexual expression. In short, the goal of the "gay" movement is to remake society in its own image.

"GAY" STRATEGIES
Denormalize Heterosexual Monogamy

Since the rise of the American "gay" movement in the 1940s, "gay" activists have pursued several consistent strategies. One strategy is to de-normalize heterosexual monogamy and normalize sexual deviance through the release of highly-publicized, controversial findings of "junk" science. The first and most explosive of such efforts was the famous study of the sexual behavior of American men, published by Alfred Kinsey in 1948. The Kinsey Report instantly shocked and scandalized the nation. It was acclaimed, however, by academics and eventually served as a launch pad for the so-called sexual revolution. Kinsey's study purported to show that, despite appearances to the contrary, high percentages of Americans were living secret lives of marital infidelity and engaging in sexual deviance of every sort. Most Americans weren't living such lives in 1948, but Kinsey himself was. Only recently it has been acknowledged by his former associates that Kinsey (now deceased) was an "in the closet" homosexual activist and sexual libertine who produced fraudulent statistics for the purpose of reshaping American attitudes about sexual deviance. Kinsey's faked results yielded several enduring "gay"-positive myths, including the still widely quoted statistic that ten percent of the population is homosexual (several recent studies place the figure at around two percent). Kinsey also gets the credit for popularizing the view, now widely promoted by top U.S. sex researchers and many academics, that all types of sexual expression are equal (even sex with children and animals) when you take away society's "artificial" moral limits.

POST-KINSEYAN CHANGES IN SEX LAWS AND THEIR IMPACT ON MARRIAGE ”[The de-sanctification of marriage led to the decriminalization of ‘seduction’ and ‘breach of promise’ to marry] These new law [codes], of course, required that both contraception and abortion become legally destigmatized and widely available to unmarried females.  Once this occurred, women became the consenting ‘partner’ responsible for both creating and ending a baby’s life.  Previously, the man was held legally and socially responsible for creating the life and no one was allowed to end it.  Under the new laws, women’s rights were offset by men’s freedoms and women’s new burdens.  A result anticipated by many early feminist reformers such as Susan B. Anthony, who were strongly pro-marriage and anti-abortion.” Judith A. Reisman, Ph..D. KINSEY: Crimes & Consequences. p. 243, 1998.

Pornography

Another strategy of the "gay" movement is to promote activities and choices which corrupt the sexual morals of the heterosexual majority. The pornography industry, for example, ostensibly caters to a demand for its product among heterosexual men. The success of the industry, however, serves the "gay" cause, since any man who permits himself the indulgence of pornography is probably going to be unwilling to condemn homosexual practices on moral grounds. Such a man is even less likely to publicly oppose the "gay" agenda, since he will already have a personal investment in the protection of a class of behavior which society has traditionally repudiated.

"Abortion rights" is another social issue championed by "gays." Observers of the abortion issue often question why both male and female homosexuals often dominate the pro-abortion side at abortion-related events. After all, unplanned pregnancy is not likely to be a problem in a homosexual relationship! It is sometimes assumed that female homosexuals are altruistically taking up the cause of their heterosexual "sisters" on this issue, but "gay" interest in promoting abortion is not motivated by altruism but by self-interest. The existence of a thriving abortion industry profoundly benefits the "gay" cause in the same manner that the porn trade does: it corrupts and silences people who might otherwise oppose the "gay" agenda. In addition, every choice for abortion is itself a validation of the self-centered "gay" philosophy of sexual freedom without consequences. Abortion lends much credence to the idea of human ability to "design" or control the form and function of the natural family unit. Just as homosexuals desire to shape artificial family units by combining persons without natural ties, so they are attracted to the idea of dismantling the natural family by eliminating one or more of its members and thus altering the roles and relationships of the rest.

Redefining the Family

The promotion of a new concept of family which does away with any requirement for a legal or common law heterosexual marriage has recently become a cause celebre for homosexual activists. Partly to validate such a concept, homosexuals have demanded and received adoption rights in several states and formed domestic groups which they portray as examples of successful "nontraditional families." A lesbian organization in Oregon which promotes this concept has a name which is also its marketing slogan: "Love Makes a Family." Implicit in such promotion is the notion that family is not a real social entity but a construct of the human imagination, in this case guided by nothing more binding than emotion. It has been pointed out that this kind of thinking leads logically to a situation in which society would have to grant family status to every imaginable conglomeration of people with fond feelings for one another. Thus, if society had no right to deny two homosexuals and an adopted child the designation and legal status of a family, what right could it have to deny such a designation to three homosexuals and a child? Or any other size and type of group? The redefined family unit would have no societal significance (other than a legal one) and no necessary social functions at all.

One other strategy which was only made possible by previous political gains is the strategy of reshaping social attitudes, especially those of children and young people, through indoctrination. Indoctrination of children occurs primarily through pro-"gay" advocacy in the schools and through the entertainment media. The effect of a pan-societal homosexual propaganda campaign which reaches parents and other adults, is to reap additional benefits for the "gay" movement in the form of a more sympathetic public. The pervasiveness of "politically correct" attitudes among the media and cultural elites (aside from modeling such attitudes for children) also leads many people to conclude that society as a whole has accepted the idea that being "gay" is normal.

We hope that parents will perceive that the promotion of the "gay" agenda by homosexual activists directly threatens their children. This part of the book has been about issues and policies which are abroad in the society, each one which relates to the society's moral health and the social climate in which our children spend their days. Each parent must confront and understand these issues, the state of our culture, and where it may be headed, to properly steer his or her child away from specific harmful situations.

"GAY" TACTICS

We now turn from the various strategies of homosexual activists to the tactics used to carry them out. The "gay" movement employs many and varied tactics in the implementation of its strategies. Such tactics commonly fall into three general categories: political, sociological and psychological.

By political tactics we mean the organized advancement of "gay" strategies through traditional political means: statutes, lawsuits, lobbying and so on. Players in every sector of the modern political arena seem to have adopted the attitude that "all's fair in love and war" and concluded that politics is outright war. Motivated by a deep resentment of the status quo, and driven to overcome their outsider status, the activists of the "gay" movement have adopted a no-holds-barred warrior mentality; they are among the most cunning and relentless fighters on the battlefield. A long and impressive string of victories bears testimony to their effectiveness. For parents concerned about the safety and health of their children, however, the militancy and dedication of "gay" political activists present a tremendous challenge.

Intimidation

It is true that,"gay" political victories have not, to this point, reflected the will of the people. Parents who desire to shield their children from pressure to accept homosexuality as normal should not take such victories as a sign that they are standing alone against a completely pro-"gay" population. Most people still disapprove of the "gay" lifestyle and continue to express concerns about the "gay" political agenda. "Gay" victories have been won despite public disapproval, primarily because most of the critical battles on homosexual issues are won behind the scenes, often by the use of intimidation and harassment — not because public opinion favors the "gay" position on the issue. We are not suggesting that "gay" activists are alone in employing such tactics, just that, in the absence of popular support, they have become especially adept at using them. One of the reasons for continued "gay" political success is that there are no adversaries with a great enough stake in the issue to counter aggressively unprincipled, often vicious and personal, tactics.

Tactics of harassment and intimidation are especially effective in small-scale battles outside of the public view, in which none of the key decision-makers have the public stature to single-handedly rally public opinion to their defense. The takeover of the American Psychiatric Association by homosexualists in 1973 is a prime example of such a battle. The majority of psychiatrists opposed a policy of normalizing homosexuality, but a vote-by-mail decision was organized and funded by "gay" activists, who carefully controlled the mailing list. Opponents were kept disorganized and defensive by "gay" activists who heckled them at scientific conferences and public appearances and began referring to them publicly as "war criminals" (with obvious implications). The easy conquest of the APA on this important clinical policy (which should have been decided by scientific inquiry, not a vote) exposed the weakness of such organizations, which the "gay" movement proceeded to exploit very successfully elsewhere. Small democratically-run organizations are often vulnerable to takeover by well-organized special interest groups. This brings us to a social characteristic of the "gay" community which has given its members a natural advantage in the infiltration of hostile organizations.

Deception

"Gay" activists have a unique tradition of covert political tactics because of the nature of the "gay" lifestyle. Active but covert ("in the closet") homosexuals have always had to deceive their closest non-"gay" associates to protect themselves from disclosure. Indeed, the "gay" lifestyle has been characterized by secrecy and deception. At the same time, the bonds of loyalty and commonality which develop between homosexuals who share this secret "gay" identity is understandably very powerful. "In the closet" homosexuals, therefore, are both positioned and predisposed to function cooperatively and covertly in organizations of which they are members. This situation is exemplified by the "old-boy" networks in some corporations and bureaucratic agencies which have very high percentages of "gay" employees. "Gays" influence the hiring of more "gays" and put pressure on the organization to bring about pro-"gay" policies, donations, etc. This system, when covert, also works against its members, making them vulnerable to blackmail and forcing their loyalty to a group whose interests may conflict with the organization's. For this reason, U.S. intelligence agencies had a policy of denying top-secret security clearance to homosexuals for many years. This policy was ended by President Clinton in 1992.

In recent years overt "gay" pressure groups have emerged in many of America's largest corporations, such as AT&T and Disney, using their power to exact privileges and benefits and to steer corporate funds and policies. Intra-organizational policy changes typically include "sensitivity training" for non-homosexual employees (see below). "Gay" influence in corporate relations with the community can be seen in advertising themes, in political endorsements and contributions, in loans of executives to "gay" causes, in charitable giving and in the terms of collective bargaining agreements. Often "gay" control of a company's community relations assets is used to pressure other organizations. In the mid-1990s, Levi Strauss, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, for example, were part of a group of "gay"-influenced corporations which publicly criticized the Boy Scouts of America for refusing to allow homosexuals to be scout leaders.

"Gay" control of a single organization can accomplish much for the "gay" cause, but is even more powerful in influencing relations between organizations, say, in a contract negotiation between a public employees' union and a government agency. In practical political situations, the "gay" community wields power far greater than its numbers simply by having cooperating members in many organizations. One woman of our acquaintance was asked to be on a committee to help her city host a traveling Anne Frank exhibit; she was surprised by the heavy emphasis on homosexual victims of the Nazis which was proposed by members of the group. She was astonished to learn that the local "gay" community not only had representation on the committee in its own right, but that the representatives of several other groups, including a priest from the Episcopal church, were also homosexuals. She lost the vote on whether to include the homosexual emphasis, but learned an important lesson about "gay" politics.

SOCIOLOGICAL TACTICS

The "gay" movement also employs tactics of social engineering to achieve political ends. Social engineering is the process of steering social change by the manipulation of public attitudes and behaviors. "Gay"-related social engineering works to legitimize homosexuality in our society primarily by appealing to our children (a strategy which looks ahead to the future), but also by shaping the opinions of adults.

"Bundling"

The "gay" movement's key to manipulating public attitudes about homosexuality in America today is the concept of civil rights. The "gay" civil rights strategy exploits disorganization or disunity among legitimate minorities to gain power in local civil rights coalitions; the civil rights groups can then be pressured to "bundle" homosexuals together with less powerful ethnic and racial groups, giving homosexuals the appearance of having both biological standing and a socially disadvantaged status. Such coalitions (often controlled by "gay" money and leaders but usually headed by a minority spokesperson), will then speak on behalf of the homosexual cause in any setting in which effective opposition to "gay rights" might slow or halt the advance of the "gay" agenda. This tactic of "bundling" themselves into coalitions with minorities exploits the public's disapproval of racism (and individuals' fear of being called racist) to shield homosexuals from the scrutiny and criticism which "gay" activists would otherwise certainly receive.

A typical vehicle for the "bundling" tactic is the local human rights commission. The human rights commission is tailor-made for advancing homosexual goals in any local community; the concept may in fact have been specifically developed by the "gay" movement. Human rights commissions are quasi-governmental or governmental agencies which have been springing up in cities around the nation in increasing numbers in recent years. The establishment of human rights commissions has followed a similar sequence of events in several cities. First, there will be stories or editorials in the local news media on "hate crimes" against racial minorities. Next, apparently in response to the "hate crimes," comes a proposal and vote in the city council to create an organization (staffed by minority leaders) to monitor human rights abuses in the community. The new commission usually receives government office space and tax funding to carry on its work, although members of the commission are usually not paid. Typically, one of the organization's first acts is to propose a new law (which is always enacted) banning discrimination based on race, religion, ethnic group, and so on. If the words "sexual orientation" are not included in the list at first, they are usually added later. And, invariably, open homosexuals representing the local "gay" community are given one or more positions on the commission. (The community never learns whether or how many representatives of other groups on the commission are actually "in the closet" homosexuals.)

Once a human rights commission begins operating in a local community, the "gay" community gains official government validation of the "gay" claim of minority status just by holding seats on the commission. Further, the resources and assets of the commission, including its taxpayer-funded budget, can be used to advance other "gay" strategies. For example, human rights commissions issue regular reports on "hate crimes" in the local community, broken down by the type of victim, including a category for homosexuals. The timing and emphasis of such reports can have a significant impact on public opinion; this has been the case during at least some of the political initiatives to limit "gay rights" legislation in various parts of the country. Inflated "hate crimes" statistics were published in these communities to suggest that local opposition to "gay" plans and activities causes an increase in violence against homosexuals. Human rights commission "gay"-related "hate crimes" statistics put out during such times are usually meaningless, since they include such things as unsubstantiated telephone complaints which could easily be part of a political "phone-in" campaign (a favorite tactic of "gay" activist organizations).

Exploiting Civil Rights Weaknesses

"Gay" claims of minority status bring uncertainty and confusion to civil rights laws and doctrines. Two of the most basic criteria which justify granting special status and benefits to minorities are economic disadvantage and lack of political power.

Homosexuals cannot claim either of these conditions. Statistically, homosexuals enjoy significantly higher incomes than most Americans and their political lobby is among the most powerful in the nation. But "gay" claims for minority status founder before a more practical problem: homosexual applicants for minority benefits such as affirmative action cannot even prove that they are "gay." According to sexual orientation theory, only the person asserting the claim can know if he or she is "gay;" the criteria are purely subjective. This situation would allow anyone to collect any minority benefit just by claiming to be "gay." The stigma of homosexuality might prevent many people from saying they were "gay" (unless applications for benefits were confidential), but what about the rest who have been persuaded by the "gay" movement that "gay" is normal? Doesn't that number grow daily through the efforts of the "gay" movement itself? There is no way to limit or validate benefits granted to people on the basis of homosexual minority status.

The result of such an obvious invitation to commit fraud with impunity would be a loss of public confidence in all civil rights doctrines and programs (indeed this might be a factor in recent setbacks for affirmative action policies around the nation). Who loses in such a scenario? Not "gay" activists. They have the money and the power to advance their agenda by other means. The losers are the genuine minorities who have few other means available to them (the original reason for civil rights laws).

Bait and Switch

Another, and perhaps more damaging result of granting minority status to homosexuals is that civil rights protections and benefits do not just protect and benefit the right to believe one is "gay" as is implied by the use of the term "sexual orientation." Ironically, even though "sexual orientation" is supposedly a state of mind not defined by sexual behavior, the real effect of granting official minority status to homosexuals is to legitimize "gay" sex acts and to award legal and social benefits simply for the practice of them. How long can public confidence in civil rights laws be expected to last when such laws are viewed as "perks" for a type of sexual behavior? The public will have every reason to wonder what other behavior-based lifestyles will be next to gain minority status. It is inevitable that people will show a diminishing commitment to such an ill-founded system.

The Propaganda
	From After the Ball

The Reality
	“Gays and Lesbians are more likely to be victims of domestic violence than anti-gay violence but rarely report the abuse...”

Victimology

The primary argument used by the "gay" movement to back its claim for "gay" minority status is that homosexuals have historically been victims of society's irrational prejudice, and that individual "gays" have been physically victimized because of this prejudice. It is true that some homosexuals have suffered violence at the hands of "gay-bashers," as they are called in the homosexual community. Such attacks, however, are less frequent than is suggested by the "gay" movement, and when such an incident occurs it may not be, as commonly alleged, an unprovoked assault by a heterosexual who hates homosexuals. Often homosexual "cruisers" ("gay"men who "cruise" public parks and restrooms looking for sex partners) are attacked in response to unwanted solicitations for "gay" sex. At other times a homosexual is beaten by his "gay" lover but is unwilling to implicate him ("gay" domestic violence rates are extremely high). Those responsible for unprovoked attacks on homosexuals may often be "latent" homosexuals themselves, or one of a type of ultra-masculine "gay" men (called "butches" in the homosexual jargon) who hate effeminate male "gays" ("femmes"). (Most attacks are against "femmes.") Many men who act out violent hostility towards homosexuals were themselves childhood victims of homosexual molestation. Such a motive does not in any sense excuse brutality against "gay" victims. Neither does the fact that "gays" have been mistreated legitimize "gay" behavior at all.

A tactic more reprehensible than exaggerating reports of "gay-bashings" is the exploitation of the Holocaust by the "gay" movement. "Gay" propagandists have fraudulently portrayed the internment of less than 15,000 homosexuals (in work camps, not death camps) by the Nazis as a "Gay Holocaust" equivalent to the attempted genocide of the Jews. "Gay" strategists have chosen the pink triangle (worn as an identification badge by homosexual prisoners) as the symbol of their movement, with the intention of forging a link between the plight of homosexuals and that of Jews in Nazi Germany. Similarly, opponents of so-called "gay-rights" are often portrayed as being like the Nazis to suggest that opposition to the "gay" cause is evil. Wherever there are Holocaust museums and educational projects, "gays" have secured places on boards and steering committees to ensure that the "gay" revision of Holocaust history gets wide public exposure. (One of the first people hired by the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., the largest such museum in the world — was a "gay" activist whose duty it was to serve as liaison to the homosexual community). Conversely, homosexualist scholars have helped to suppress documentation of the central role which homosexuals played during the rise of the Nazi Party and throughout the Third Reich. (For a full discussion of this topic see The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams, Founders Publishing Corporation, Third Edition, 1997.)

PSYCHOLOGICAL TACTICS
Sensitivity Training

The psychological tactics used by the "gay" movement target individual subjects or groups rather than society as a whole. The most common such tactic is euphemistically called "sensitivity training." Sensitivity training is a system of mandatory moral re-education. Originally designed to reduce tensions between cultural groups in the workplace, it featured classes in which employees learned to appreciate the cultural customs and beliefs of their fellow workers. Workers attend classes together where they learn to appreciate the finer qualities of their fellow employees and their cultures. "Gay" sensitivity training uses the same group education format, but for the purpose of forcing acceptance of homosexuality upon workers. Workers are required to attend one or more training sessions, often including visual images of homosexual contact of some sort, and are carefully observed for evidence of "homophobia" (any negative reaction to the notion that homosexuality is normal and good). Employees who have attended these sessions report being subjected to strong pressure to conform to the "politically correct" view, sometimes including veiled threats of reprisal for those who do not. "Gay" sensitivity training is now commonplace in corporate America, in many state and local government agencies, and everywhere in federal agencies under the Clinton administration.

Forewarned Is Forearmed

Our description of the "gay" agenda in America is by no means exhaustive, but should be sufficient to alert parents to the strong cultural pressures on their children. The most important fact to come away with is that the aggressive promotion of the "gay" movement is necessarily at cross-purposes with the vital function of the traditional family in American society. You must not underestimate the power and influence which this relatively small group wields. It is more than likely that you will encounter homosexual advocacy in your own or your child's environment, but if you understand the strategies and tactics of the "gay" movement, you can limit its effects.

At this point in the process of recruit-proofing a child, a parent must decide how deeply he will get involved in opposing the homosexual agenda in his community. Some parents, upon discovering the true nature and the threat of the "gay" movement, become virtual family-protection crusaders. Others, recognizing the personal risk of standing up to homosexualists, look for ways to oppose the "gay" agenda indirectly or secretly. Most parents will choose a path somewhere between these two extremes. We suggest three forms of activity, each of which will accommodate varying levels of personal involvement: pro-family political activism, nonpolitical family advocacy, and participating in ex-gay recovery efforts.

Pro-family Political Activism

There are many opportunities for parental involvement in pro-family political activism, from attending schoolboard or city council meetings to joining existing pro-family organizations. A few phone calls to local pro-family groups will be valuable in getting ideas. It is always best to spend some time to assess what is most needed at the present time before committing to any particular organization or effort. In such an information-gathering process, it helps to get to know school board members and other local political leaders to learn where they stand on the issues. Do this before you approach them with specific problems and you'll have a better chance to be listened to.

Get your information firsthand whenever possible. Remember, when it comes to any "politically correct" issue, never trust the news media's analysis or interpretation of events. Many great candidates and worthy campaigns have withered on the vine from lack of support or have been defeated at the polls because of the tendency of pro-family people to get their information from antifamily sources. In our opinion, more pro-family efforts are defeated by the combination of media misrepresentation and citizen gullibility than any other cause.

Pro-family activism includes both opposition to the bad and advocacy of the good. It is always helpful to offer an alternative when opposing a policy or proposal. For example, rather than simply voicing your concerns about a bad sex-ed curriculum, be prepared with information on abstinence-based programs or other alternatives. Additionally, involvement in the planning stages is better than showing up later to attack a completed plan.

Be proactive. A harmful trend among pro-family people is to fight only defensive battles. In other words, we wait for a problem to arise before we take action. This allows the "gay" movement to frame the issue in its own terms and to choose its own battles and battlefields. A better strategy is to assess the status of the local "gay" movement (based on what you have learned in this section) and to preempt the advancement of the "gay" agenda by placing a legislative or administrative roadblock in its way. For example, if the local government has not yet put an anti-discrimination policy in place, propose one that is limited to genuine minorities and requires a popular vote to change (however, never act alone in such a strategy -- be sure you have the backing to get your version and not a modified one passed).

One way to counter the increasing self-centeredness and individualism of our culture is to promote more family activities in our communities. By this we mean activities which focus on the family itself, not the component parts of the family: picnics in which the entire extended family joins together, family reunions, adult/child sporting events and activities, community theatrical events such as historical pageants, parades, and so on.

The goal is to bring families together, as families, for wholesome fun and interaction, as opposed to separating them into age or interest-specific subgroups. "Family" events with alcohol are harmful in this regard, since adults and children are separated, psychologically if not always physically, by an activity that they cannot share. Activities which include sexual themes or innuendo are similarly divisive. Too often these days, so-called family events are anything but family oriented -- the phrase is more often used as a marketing ploy for selling products to parents of small children. Parents can have a very positive effect in the community by pointing out the difference between "family-centered" and "family-exploitative" events and supporting only the former.

Participation in Ex-"Gay" Recovery Efforts

A growing number of cities and towns in America are hosting organizations which are dedicated to helping homosexuals to recover. Many of these efforts deserve much greater community support than they currently receive. As one might imagine, such organizations face vigorous opposition from local "gay" activists, who don't want to believe (and especially don't want anyone else to believe) that recovery from homosexual behavior is possible. At the same time, prospective supporters in the community may not even know of the existence of the group, since its members may be reluctant to advertise that they are in recovery from homosexuality. Recovering homosexuals benefit greatly from the friendship and companionship of confidently heterosexual same-sex mentors and friends. Finding your local group might take some effort, such as calling around to local churches, but such effort could prove very valuable to the community (and to recovering homosexuals, themselves). Every successfully recovered ex-"gay" is a walking, talking refutation of the lie that homosexuals can't change. (More information about the ex-"gay" movement is provided in the Epilogue).