Education Researchers: Teach Pleasures of Homosexual Sex to 5 Year Olds

education1Does it seem as if I write about homosexuality a lot?  It seems that way to me, and if you’re a regular reader of Dakota Voice, it probably seems that way to you, too.

But you know what?  It seems you can’t swing a dead cat these days without coming across some new incursion or attempted incursion of the homosexual agenda to legitimize that behavior.  

I don’t go out of my way to find stories about homosexual activism; if you just keep an eye on the social sphere, it simply bombards you on a daily if not hourly basis.

So I have a choice: let 8 out of 10 stories about homosexual activism slip past so I don’t “talk about it too much,” or I can continue to deal with it as it comes up…as often as it comes up (or close; I still let quite a few pass).

Since confronting error is more important to me than public opinion, I opt to continue confronting error.

The British Daily Mail reports

Children as young as five should be taught to understand the pleasures of gay sex, according to leaders of a taxpayer-funded education project.

Heads of the project have set themselves a goal of ‘creating primary classrooms where queer sexualities are affirmed and celebrated’.

And they won’t merely be teaching academic and abstract facts about sexuality, but will examine “pleasure and desire in educational contexts.”

The seminar will ‘question the taken-for-granted of the supposedly sexless, bodiless and desire-less primary classroom’ and examine ‘the place of the research team members’ own bodies, desires and pleasures in this research’.

The discussions provoked a furious reaction from critics of the homosexual rights agenda. Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said: ‘When an adult who is working in a primary school suggests that children should explore their sexuality, that should result in a complaint to the police.’

No kidding! What is already happening in some schools here in the United States (which are far less “progressive” than their British counterparts) would have prompted abuse allegations 40 years ago.

Such corruption of children’s innocence is unconscionable.

But homosexual activists are far more serious about their agenda than good people are about defending what is right. While good people sit on their hands and fret about being called a “bigot” or “homophobe,” homosexual activists are not so timid.

They understand that the best way to corrupt some one’s morals, some one’s sense of right and wrong, is to do so when they are young and impressionable. The longer someone is exposed to something, the more desensitized they become to it. The more “normal” it becomes.  If they can begin presenting this immoral and unhealthy behavior as “normal” to five-year-olds, they most likely win a convert for life.

Decent people had better wake up and get busy countering this error–and this corruption of children–before it’s too late. It almost is.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.

  • Digg
  • Yahoo Buzz
  • Reddit
  • Yahoo Bookmarks
  • Delicious
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Windows Live Favorites
  • Technorati Favorites
  • NewsVine
  • Share/Bookmark
  • Jamie
    Bob, I think you talk about homosexuality continuously because your obsessed with it. You spend entirely too much time pondering the sex lives of other people and have convinced yourself that you have the right stand in judgment. Personally, I think you are a sick man and should seek counsel. You know what you’re doing is wrong, but you persist and try to justify – just like any obsessed person.

    When you stand before your lord on judgment day, I expect he’ll tell you “Bob, I love you. And I know you love me. But you did and said some very hurtful things to a specific group of my children, and I’m very disappointed in that.”
  • Jamie, if homosexual activists weren't trying on every front to push this immoral and unhealthy practice on society, there would be no need to discuss it. If homosexual activists would be content to harm themselves behind closed doors, society would not have this perversion of human sexuality thrust upon it.

    As it is, however, homosexual activists vociferously demand that society--from government on down to the average citizen--accept this behavior as normal, natural and healthy. They demand special rights to practice this immoral and unhealthy behavior, including the insanity of demanding that a man who "feels like a woman" be allowed to use women's restrooms and shower rooms. They demand the "right" to counterfeit marriage and undermine the most fundamental human institution, ultimately threatening generations of developing children.

    Sorry, but that kind of insanity and belligerent immorality is not going to pass unchallenged.

    It is interesting, almost humorous, that you would say that I, someone who recognizes and defends what should be obvious (that human beings were created to be heterosexual beings) "should seek counsel" while those who refuse to acknowledge the obviously natural and correct use of their sex organs are held up as normal, healthy and rational. Apparently, Jamie, you are among the most deluded concerning this issue, to have such a squarely upside-down idea.

    From everything I have read in the Bible, God wants me to warn others when they are caught up in sin (Ezekiel 3:18, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 11:20, Matthew 28:19-20, Mark 6:12, Luke 13:3, Luke 13:5, Luke 24:46-48, Acts 2:38-40, Luke 24:46-48, Acts 26:20, 2 Corinthians 12:21, 1 Timothy 5:20). I can't do anything else but warn people about this sin (especially when so many are lying and telling people this is not a sin) and be obedient to God.

    And God makes it abundantly clear in both Old and New Testaments that his design for human sexuality is a man and a woman in marriage for life (Genesis 2:24, Mark 10:6-8), and in both Old and New Testaments that homosexuality is a violation of that design and is clearly a sin (Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Judges 19, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, 1 Timothy 1:10). If no one ever told you about this, you really should check it out.

    Think about this and don't put it off. I don't want you to stand before God and have this conversation: "But God, I didn't know homosexual behavior was wrong." God: "Remember that that guy at Dakota Voice? He told you it was wrong. Why didn't you listen to him? He pointed you to my Bible where I, your Creator, said it was wrong. Why didn't you listen to me? Now it's too late."
  • cinemaphile85
    "If homosexual activists would be content to harm themselves behind closed doors, society would not have this perversion of human sexuality thrust upon it."

    Bob, there are three problems with your reasoning. First, your "behind closed doors" remark implies that all gay people care about is having sex, which is simply not true. Second, activists are not the only ones who want to be accepted; regular people do as well. You make it sound like any gay person who isn't ashamed or silent about his or her life must be an activist. Again, not true. Most gay couples just want to be left alone and be treated fairly under the law; as things stand now, gay individuals may have equal rights to straight individuals, but gay couples certainly do not. In most of the country, gay couples have no legal protection whatsoever. In terms of personal liberty, there is no justifiable explanation for this.

    Third, your goal - which is to allow gay people to live how they want as long as you don't have to hear, see, or know about it - does not work in the real world. What you are saying is essentially that you will tolerate gay people on the condition that you don't know who they are. But you fail to appreciate that homosexuality is not a mere "lifestyle" or bedroom activity. For a gay couple to keep their "sin" behind closed doors, that would mean that they shouldn't hold hands in public, talk about their relationship in public, or be acknowledged as a couple in any capacity. You essentially want to shove us back in the closet, for no one's benefit but your own, because it would mean that you won't have to confront your discomfort with and distaste for homosexuality.

    If my analysis of your comment is correct, then I'd have to say: no, gays would not be "content" with such an arrangement. And if someone demanded that you keep your marriage a secret and don't talk about your wife or show any kind of affection toward her in public, you'd feel the same way.

    I can't describe your attitude as anything other than willful ignorance. And this is the message you want to convey to future generations? To pretend that certain types of people don't exist?
  • As we have been over many times before, a homosexual who is not habitually engaging in, pursuing or open to having homosexual sex is probably not a homosexual. If the person DOES meet one or more of these characteristics, then sex is definitely a factor. You can't ignore it. Well, you can try, but it's disingenuous and attempts to distract from the real issue.

    We've also been over the reasons why there is no societal value to homosexual relationships (in addition to the public health risks they pose, on the actual negative side). Society is under no obligation to grant special recognition to a relationship that provides no legitimate benefit to it.

    I would rather homosexuals get out of the lifestyle altogether, for the spiritual and health reasons I have exhaustively outlined before. However, if they refuse, I am under no obligation to "tolerate" or accept public manifestations or facets of a behavior, or behavior connected with it, in a public setting--especially when such displays corrupt the moral fiber of society. It is clearly an unnatural, immoral and unhealthy behavior; treating public displays of behavior in connection with it as if they were normal is to undermine the recognition that the behavior is indeed unnatural, immoral and unhealthy. In other words, what we openly tolerate and accept as normal becomes normal, with no real questioning as to whether it is moral or healthy or not. Such a development undermines the moral fabric of our society, and in doing so, ultimately undermines the health, safety and stability of that society.

    Your continual attempts to equate my marriage to homosexual relationships simply hold no water. One is natural, normal, blessed by God, and provides an invaluable service to any civilization; the other is none of these things. There is a vast gulf between the natural and moral, and what is both immoral and on the face of it runs counter to nature.

    I do not pretend that homosexuals do not exist. Neither do I pretend that homosexual behavior is normal, natural, moral or healthy. It is none of these things. I don't expect you to like that reality, but it would be nice to see at least an acknowledgment of it.
  • cinemaphile85
    What specifically do you mean when you say that you don't have to tolerate or accept public manifestations or facets of homosexual behavior? I'll give you an example that maybe you could use in your answer. Almost a year ago, I had to take my boyfriend to the emergency room because he was having severe headaches that resulted from a lumbar puncture he had done a few days prior. The waiting room was crowded that night, and as we waited for an available doctor, I rubbed his back and held his hand to help take his mind off the discomfort while he rested his head on my shoulder (it worked). Any casual observer with half a brain could have figured out that no straight guys in their 20s would do this, so it was pretty obvious that we were a gay couple. If you were sitting across from us, would you have asked me to stop touching my boyfriend? Would you have asked us to go and sit somewhere else?

    I ask because I think if you had your way, gay couples would not be allowed to show any kind of affection in public, or do anything in public that would convey the nature of their relationship. In other words, your idea of America does not include openly gay people; you want us to either leave our "lifestyle" (which I would more accurately call a *life*) or go back into the closet. That may make you comfortable, and it would allow you to avoid having an awkward conversation with your kids explaining why those two young men at the hospital were sitting so close together, but you'll have essentially forced gay couples into a position of secrecy, dishonesty, and deception. Remember that discussion we had about openly gay employees in the workplace? You said that if you were the boss, you would not tolerate gay employees talking about their partners in the office. Which means that if a gay worker wants to stay in your good favor or possibly even keep his job, he'd have to use gender-neutral pronouns and be as vague as possible if you ask him something innocuous like, "How was your weekend? Did you do anything fun?" Otherwise, a truthful and fully accurate answer might disclose his homosexuality and therefore violate one of your workplace policies. The result - you would be the type of boss who welcomes gay employees on the condition that they hide part of who they are and/or lie about it when confronted. (As you can probably guess, I fully support the abolition of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Hopefully our new president will make good on his promise! Kind of odd that our military currently takes convicted felons but not law-abiding gays...)


    As for my willingness to acknowledge that homosexual behavior is not healthy, moral, natural, or normal, I'm more than happy to - but with some clarifications, of course. First, I think that any type of sexual behavior can be unhealthy when it's done in an irresponsible way. As I have told you before, my boyfriend and I are totally monogamous and free of every STD you could think of, so our particular sexual behavior is no more unhealthy than yours, physically speaking. And spiritually/psychologically speaking, nothing makes me feel happier or more like myself than when I'm with my boyfriend!

    Second, I do not believe homosexuality is intrinsically moral, but I also do not believe it is intrinsically immoral either. Again, as with any type of sexual behavior, it's all in how you practice it. For example, heterosexual behavior such as a man raping a woman is certainly not moral, while for the life of me, I can't understand how the act of two consenting, committed gay adults physically expressing the emotional and spiritual bond they share with each other can be considered immoral.

    Third, if you mean "natural" as something that God never intended humans to do because it makes reproduction impossible, then I would agree: according to the Bible, homosexual behavior is a sin. But God also never intended for husbands and wives to have oral and anal sex, either. Does that mean it's wrong? On the other hand, if you mean "natural" as something that biologically should not occur at all, then I disagree; thousands of animal species behave homosexually for lots of different biological reasons, and some even have oral/anal sex, just like heterosexual humans.

    And fourth, you'll get no argument from me that homosexuality is abnormal. But that's a subjective term, and since when did normality determine right and wrong? Besides, I happen to love being different! I think one of the worst things you can say about a person is that they're normal.
  • As I've said before, such public displays of improper affection undermine public morality, something necessary to the maintenance of a healthy society.

    The fact that you refuse to acknowledge it or may even be beyond seeing it is evidence of why public acceptance of an immoral and unhealthy behavior is bad for people. If they have confusion or an inclination to go the wrong way, when the herd tells them it's okay for them to continue down that wrong path, it becomes harder and harder for them to ever make it back to normality.

    I hope that someday you can, but it's obviously going to be a tough journey. The good news is that God is King of Tough, and a God of miracles. If anyone can help you get there, He can.
  • cinemaphile85
    Those weren't rhetorical questions, Bob. What would you have done if you saw me and my boyfriend doing that? You use a lot of generalizations when you talk, and rarely give specific examples.

    And just because I disagree with your extremely, unrealistically broad approach to homosexuality doesn't mean I "refuse" to acknowledge its consequences. You seem to think that personal responsibilty plays no factor whatsoever in explaining why many gay men develop health problems. Rather than say "irresponsible homosexual behavior is risky," you just group everyone into a little box and say ALL homosexual behavior is risky, when I am living proof that your claim is simply not true.
  • Yeah, I have this bad habit of expecting people to be responsible, to acknowledge truth and the proper moral standard even if they don't agree with it. It's silly of me, I know, but I just can't seem to help expecting people to act and think intelligently, rationally and responsibly. I take too much for granted in today's world.

    I probably would have let it slide, given the medical circumstances, but it was still a poor display of irresponsible behavior.

    The example you gave of having to explain to my children why two grown men don't know how to act and can't restrain themselves in public is a good one: I shouldn't have to explain such things to my children. They shouldn't have to put up with such assaults on their innocence and their sense of right and wrong, and I shouldn't have had to put right what your immoral and irresponsible behavior damaged in their perceptions.

    As we have discussed exhaustively before, the fact that exceptions exist does not justify altering standards of ethics and responsible behavior. There are always exceptions to everything. Rational people, however, recognize that policies and standards must be based on the dominate outcome and circumstance. I was a rare drunk who didn't drink and drive; getting drunk was nevertheless a bad thing to do. Speeders don't always get into accidents...but we still enforce speed laws to protect the public. Not every child conceived by close family relations will result in birth defects...but we still restrict close relations from marrying.

    Yours is the textbook liberal response used to justify behavior that no reasonable person can justify. You take rare exceptions and tout them as if they negated the hazards presented by the preponderance of outcome. That is intellectually disingenuous and irresponsible.

    And in your case, it continues to ignore the spiritual consequences of your actions, whether you acknowledge those or not.
  • cinemaphile85
    Hahahaha you PROBABLY would have let it slide. Well thank you so very much! You're right, when my boyfriend is in pain, I simply can't restrain myself from comforting him, even in public. What an evil evil man I am!
  • Darrin
    Truth is Cinemaphile85, your a sinner. You want to be gay and want to obviously die young.
    The point Bobs trying to make is why kids be taught something that harmful to thier mental, spiritual and physical well being?
    Kids go to school to learn how to read and write and how to do math etc... They don't need to learn how to be Gay!!!!
  • cinemaphile85
    The truth, Darrin, is that you are a sinner too. And you also don't know the first thing about me, so I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from telling me what I do and do not want. Thanks!
  • Gabarus
    He likely would have 'let it slide" by not walking over and forcing the two of you apart. Betcha you'\d have gotten lotsa dirty looks from him though. Hell, THOUSANDS given the wait time in alot of ER's, heh.
  • Mal
    The "Homosexual Agenda" lol. People make it seem like we're one, ginat collective body that mets every Tuesday in a top secret location, planning our corruption of society. Right, because religious people have never had an agenda to force their beliefs on the public. Oh wait, did I just hear Obama say "so help me God"? My mistake.
  • Obama repeated the same words stated by every president since Washington; big wup. Talk is cheap and words mean little.

    There also doesn't have to an official organization with weekly meetings to have an agenda. The homosexual agenda is a set of ideas and goals shared by most homosexual activists. And this agenda has actually been published more than once.

    One of the most enlightening is in a book called "After the Ball" by Kirk and Madsen. It was written in the late 1980s, and one can now look back and see that it has been very, very successful.
  • cinemaphile85
    "I don’t go out of my way to find stories about homosexual activism."

    Yes, you do. How many of your readers frequent the British Daily Mail? I've never even heard of it. How many South Dakotans try to stay abreast of the news coming out of the UK? Probably not a lot. If you hadn't gone out of your way to bring them this story, they'd never have heard of it.

    Regardless, why does it matter that little kids are being taught that homosexuality is ok? If they grow up to be gay, they'll have gay sex even if it's not taught in schools, and if they grow up to be straight, they won't. You can't teach kids what to like or dislike.
  • I lived in England for three years, so I'm quite familiar with the Daily Mail. I don't read it daily, but I read it several times a week, as do many people in the States. I talked with a liberal friend of mine a few months ago who lives on the East Coast, and he was telling me about some things he had read in the Mail. See, liberals and conservatives even in the former Colonies here read it; it's not a state secret.

    "You can't teach kids what to like or dislike." What a textbook liberal fallacy! That may be the biggest (at least in scope and far-reaching implication) lie liberalism has ever foisted on society.

    Were that the case, there'd be no sense in teaching them any values whatsoever. But it is a convenient lie to throw around when you don't want them to learn what is wrong--and to avoid it.
  • cinemaphile85
    Really Bob? I was taught both in home, at church, and in school, that I should be attracted to girls.....but somehow I'm not. Could you ever "learn" to enjoy having sex with a man?
  • Obviously not everything takes when we're taught. If it was, and the material taught was good, we'd probably have a perfect world.

    But if even one of these little ones is led astray into a behavior which will likely destroy their souls and their bodies, that is one too many.

    We should never, ever, ever, under any circumstances, teach children that something wrong is right, or to be even neutral about bad behavior. From the Scriptures, I surmise such corruption of character gets God's ire raised pretty high.
  • cinemaphile85
    I understand what you're saying, but this issue perfectly illustrates the flaw in conservatives' argument that gays are trying to "recruit" children. If you're heterosexual, you won't enjoy engaging in homosexual sex, no matter how many times you're told it's ok. Why would someone do something he doesn't enjoy?

    And like you said, not everything takes when we're taught. Which is why I believe that even if homosexuality is discouraged in the classroom, gay students will eventually have gay sex, and straight students will not.
  • I'll say it again for the slow students in class (or rather, the ones who obstinately don't want to get it:

    If even one of these little ones is led astray into a behavior which will likely destroy their souls and their bodies, that is one too many.

    We should never, ever, ever, under any circumstances, teach children that something wrong is right, or to be even neutral about bad behavior. From the Scriptures, I surmise such corruption of character gets God's ire raised pretty high.

    Teaching children that something deadly and morally wrong is the epitome of reprehensible behavior.
  • cinemaphile85
    Bob, I understood what you said. Just because I have an opinion that differs from yours doesn't mean I'm slow or obstinate. I sincerely apologize for how sarcastic, mocking, and nasty I can be on your blog; it's something I am trying to work on. I would appreciate the same respect and courtesy in return. Let's try to disagree without hurling veiled insults at each other.
  • I'd very much like that, too. But it gets really, really old having to repeatedly explain the obvious.

    Even Jesus' patience ran out with people who were closed-off to the truth. On the other hand, he was gentle and patient with people caught up in sinful lifestyles, if only they had a heart that was soft and open to the truth.

    Please try to be a little more open to the possibility of God's truth. As I've said before, one of the groups of people I publish this website for is those who haven't found the truth yet, but are open to it.

    There simply aren't enough hours in the day to accommodate those who aren't.
  • cinemaphile85
    With all due respect, I would describe your attitude toward those "caught up in sinful lifestyles" as anything but gentle and patient.

    One of the reasons why I comment on your site is to challenge my own opinions, if you can believe that. I have learned a lot about Christianity since I've been coming here, and have actually reconsidered some of my political views.

    And I do try to be open to God's truth, but we just disagree on what that truth consists of. I try to experience God's truth every day; I try to experience his love through interacting with people, and I try to experience his beauty by marveling at the world around us. But I seriously distrust and question the authority of organized religion and its unavoidable habit of exploiting the desperation, ignorance, and fear of well-intentioned people. As I have tried to get across in other posts, one can believe in God without accepting the Bible or identifying with organized religion. These are some of the thoughts I like to impart onto you and your other readers, and I'll try to do it as respectfully as I can.
  • Thank you, cinemaphile85. That's encouraging to hear.

    However, your observation of my attitude toward those "caught up in sinful lifestyles" as being " anything but gentle and patient" is because 99 times out of 100 here, I am not merely dealing with someone caught up in the sin of homosexuality, but someone who is militantly promoting it as normal, moral and healthy. It's rather hard to be gentle and patient with someone who vociferously refuses to even admit a problem, as many of Jesus' dealings illustrate.

    I'm glad to hear that you are giving some additional thought to your views.

    But while it is understandable to refrain from taking the positions of an organized religious institution as infallible, one cannot come to really know God--and thus move beyond a mere "head knowledge" or academic knowledge about him to the kind of "knowing him" that comes from an actual spiritual relationship with him. This difference has been described thusly: looking at a chair and its condition may lead one to an academic belief that it will hold them up if they sit down...but one doesn't really believe it until one actually drops their weight and sits down.

    You don't have to be a member of a Baptist or Catholic or Lutheran or AG church--or any church at all, for that matter--to truly believe God. But if you don't believe the Bible, you're missing key facts that help you better understand him. And if you don't believe the most elemental facts about him (e.g. that he is the Creator, that he is holy and good, that he loved humanity enough to send his Son to pay the price for our sins, and that our acceptance/rejection of his Son and his Son's sacrifice will determine our eternal destiny...if you don't believe these most foundational things, you'll never know him at all.
  • joe blow
    homosexual is perfectly normal, moral and healthy. God made me this way. Children should be taught that it is OK to be gay. Kids are killing themselves over their sexuality. It is because of people like you that there is so much hatred in the world. Homosexuality will be normalized and the younger generation will be desensitized to it. In 20 years, it will be fully accepted. Live and Let Live you idiot.
  • God did not create you to be homosexual. The obvious nature and use of your sex organs should tell you that you were created to be heterosexual. You should stop believing a lie and live the good life God intended for you.
  • cinemaphile85
    What happens if someone is born with ambiguous genitalia? Is there anything "obvious" about that?
  • You and I both know this situation is rare. As is typical on the Left, you're trying to justify a broad rule with exceptions--logically and intellectually disingenuous. Besides, a genetic test would still clear things up, and would probably happen around birth if there was any serious doubt.

    For the vast majority, it's obvious how our sex organs were to be used; some folks just don't want to do what's right.
  • cinemaphile85
    Of course I know intersexed people are rare, but that's no reason to ignore the fact that their situation contradicts your explanation to Joe Blow. And there are two problems with your genetic testing excuse: it does not always "clear things up," and we did not always have that scientific luxury. What did intersexed people do before we knew about genetics?
  • Apparently they persevered, because only recently have such anomalies been used as an excuse to try to get society to bend to the will of an immoral minority.
  • cinemaphile85
    No, I meant what gender did intersexed people identify as before we knew about X and Y chromosomes. But nevermind; soon we'll be down to one-word columns.
  • cinemaphile85
    Well, to be even more specific, I have serious problems not just with organized religion but also with the Bible itself and its claims about God, morality, justice, and other issues.
  • Haggs
    "Does it seem as if I write about homosexuality a lot? "

    Yes it does.
blog comments powered by Disqus