School Kids Targeted by Federal Pro-Homosexual Legislation

Listen to the Christian Patriot Politicast of this column

Install Microsoft Silverlight

We have been watching a prolonged assault on the hearts and minds of our nation’s kids for several decades now. We have seen the standards of education lowered to the point that many kids leave school unable to even write a grammatically correct paragraph, but with a firm grasp of “self esteem.” This is, of course, by design. The communists who have wormed their way into positions of power in all our institutions and government have as a goal the “dumbing-down” of our young people. Why? Because an uninformed, undereducated electorate is like a malleable herd of sheep, and that is precisely what the communists need to retain their power.

This dumbing-down not only applies to the intellects of our nation’s students, but also to their moral bearings. As you know, hand-in-hand with the ignorance being promoted by the forces of Hell is the campaign to abolish God’s truth and morality. Nowhere can this be more clearly seen than in the diabolical push to indoctrinate our kids with the agenda of the radical homosexual movement, which seeks to gain public acceptance and approval of degenerate homosexual behavior and also to redefine marriage to be an abomination it was never intended to be, and indeed, never could be.

Ted Cruz 2016


There are numerous fronts in this militant homosexual assault on the hearts and spirits, not just of our children, but on society at large. Since Barack Obama (or whatever his name is) was imposed on our nation as “President,” we have seen a ramping-up of the homosexual radicals’ activity in our schools, courtrooms, the military and federal government.

There are currently two bills pending before the Senate and the House of Representatives in Washington. S. 555 and H.R. 998 both have the Left’s typically deceptive wording in their title, “Student Non-Discrimination Act of 2011.” What makes the title deceptive is that this is not so much about “non-discrimination” as it is about forced homosexual indoctrination and the theft of freedom of conscience and religion for students and teachers in our nation’s public school system.

Former comedian, now Senator, Al Franken, is heading up the aggressive push for this detestable legislation. He is the sponsor for the Senate version. He is recruiting both House and Senate members to support these bills. Openly homosexual Congressman Jared Polis is the sponsor of the House version of the bill.

Woodrow Wilcox


The family activist website, Pray in Jesus Name Project, is leading a fax petition campaign to Congress asking members to reject this awful legislation. Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt has written a Call to Decision piece asking Americans to stand with traditional values and reject this terrible attempt by the radical homosexual movement to force homosexuality down the throats of our school kids as young as kindergarten-age. His petition campaign does charge money to send faxes to members of Congress, but it looks like a convenient setup for those who may not otherwise have time to send individual faxes.

He writes,

Last month California became the first state to mandate all public schools, teachers, and textbooks must teach and promote “Gay History” lessons to kids. The bill passed last July went into effect in January 2012. Proud of their victory, homosexual activists are skipping state by state votes, and now plan to force their message on kids in all 50 states.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) has gained 5 Representatives and 2 Senators since last week, now with 155 House co-sponsors and 36 Senators supporting two truly demonic bills, S. 555 and H.R. 998. These bills violate public school children in all 50 states by requiring mandatory pro-homosexual lectures to kids of all ages (including kindergarten and 1st grade). Schools that decline will lose funding. Franken is gaining steam! We cannot let him win this battle for the hearts and minds of our kids.

We must win the fax war to petition Congress. If the church is silent, and homosexuals petition more than we, Congress may cave to their demands. We can’t let their side win!

Many Christians in California thought they would be able to “opt out” their children from pro-homosexual lectures, but sadly, because the lessons were considered “social science” and not “health education,” students were given no choice but to attend. Even worse, children who voice anti-homosexual views are labeled ‘bullies’ and can be punished (by grown-ups who bully kids into rejecting their parents’ faith.)

Religious Freedom is also under attack from the left. James Madison, a father of our Constitution, referred to the right of conscience as “the most sacred of all property.” Our kids will lose any right to their own conscience, if S.555 or H.R. 998 are passed. Christian kids will be punished, and publicly ridiculed by pro-homosexual teachers. This persecution will not only be legal, it will be required by law.

Bottom Line: If these bills make to Obama’s desk, they will effectively end First Amendment rights for our children, and “re-educate” kids to accept homosexuality starting in kindergarten. Kids will be [encouraged] to find their “sexuality” in the 1st grade. If your child is approached by a pervert they could be punished if they respond in a “mean way.”

Let’s take a stand, to protect our kids from Al Franken’s abuse.

The “anti-bullying” platform is just another deceptive tool to promote the radical homosexual agenda. Bullying, harassment and assault are already against the rules in our schools and society. This is not about bullying. It is about pushing homosexuality on our children.

The attempt to add yet another protected class of people to the ever-growing list of “non-discrimination” groups is now to include homosexuality in all its various manifestations in our nation’s public schools. Lost in this is the fact that homosexuality is a behavior, not an immutable characteristic like skin color or sex.

The militant homosexual campaign against our society is one that seeks to destroy the Christian moral foundation upon which this nation was built. That foundation is hanging by a thread, and the homo-radicals are wielding hell-sharpened scissors. If Christians and others—who know the ugly truth about the destructive, immoral homosexual lifestyle—stand silently by, the militant homosexuals will succeed.

You must understand that these people are deeply committed to their dark cause, and they will not stop until they own your children’s minds and hearts in the public schools, until they codify marriage abomination in all fifty states, and until they outlaw any objection to their perverse behavior by squashing our freedom of conscience, religion and speech. Do not doubt it for a minute.

We must continue to pray for our nation and firmly resist the vicious efforts of the radical homosexuals in our schools and our local, state and federal governments. As it stands, we are cruising for the horrible bruising of God’s righteous judgment on our land for our many, egregious, collective sins. A nation that rejects the Lord and embraces, and even celebrates, all manner of degenerate, despicable behavior—from abortion to homosexuality and every other kind of sexual depravity and greedy sloth—is not long for this world as a free and sovereign country.

May the Lord have mercy on America and stop the diabolical enemies within from prevailing in their wicked schemes.

U.S. House U.S. Senate White House
Member Contact Info
Fax Info
Contact Info
Fax Info
Click to email
Leadership Contact Info Contact Info Call

This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.

Similar Posts:

Gina Miller, a native of Texas and current resident of the Mississippi Gulf Coast, is a radio/television voice professional.
Gina Miller
View all articles by Gina Miller
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly


  • thisoldspouse

    The sad thing is that many unthinking politicians will acquiesce to the non-threatening, but dishonest, verbage – the Left counts on it.  They can wrap the biggest, stinkiest pile of rotting manure in a package suitable for Tiffany’s, and the unlearned, non-discerning, go-along-to-get-along pols (Romney is one of the better examples) falls for it completely, not recognizing the Trojan horse that it is.  And so, Texas, with its few centers of homosexual domination, easily passed an “anti-bullying” law.  But when you read it, it specifically mentions the alphabet soup of perversion.

    • WXRGina

      Spouse, I can’t imagine how strong the “peer pressure” must be up there on Capitol Hill.

      You’re right about Romney, but he is not deceived by the obscure title–he’s all on-board with the radical homosexual movement.

      • thisoldspouse

         You are exactly right – Romney is exactly like Obama, against same-sex “marriage” when it is politically expedient.

  • Dawn

    Where to begin?

    I doubt I’ve read anything recently that is more disingenuous and misrepresented than this article you’ve penned. It’s utter nonsense!

    All you’re really interested in Gina, is making certain that you and other religious pious nut-jobs of like mind can continue to keep your perverted views perpetrated upon your own kin. Thus being further certain to spread that nastiness on to future generations of fear based propogandization.

    What possible benefit do you people think comes from supporting bullying, harassment and discrimination? I mean, you people should take a look in the mirror sometime. Aren’t you all proclaiming that you too are being persecuted at a rate never before seen in modern times? Well, then instead of preaching your fire and brimstone West Burrough Baptist style, “Oh the sky is falling and so is the USA because of homosexuality!”, maybe you should participate in interactions of lobbying and public forums to better educate the masses and politicians at your plights. After all, that’s really all the “homosexual agenda” actually is and has done. They’ve utilized legal, constitutional means to achieve the goals of awareness to their situations. 

    And, have you actually read those two Bills you’ve referred in your article? Because I don’t see anywhere in them, anything that suggests the Gestapo type – forced education – tactics you and the Chaplin Klingenschmidt are suggesting. And, come on! Comparing homosexuality to skin color and sex as not being immutable? That is like me trying to tell you that religion and your Bible are not immutable as is skin color and sex, yet religious orientation is a suspect group covered by non-discrimination laws also. I don’t think you really want to go there.

    Look. I don’t particularly favor all of these separated and individualized tag-along non-discrimination laws. I would much prefer that Code Sections of established Laws be reopened and updated to reflect approved suspect group inclusions. Having these Bills as stand alone acts makes it far to easy for otherwise capable people to unduly influence those who are short of intellectual comprehensive skills by over generalizing a concept. Twisting and morphing the true intent of something into a completely delusional piece of propaganda to support a more radical agenda. There is enough of that going on all over the world.       

    • WXRGina

      You are the only disingenuous one here.  Nowhere have I ever supported bullying.  You are lying when you suggest otherwise.

      Yes, I have read the bills.  I wrote about the 2010 version two years ago when Polis was pushing it back then.

      For you to deny the fact that this is forced homosexual indoctrination in the public schools is to show yourself either uninformed or lying.

    • Bob Ellis

      I’m sure that, when one finds it impossible to accept the reality that having a penis makes one a man or having a vagina makes one a woman, you indeed have never “read anything recently that is more disingenuous and misrepresented” what passes for reality in your mind.

      Meanwhile, the rest of us live in the real world where we understand that having a penis makes one a man, and having a vagina makes one a woman, and that–as science and biology make extremely clear–the penis and vagina were created to be used in concert in a heterosexual manner.

      Further, we who are parents insist that our children also be firmly grounded in reality, and that the insitutions which consume our hard-earned tax dollars do not undermine their grasp of reality by teaching them things that are contrary to morality, science, biology and good health.

      We’re just silly like that.

      • Dawn

        Ad hominem only dilutes your voracity. Innuendo is not very “Christain” either. I would expect better of one who proclaims such.

        In any case, science and biology help to explain why variation, evolution and adaptation are unique hallmark of life. Once in a while examination through legitimate research even stumble across causes for such. Though, it requires effort and at times an ‘open mind’ to absorb and understand what is happening. By your standards we’d still be thinking the Sun revolved around the Earth. Or that leprosy is still something to be banished for.

        Finally, bullying and discrimination come in many forms and is not justified in any situation. Your’s is but one example.     

        • Bob Ellis

          I’ve found that when liberals complain about “ad hominem,” what they really mean is, “Don’t criticize me for my immoral and illogical opinions.” Sorry, I can’t give you a pass for either.

          If you see two bolts and two nuts in the same tool drawer, it’s pretty clear that you join the nut and bolt together, not two bolts or two nuts. Homosexual activists can’t seem to figure such things out when it comes to human biology and physiology, however. Very interesting.

          Finally, thanks for proving Gina’s point about why the “bullying” facet of the homosexual agenda is dangerous. In the liberal lexicon, “telling the truth” = “bullying.”

          • Dawn

            When you tell the truth, it is not bullying. That would be my virtue. Try it sometime! 

            When you make things up about people and their situation, or make distastful statements about a persons anatomy, that is bullying. It is also nowhere close to being any truth.It should be laughable that what you all believe is soooo dangerous. The saddest and scariest part is your beliefs are in fact dangerous and in no way reflect the true meaning of Christs experience upon this Earth. It’s also PRECISELY why, there is a separation between our Government and theology. Otherwise we’d highly likely be living in a neo-Christian version of Afghanistan.Just once I wish you could attempt to debate the issues of your articles without letting the personal diatribe of your responses bring you to a new low. But then, that would require being considerate. A virtue which has somehow passed you by.    

            • Bob Ellis

              Unfortunately for you, you are only proving Gina and me right with everything you say.  

              For instance, you cannot accept that someone born with a penis is a man, and someone born with a vagina is a woman.  This is very elementary science, here.   You also cannot accept the obvious scientific and biological conclusion that the penis and vagina were designed for heterosexual use with each other. You have a grave hostility toward reality.

              Further, the manner in which homosexual misuse their sex organs is what is distasteful.  

              Moreover, the fact that you consider the acknowledgement of these truths to be “bullying” once again illustrates the danger Gina identified with so-called “anti-bullying” legislation. “Anti-bullying” legislation is really “anti-truth” or “anti-morality” or “anti-disagreement” or “anti-freedom” legislation.  It employs the typical liberal hostility toward reality and morality in branding that which is good (telling the truth) to be bad, and that which is bad (the immoral and unhealthy use of human sexuality) to be good.  The Creator of us all made it clear (Isaiah 5:20) that such hostility toward truth will not go over well on Judgment Day. Incidentally, Christ is that Creator (John chapter 1) and is the personification of the Word which from beginning to end makes clear that human sexuality was to be expressed between a man and a woman in marriage.

              What’s more, your ongoing hostility toward truth is manifested in your propaganda about a so-called “separation of church and state.” You rightly say “separation between our Government and theology,” but what you mean is the typical liberal desire to divorce government from all morality, especially Christian morality.  Once again, the facts of history are painfully clear that no government can ever be divorced from morality (all law is based on morality), and the United States government was founded by Christians on Christian principles–those principles included a commitment to freedom of religious expression, with an equal commitment to the Christian moral code.  The wisdom of this governmental approach has been proven in spades by the fact that no other country–in 200 years or 2,000 years–has ever enjoyed the freedom or prosperity known under our system. 

              You don’t have to like the facts, but you don’t get to ignore them, rewrite them, or erase them. A well-adjusted person adjusts their opinion to facts and reality rather than resisting them or pretending they don’t exist.

              Finally, things like “being considerate” do not equate to allowing you to ignore, rewrite or erase the truth.  Mature people recognize that allowing such things is not “considerate” but rather “cowardice.”

  • Bob Ellis

    If you had meant precisely what you said (instead of what I know you meant–I’m not nearly as gullible as you think), then there would have been no reason whatsoever to even make the statement, since virtually no one in the United States–including Christians–wants or has ever wanted a theocracy. You might as well have made a statement like, “We shouldn’t have public executions of blue-eyes people,” because about as many people want that as want a mixture of government and theology in America.

    I have and continue to read the Bible as God wrote it; it’s a pity you substitute liberal dogma for what God has clearly said is right and wrong.

    No, apparently you do NOT understand that someone born with a penis is a man and someone born with a vagina is a woman, because you have repeatedly come to my website and defended cross-dressing, homosexual behavior and mutilation of perfectly healthy sex organs. The fact that you have done so while attempting to use an exception (the extremely small number of children born with ambiguous or malformed sex organs due to birth defects) does not change that fact.

    If you (and other homosexual activists) were truly against bullying, there would be no need for including special rights and protections for homosexuals in such legislation, because we know that most children are bullied for a plethora of reasons. If bullying is not permitted for any reason, then all are protected–and there is no need for new legislation, since school officials already have all the authority they need to put down bullying, and have had that authority for centuries.

    It is clear that so-called “anti-bullying” legislation, pushed by homosexual activists, is nothing but an attempt to silence anyone who would dare tell the truth about this immoral and extremely dangerous behavior. You have repeatedly proven Gina and I correct in this regard because you continue to call our truth-telling “bullying.”
    How sad that you so vehemently reject the truth after having had it repeatedly offered to you on a silver platter, complete with garnish and a dessert.

    • Dawn

      News flash to Bob! God did not “write” the Bible! Men did! 

      The Bible is an amalgamation of beliefs and principles which “men” THINK He said to them. It is a book of story’s which in most cases was handed down generation after generation and century upon century. Those stories and principles run the risk of having been misinterpreted, enhanced, altered and just plain made up! While is it is shown ‘some’ accuracy’s by archaeological efforts; stories, they still remain and subject to verification yet to be proved.

      Sounds familiar doesn’t it? Kind of like your theories and disbelief’s concerning origination and causation of homosexuality? In other words, where’s your proof beyond your own belief?      

      • DCM7

        Doesn’t sound like you know as much about the Bible as you’d like to think you do. Just for a start, an “amalgamation” written by about 40 men over about a 1500-year period is *not* going to have the kind of unity that the Bible has. (Don’t bother dragging out any of the supposed “contradictions”, BTW, because they’ve all been refuted long ago.)

      • Bob Ellis

        Newsflash to Dawn: God told those men who wrote the Bible what to write.

        If the Bible really were “an amalgamation of beliefs and principles which ‘men’ THINK He said to them,” then it would be as full of errors as is every other book written by men. Check every one of today’s science textbooks; they are found to contain errors before the ink is even dry on them. Meanwhile, the Bible has stood for 2,000 years (parts of it for over 3,000 years) and not a single moral, historical or scientific error. In fact, there have been a number of things the Bible says which were doubted by some of the smartest minds of our day because there was no extra-Biblical proof of these things…only to see archaeological or other evidence uncovered which proved (gasp) the Bible was right after all.

        The proof is in the pudding. No other book comes even remotely close to the Bible’s record of credibility. Why? All the others were written by fallible men, while the Bible was written by the Creator of the universe who not only witnessed every event that has ever occurred in the universe, but perfectly understands every event.

        Face it: when you go up against the Bible, you’re an ant shaking your fist at an elephant. In other words, as a friend of mine was fond of saying, “You aint’ got no juice.”

        Just like when you try to argue that homosexual behavior is normal, natural, healthy or moral–you ain’t got no juice, because all the evidence proves you wrong.

        • Dawn

          Don’t you find it a little suspicious that it’s been over 3000 years since anyone has had a direct quotation to put to pen by God? I certainly do.

          As for the accuracy of the stories? They’re just stories, Bob. I used to tell my kids bedtime stories all the time. Some of them from the Bible. They even believed some of them. Still it doesn’t mean they are accurate, nor true. Just like the Bible. You have to believe in it to convince yourself , or allow yourself to be convinced it’s true.

          If you want to talk about “credibility”?  Do you actually live completely by EVERY word within your Bible, Bob? Do you expect others to do so? If you think you do, well, you’re an amazingly rare individual. And, if you think so harshly about people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or like myself, well why don’t you make such espousal preaching toward people who commit adultery and divorce? Or, eating shell fish? Or, wearing of blended fabrics? And, on and on. By the way, do you trim the temple hair on your head? Tsk, tsk!

          I know you think I’m a liberal (laugh), I know you think I’m an Atheist (laugh’s harder). But, it just shows your personal perceptive limitations, Bob. It also reflects your own prejudices. But, what you don’t know is the truth about what I believe, and what I feel in harmony with what I know. 

          Just a short version. Yes, there is a God. No, he did not send his Son to be your savior. NO, he did not write, dictate, or email the Bible. God gave us free will. We rule our own hearts and minds. We can make the choice to live in a “moral” theocratic society (yours), or we can make the choice to be free with liberty (mine). God gave us the ability to discern which path is right for each of us, OURSELVES. I don’t take orders from you nor any other living, or dead soul in how to conduct my life as I see fit. And, I certainly don’t need to read some instruction manual (Bible). Especially one created by a fake pseudo-authoritative council (Nicene). I know instinctively right from wrong. That’s what God allows for me to do. I choose to live right!  

          No matter your convictions. Your convictions do not represent the reality that I know, any more than mine represent yours that you know. Even as much as you attempt to declare so. So, we’re equal. You hold no special superiority over those who believe one way versus the way that you would wish we all did.

          • Bob Ellis

            Actually it’s only been about 1,900 years since God issued any written revelation to humanity. Nevertheless, that long (to human perception) period of silence is indeed worthy of consideration. I suspect that it has to do with the fact that God gave us plenty of information with which to operate, provided we are the least bit interested in understanding the truth, as well as the fact that it would be very difficult for us to attain the faith (i.e. trust) that God wants us to have if he were there holding our hand ever step of the way.

            No, the telling of “stories” doesn’t make them true. However, if not a single one of these “stories” (better known as “accounts”) has been proven to be erroneous, and many of them have been confirmed by extra-Biblical evidence to be true, then that speaks incredibly well of the Bible’s veracity. As I’ve pointed out, no other written work can come even remotely close to the Bible’s reliability.

            Do I live completely in accordance with every instruction within the Bible? Of course not. (And if you’ll read what I’ve written on Old Testament ceremonial and dietary laws, you’ll understand that such things are no longer required since the coming of Christ). As the Bible indicates, we are all fallen and sinful creatures. The only human being who ever lived perfectly was Jesus, and it is only through his substitutionary sacrifice on my behalf that I can be considered “justified” in God’s sight.

            Nevertheless, we are all called to TRY to live according to the standard set by our Creator. Sadly, liberals and homosexual activists like you don’t even bother to try.

            As for your status as a liberal, that much is clear, as is your status as a homosexual activist. I know that you can just wish into existence things that you want, and wish out of existence things that you don’t want to be, but that is only a childish fantasy–which, incidentally, only provides further proof that you are indeed the liberal that you are. Whether you an atheist or not, I don’t know. What you have made obvious is the fact that you don’t believe what God has said, and that anything you may believe about Christianity has thus far been almost entirely wrong. About the only thing you got right was the fact that God gave us the free will to choose good or evil. However, God made it repeatedly and abundantly clear that it was NOT okay with him if you choose to rebel against him and embrace evil. There are consequences in this life (homosexuals face them in the form of the illnesses they contract at incredibly high rates, as well as the mental and emotional anguish they suffer from behaving counter to what is right), and there are eternal consequences to be faced after we leave this life.

            You can pretend that the most reliable book in the world–with an unbroken record of accuracy–is completely unworthy of your belief, and you can pretend that you can ignore morality and reality without consequence. Nevertheless, one day sooner or later, you will have to face the fact that you have made a grave error in that assumption. I only hope for your sake it is not eternally too late to change your mind when you realize it.

    • Dawn

      Sticks and stones, Bob. Sticks and stones…………..

      • Bob Ellis

        No sticks and stones involved, just truth-telling. Which, as we have already repeatedly established, is “bullying” in the liberal mind. Which is why this type of legislation is so dangerous.

  • jaytheatheist

    “Lost in this is the fact that homosexuality is a behavior, not an immutable characteristic like skin color or sex.”

    Such is opinion not fact. The facts actually bear out many biological links to sexual attraction as well as gender identity.

    In a way, I can almost see the ‘special rights’ argument. After all, bullying is bullying. I think the key difference is that laws are enacted when undesirable behavior is sanctioned by society and it is society, as a first cause that needs to change. 

    The Civil Rights Act was not so much about protecting African Americans as was about forcing a change in societal views of African Americans. The same is true for gay rights. While we all can agree that bullying someone is fundamentally wrong, there is a implied attitude that extends beyond the school yard that such behavior is tolerable. 

    The process does work quite well, While no one of reasonable intelligence in this day and age would refer to an African American as ‘nigger’ in causal conversation, so to, in the future, will people not refer to homosexuals as ‘deviants’. 


    • Bob Ellis

      No, it is fact.

      Homosexual activists have been desperately searching for over three decades for a genetic “excuse” for their behavior. The result: a big goose egg.

      The only thing they can point to in order to offer any support, however flimsy, for their hope for an “excuse” are some highly subjective clinical studies of highly subjective material–many of which actually go a long way toward disproving the very contention they seek to prove.

      For instance, studies of homosexual behavior in twins has found anywhere from 20% where both twins were homosexual, to a max of 52% where both were homosexual. We would expect near 100% congruity if homosexual behavior were determined genetically, yet it’s no better than a coin toss at best.

      Meanwhile, the suicide rate for a homosexual versus non-homosexual twin was not even close to being the same, either. A twin who was homosexual was 6.5 x more likely to attempt suicide than the non-homosexual twin. If behavior was dictated genetically, we would expect the suicide rate for twins to be nearly identical–yet it was much higher in the twin who chose to live a life that ran contrary to nature and conscience.

      On the other hand, one need only look at the male and female sex organs to realize they were designed to be used in concert in a heterosexual fashion. Even from a purely scientific perspective, the only legitimate biological function for male and female sex organs is (a) to be use heterosexually in concert to (b) affect human reproduction. There is simply no legitimate biological or scientific purpose to sticking a penis into an anus. Empirical science points to heterosexuality as the norm.

      Behavioral statistics also point toward heterosexuality as the norm (a homosexual group commissioned a study a few years ago which found only 2.9% of the population is homosexual). Anything which comprises only 2.9% of the whole is usually classified as aberrant.

      What’s more, homosexuals have been making the decision to stop behaving in that manner and behave in a heterosexual manner; they have been doing so for 2,000 years (it’s recorded in the Bible), and many do so today (I have cataloged the names of many who have done so at Dakota Voice). Obviously, if homosexuality was an immutable characteristic like skin color or sex, one would not be able to stop behaving heterosexually. Do you know anyone who has stopped being black or white, or (without surgery to mutilate their bodies) stopped being male or female as an act of free will? Of course not. It is obvious that homosexuality is a behavior that can be embraced, or rejected.

      So you see (if you are remotely interested in truth) that there is great empirical evidence pointing to homosexuality as a behavior, and a yawning dearth of any reliable evidence that it is an immutable physical characteristic like skin color.

      Those facts will never change, no matter how desperately homosexual activists want them to. It will always be morally wrong, it will always be contrary to science and nature, and it will always be unhealthy physically and emotionally.

      Therefore, let’s teach our nation’s children about what is right and true, rather than teach them to pretend the obvious isn’t real and that unsupported wishes can ever equate to reality. Anything less is a morally reprehensible abuse of a child’s well being.

      • jaytheatheist


        Several statements you claim are wrong and they all start with “We would expect”. I’m not sure were you are getting the basis for these statements of expectations but they are out of line with what those studying the research actually do state. Wiki: Biology and Sexual Orientation. The truth is printed not made up.

        Lastly, even if it were 100% choice and the choice was made by .01% of the population, in a nation that celebrates individual liberty, the individual retains the same rights as the majority when it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 


        • Bob Ellis

          They are not wrong. They come from the scientific knowledge gleaned from hundreds of years of research, from observation of cause and effect, and from confining one’s expectations to reality.

          Unlike liberals, rational people do not permit themselves to think, “What if…” or “I wish…” and then calling the flight of fancy which follows “fact.” Rational people must base their opinions on things like cold, hard facts which have proven themselves consistent over time. They must also base their opinions on the likely causes and outcomes as revealed by consistent results over time.

          The cold, hard facts indicate that the penis was designed to be used in concert with the vagina, not the anus. Historical observation reveals homosexuals can choose to behave heterosexually, unlike people with dark skin who cannot “choose to look white.” Historical observation also reveals that homosexuals have been choosing to change their behavior and to behave heterosexually, that they have been doing so for thousands of years and are continuing to do so today.

          All these documented, observable and verifiable elements combine to form only one rational conclusion: homosexuality is a behavior, not an innate characteristic that is genetically determined.

          Finally, I will point out that no one is trying to stop the homosexual who insists on behaving contrary to nature, morality and good health. What we do want to–and should–stop is the effort to force society to laud and legitimize a behavior which is clearly contrary to nature and is harmful to human beings. Additionally, what we can and should do is prevent such unbalanced individuals from being able to silence anyone who would acquaint them with reality and healthy behavior.

          • jaytheatheist


            While you are free to hold your views that homosexuality is a choice, the “science” that they rest on is a minority view dismissed by the mainstream. Much with your views on evolution, you are only seeing what your faith allows you to see. 

            As far as your views that SSM will force a society to legitimize a behavior, that much is true. The rest that followed this claim is simply opinion and follows what appears to be an established pattern of contempt that you have for any opinions or facts presented that are outside of your faith.

            You seem to be partial to blaming these various streams of thought to liberals. I disagree but not for the reasons that you think. I actually am proud to be a liberal as the term (outside of conservative usage) has a denotation of being ‘thinkers’. I disagree only because the various streams are being generated by critical thinking which is a human trait more then a political leaning. It is how society evolves. It is why we do not stone people anymore or sacrifice animals to gods.

            I get that you are against things that trouble your faith. It is your right. For me, I’m just glad to be on the side that is winning and moving society forward.


            • Bob Ellis

              Mine is not merely a “view” on homosexual behavior, but as I have explained repeatedly in great and clear detail, but the only logical and scientifically supported conclusion.

              I should also clarify that I do not have “contempt” for opinions that are outside my religious faith. What I do have contempt for is willful, deliberate rejection of logic and clear empirical information–something liberals in general and homosexual activists in particular exceed at. Ignorance is forgivable; deliberately rejecting clear and compelling evidence because it is uncomfortable is pathetic and contemptible.

              Given the apparent erosion of morality and the ability to think objectively, logically and analytically, you may be correct that you are “on the side that is winning.” However, it is profoundly sad that you are utterly oblivious to the fact that if your side does indeed win, it will spell the complete doom of the greatest nation in all of history, and will unleash probably the greatest suffering and oppression this planet has ever known. Put simply, you are too deluded to realize that you are attempting to cut your own throat.

        • DCM7

          Interesting how you’ll accept “science” when it seems to support your opinions and reject it when it doesn’t.

          So many false or misrepresented things get accepted as “scientific” while solidly demonstrated knowledge gets swept under the rug, mainly because the false things are the more popular.

          You, and many others like you, no more accept factual/scientific evidence for things you want to disbelieve than you would accept “religious” arguments. You have demonstrated this clearly.

          • jaytheatheist

            Just because someone claims a view is scientific, does not make it so. Science is re-produceable, independently verifiable and peered viewed. Any theory put forward, must account for the facts in evidence. 

            I accept science that goes through rigorous vetting. I do not accept science that fails to meet these standards.


            • Bob Ellis

              “Just because someone claims a view is scientific, does not make it so.”

              I couldn’t have said it better myself! In fact, I have been trying to teach you this for a long time now, e.g. the hypothesis of evolution is passed off as “scientific” even though it is completely irreproducible, as well as unverified and unverifiable.

              Yet, as is the case with your unfounded hope that homosexual behavior is biologically predetermined despite absolutely zero proof to support that hope, you continue to cling to fantasy and deceptively claim it is science.

              There is obviously no hope for you in the near future.

              • jaytheatheist

                It is disingenuous of you evaluate the first sentence without considering the follow on sentences. The entire paragraph forms the complete thought. Without the methods of the scientific method to support a claim that a theory is science, claims of ‘science’ are just that. Claims. 


              • Bob Ellis

                First sentence, last sentence, and all the sentences in between: you have no scientific support, nothing but a big goose egg to support your hope of evolution and moral homosexual behavior.

              • jaytheatheist

                No support?

                wiki List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design

                wiki Biology and sexual orientation

                You are looking through your faith colored glasses once again. While you may not accept it, Both evolution and a biological basis for homosexuality have significant support.


              • Bob Ellis

                Hasn’t anyone warned you about going to wikis for accurate information? I suspect bad information from wikis is probably the least of your truth problems, however, since you have repeatedly and stubbornly demonstrated an unwavering inability to think analytically, or to even grasp the difference between assumptions and fact. That critical failure is as evident regarding matters of human sexuality as it is matters of science and origins.

  • DCM7

    I cannot be silent about homosexuality. It killed one of my best friends when he was still young. And, no, I don’t mean AIDS killed him (although technically it did) or that reckless behavior did (although it also technically did). I mean homosexuality killed him, because it directly led to the behavior that led to the disease. And it killed him on the inside as well, buried in the desperate denial which was the only way he could find to silence his burning inner conflict.
    Some would claim that his reckless behavior was entirely independent of, and unrelated to, his homosexuality. I know better. Homosexuality is not just an alternative preference; it is a life-dominating addiction, utterly incompatible with traditional sexual ethics of monogamy and faithfulness (except in a fantasy world such as Hollywood pretends exists). The only significant difference between my friend and other “gays” whose lives I’ve observed is that the latter have mostly managed not to suffer his physical fate. Well, that and the fact that some of them have left that sexual addiction behind and lived as normal ever since.

  • Bob Ellis

    As I have exhaustively proven, there are simply no legitimate comparisons between innate, morally neutral physical characteristics, and the embrace of self-destructive and immoral behaviors.

    As the Roman Empire collapsed under weight of its own immorality, so the United States is heading (if your side wins). And as monumental darkness and suffering followed the collapse of that ancient civilizing force, it will follow even worse if the United States collapses. The hundred million or so slaughtered at the feet of atheist Marxism in the last century are only a foretaste of the horrors that would come.

    As I said, you are incredibly eager to cut your own throat.

    Either way, I know from that inerrant book that you foolishly reject that ultimately, all will come out right in the end, and the things you now cherish (and hopefully will wise up and reject before it’s too late) will be finally and forever be wiped out of existence. So while the possibility of great misery for the world may loom in the near term, it’ll all work out for good in the end.

    • WXRGina

      Amen, Bob.

    • jaytheatheist

      You have not exhaustively proven anything. What you have stated was an opinion that there are no comparisons. Much of the driver of this opinion rests on the premise that homosexuality is immoral which is a personal view point – though not provable. 

      Expressions of opinions that someone is inferior in some manner is one thing. It can be true or not. However, when those opinions are baseless (un-provable) or based on criteria that is subjective (faith) and used at face value to deny the dignity of others, that is discrimination. 


      • Bob Ellis

        I have illustrated logically and scientifically why there are no comparisons. Unfortunately, as you repeatedly prove, you aren’t interested in logic or science.

        Yes, morality is less tangible. Yet the fact that the doctrine of every major religion holds the same conclusion that homosexual behavior is an immoral perversion of God’s design for human sexuality speaks very strongly to the conclusion that there is indeed something to that moral claim.

        When you throw in the biological and scientific information I have cited, along with the astonishing health risks associated with this behavior, the amalgamation makes an incredibly damning case for any degree of acceptance or legitimacy for this behavior whatsoever.

        Sadly, it is homosexuals like yourself who undermine and deny the dignity of homosexuals. You do so by pretending homosexuals are no better than animals who are slaves to their own impulses, lacking intelligent thought, free will, and moral awareness. The way you dehumanize homosexuals is truly reprehensible.

        It’s become apparent once again that your hostility toward truth and reason has not abated in the slightest, so I’ll tell you what I told Dawn on a different thread a few minutes ago:

        There comes a time when to continue to try to have a rational conversation with someone who has repeatedly demonstrated a dogged commitment to being irrational begins to violate Biblical wisdom not to cast pearls before swine, or to answer a fool according to his folly. I fear I crossed that line some time ago, so I must inform you once again that no more of your liberal nonsense will be accepted on this thread. You’ve wasted far too much time that could have been spent preparing material for people who are interested in truth.