Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
  NOM VS NYC

Can We Please Just Start Admitting That We Do Actually Want To Indoctrinate Kids?

In response to New York’s recently introduced marriage equality bill, the so-called National Organization for Marriage got a bunch of pictures of black people and some guy who sounds like Foghorn Leghorn to repeat the same lies about indoctrinating schoolchildren that they ran in 2009. They accuse us of exploiting children and in response we say, “NOOO! We’re not gonna make kids learn about homosexuality, we swear! It’s not like we’re trying to recruit your children or anything.” But let’s face it—that’s a lie. We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it.

The battle over Tennessee’s “Don’t Say Gay Bill” has made this most apparent. Why would anybody get all up in arms about punishing teachers who mention queers in the classroom unless we wanted teachers to do just that? In response against the bill, FCKH8 hired some little girls to drop F-bombs in their online PSAs and gave out hundreds of “Don’t B H8N on the Homos” t-shirts, wristbands, pins and stickers to school children in front of TV cameras. Recruiting children? You bet we are.

Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?

Remember, Prop 8 passed along age lines with the very old voting largely in favor of it. The younger generation doesn’t fear homosexuality as much because they’re exposed to fags on TV, online, and at school. And I don’t know a single lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person who wants that to stop. I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that it’s OK to be gay, that people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other, and that anyone can kiss a person of the same sex without feeling like a freak. And I would very much like for many of these young boys to grow up and start fucking men. I want lots of young ladies to develop into young women who voraciously munch box. I want this just as badly as many parents want their own kids to grow up and rub urinary tracts together to trade proteins and forcefully excrete a baby.

I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. Hell, our opponents even do the same. Yes, they regularly appeal to parents, older adults, and “values voters” through their advertising but they also provide organizing materials so students so they can challenge queer acceptance on their own “Day of Dialogue.” The old Day of Dialogue website even contained a press kit so student organizers could alert the local media to come and cover their campaign. Anti-gay opponents are already unabashedly indoctrinating our children with the church and conservative politicians on their side and they make no bones about it.

Sure, they blow the few instances of parental disagreement over queer education histrionically out of proportion, but we do our opponents an even greater service when we trip all over ourselves promising not to mention queers in front of the kids when in fact we’d love to. And because we hide from this very basic fact and treat it like something to be ashamed of, we end up with watered-down unemotional pleas for equality like New York For Marriage Equality’s incredibly weaksauce ad:

Committed, loving relationships! Wedding vows! Until death do us part! We just wanna be able to say “I Do!” Forget the thousands of social benefits that regularly screw over queer people without marriage equality. Forget that marriage equality states have lower rates of queer youth and teen suicide. Forget that not educating our kids about queer issues makes them ignorant, hateful little morons. All that doesn’t matter just as long as Mary Jo Kennedy and Jo-Ann Shain can sit on a couch with matching glasses and haircuts and dispassionately discuss semantics.

Do you really think Mary Jo and Jo-Ann are gonna convince a bunch of parents who have just seen NOM’s scary ad that schools aren’t gonna teach their kids about gay fisting and anal sex? So what if NOM’s ad is full of lies and distortions? You know why they keep using those same tired old lies? BECAUSE THEY WORK. And if we plan on responding to scare tactics about indoctinating kids and outlawing religion with polite lesbian discussions about commitment, we’ve already lost.

How about this? How about we accept that we want kids to think better about queers and then create ads—with tons of verifiable supporting evidence—that just plainly state that denying marriage equality ruins people’s lives? That would at least be honest and a heck of a lot more compelling then this fearful mincing we’re doing to the tune and delight of our foes.

PS. You can help get New York’s marriage bill passed: call legislators, donate cash, or join a phonebank.


  • 94 Comments
    • David Gervais
      David Gervais

      Daniel Villarreal: you have used the term recruit as if it meant educate. We get it, but what the haters mean by recruit is entirely different. They use it as code for pedophilia.

      May 13, 2011 at 12:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Daniel
      Daniel

      @David Gervais: When I say recruit, I mean “get on our side” and “get to help fight our battles for us.”

      May 13, 2011 at 1:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Caligari
      Caligari

      Several years back, The Onion did an article on “Children Learning About Gay Sex In the Classroom,” complete with a picture of a stereotypical teacher in front of a chalkboard with two stick-figure guys screwing.

      http://media.theonion.com/images/articles/article/536/onion_news1357_jpg_250x1000_q85.jpg

      Here’s the thing. That article was picked up by conservative “family” groups and sent to their membership as if it was completely real! When conservatives or the Religious Right hear or read the words “anti-bullying Curriculum,” “gay-inclusive education,” or whatever, THAT is what they think: Buttfucking 101.

      You’re right that “we” (or at least I) want education about gays to be standard, but only where it fits into the curriculum. I want homosexuality to be treated as exactly whet it is- a fact of life, something that has always been part of human civilization. We’re still acting as if it’s something NEW and controversial when in fact there’s every reason to believe there were gay cavemen! (And Cavewomen) If a historical figure was gay, say so instead of ignoring it or rewriting history. When teaching the American Revolution mention Von Steuben, who was kicked out of the Prussian Army for being gay and came here to whip a group of farmers with guns into the Continental Army. When teaching WWII, mention gays among the groups the Nazis oppressed and put into camps, mention Alan Turning and the breaking of the Enigma code AND how badly he was treated by the British because he was gay.

      I’m not really a fan of So-and-So Month or special “modules” about one group or another. I’d much rather the contributions of various people and groups be mentioned where it’s appropriate rather than singled out. Make it part of the patchwork of history, which it was and always has been, rather than ginning up some silly-ass “famous gays” lesson plan to be mentioned one day then promptly forgotten. Make it what it is, reality.

      May 13, 2011 at 1:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • abcDario
      abcDario

      But they are in the battle field, it is impossible a battle without getting them involved. I think it is necessary to tell them how different can be the choices you can make when you are adult.

      May 13, 2011 at 1:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Gervais
      David Gervais

      Daniel, I understand you, we understand you, however, I am in agreement with Caligari.

      “When conservatives or the Religious Right hear or read the words “anti-bullying Curriculum,” “gay-inclusive education,” or whatever, THAT is what they think: Buttfucking 101.”

      When we let them control the language of the debate, we are letting them control the debate.

      May 13, 2011 at 2:04 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      Old gag: “No one recruited me to be gay, I volunteered!”

      It’s been a bittersweet punchline, for me at least.

      Long before I knew of anyone LGB, and years prior to hearing the word “gay” I *knew* that I reeeealllly liked men, and that I was different from my slightly older male siblings who all lusted after “Big-ti#ted Tina,” our neighbor’s step-daughter.

      What would have made things easier for me, stuck in bumble-frick no-wheres-ville, might have been just ONE adult I felt OK talking to about sixth sense that I was cut from a different bolt of cloth than my guy family members.

      Just One adult, one teacher/ coach/ relative could have saved me from years of feeling like the loneliest guy in the world, with the most pe-cul-i-ar secret EVER.

      What I wish for the younger LTBTQQ folks coming up now is that they can just find someone who will:
      — show concern
      — listen
      — create a safe space to get thoughts out in the open and questions answered
      — help normalize the feelings of NOT fitting in & being totally alone
      — instll some shred of hope that PEOPLE LIKE US do thrive and find a place in the world.

      That’s not too much to ask is it. That’s not a recruitment campaign, it’s a sounding board,

      And it’s a lifeline.

      May 13, 2011 at 2:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree

      Ah yes, the new Queerty’s famous “mooderation” has just swallowed my comment.

      I hope the new regime will find some way to review comments faster than the FIVE day average that it took the last crew to pass/ fail remarks.

      May 13, 2011 at 2:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • matt baume
      matt baume

      @Jeffree: We actually haven’t figured out how the comment system works yet! It’s a bit of a hodgepodge that we’ve inherited, so we’re still trying to untangle things. But I’m keeping an eye on the comments and unmoderating as fast as I can.

      May 13, 2011 at 3:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Gervais
      David Gervais

      @matt baume-

      I have just written three paragraphs to you about improvements to the comments section. Since Queerty does not even have a contact us page, please post your contact info. I’ll send it to you.

      May 13, 2011 at 4:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Gervais
      David Gervais

      Matt: I sent some stuff to the old holla address.

      May 13, 2011 at 5:02 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steve
      Steve

      Rational adults do not talk about sex in front of kids who are too young to learn about such things. But, when the kids reach an age and start asking questions about sex, rational adults give honest answers. And, at some point, the whole truth really should be told. Many school districts have a “health” class in which the curriculum includes some sex education.

      The fact that some people are gay, is one of the facts of life that should be taught at an appropriate age. That bit of knowledge can literally save the life of a kid who knows he is different, and has started contemplating suicide.

      The accusation of recruiting is just an attempt to gin up support in their base, among parents especially. We really should respond by calling the lie. Rational parents should be concerned about suicide, much more than whether their boy knows that gays exist.

      May 13, 2011 at 7:55 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tj
      tj

      I think we continue to delude ourselves on marriage strategy. In all of my years discussing this topic what I haven’t heard anyone say is that “homophobes” are correct in a way. If it becomes “okay” to be gay more people will in fact be gay. To draw parallels to the civil rights movement people were up in Arms about Brown V Board of Ed, not just because they wanted to experience privilege but because they couldn’t stand the possibility of their children entering into interracial relationships. Guess what their prediction was correct, school integration did lead to “miscegenation” just as gay marriage would lead to more gay people.
      My point is these adds seem to be misguided in that they seem to be saying “look at us we’re not scary” – well its not about you. I firmly believe that most people could care less what YOU do the issue is they can’t bare the thought of a society where they have to embrace the possibility that a child may turn out to be gay. So while there is coded language tying homosexuality to pedophilia it’s not speaking to the middle. Nor is an add with two old gay ladies (seriously get a clue). The image of children, especially minority children, signifies the possibility that they could embrace a behavior that would exorcise them from society. The site of a school house is particularly effective because school’s are places of indoctrination and spaces where we intend to provide children the service of citizenship. The messaging is if these children think its okay to go down the wrong path they will and then (particularly if they are minorities) they’re screwed.
      A more effective add would be aimed younger. Older gays have to stop recounting the attrocities they faced, no one wants that for a child, and unfortunately they aren’t as likely to think the entire world should change so much as they are to think that child should. How about an add with a business professional on the phone saying “Honey, I’m working late, how are the kids” you get to his home its typical Americana looks just like yours, the kids are on their way to baseball and cheerleading (gender respectfully) the only diff is theres a same sex relationship. Whatever it is the message has to be that being gay is not the worst thing that can happen to a child, not that gays are committing suicide because its so hard.

      May 13, 2011 at 10:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • prohomo
      prohomo

      @tj: You seem to be implying that being gay is “not the worst thing”, but it’s close. How about gay is good, huh?

      May 13, 2011 at 10:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Well, according to NOM, “Indoctrination” must be defined as “Teaching kids that they shouldn’t kill themselves if they are gay.”

      I can see why they wouldn’t want THAT!

      Seriously though, they should rethink. If all gay men committed suicide, then Maggie Gallagher would have never gotten married to her “Husband”, and had such a “Traditional Marriage”.

      If traditional means she never wears a ring, didn’t take her husbands last name, never mentions him, is never in the same place with him, and he travels all over the country with his “Friend”.

      May 13, 2011 at 10:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pete n SFO
      Pete n SFO

      Villarreal is absolutely correct… Marriage Equality people are playing ‘defense’ not ‘offense'; and they have been even before Prop 8.

      All their focus groups tell them this is what people respond to best. Okay, fine.. so keep a few of those, but they should also create parallels that would offer a reality check ie: mixed-marriages, race-laws, women voting, a black man as 3/5s of a person; let them see that our laws have & will continue to change.

      Last, Americans want to be fair & if we help people see the bigotry, they’ll want to do the right thing. Everyone has a sexuality, but their own prejudice hears ‘sex’ when it’s about ‘gay’… expose the baloney & make fools of the opposition & increasingly the bigots will be seen as the dinosaurs they are.

      May 13, 2011 at 11:08 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Adam
      Adam

      Bravo! Everyone thinks this but no one says this and it makes us look like hypocrites or it makes us water down our message when we try to play this game. An excellent piece.

      May 13, 2011 at 11:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike in Asheville
      Mike in Asheville

      First off, Queerty, Daniel Villarreal and Matt Baume, you are simply wrong wrong wrong that the efforts of many fellow marriage equity activists who produce and air commercials such as the Mary Jo/JoAnn and the score of similar one, are a failure.

      As is has been seen with struggle for racial civil rights and women’s rights before, progress REQUIRES multifaceted efforts at different socio-economic, cultural, and political levels to succeed.

      Just because you fail to see the positive side and longer-term effects of feel good ads DOES NOT LESSEN THE FACT that the general American public is moving more and more, and more quickly, to accepting the fairness of marriage equality. If it were so simple that in elections and legislative efforts that the feel goods failed, in particular cases, to achieve marriage equality, nonetheless, acceptance on the national level is now above 50%. You cannot explain the growing movement toward marriage equality by pointing to all the successes the anti-gays have also achieved. By your standard, national support for marriage equality would still be at the same levels, or even worse, than the numbers ten years ago.

      There is no need to berate the good efforts of good people also fighting for marriage equality. It most certainly took the strong civil disobedience and “in your face” tactics of ActUP to gain the necessary momentum to get government, society, and the medical field to tackle HIV/AIDS. AT THE SAME TIME, that effort also required the hand-holding political lobbying efforts of HRC to make those efforts of ActUP workable with Congressional and state funding, changing the medical accountability, and greater support from society.

      My point is that you do not need to beat up fellow good guys/gals and our efforts to achieve marriage equality.

      *****************

      Second point: you are absolutely right that our side needs to tackle NOM’s made-up “the fags/lessies are after your children” head on.

      Because our side fails to challenge the “what about the children” NOM lies head on, NOM continues to tell those lies. But we know that the NOM/children effort succeeds only becuase the lies go unchallenged.

      In the light of honesty, though, our message will ultimately overwhelm the lies: yes, indeed, children will learn that 2 men or 2 women can also start a family just like a man and woman can. Period. No right-minded person goes into details about how a man and woman begin a family with kindergarteners; and no one is suggesting, except the lying NOM ads, that gays and lesbians would go beyond what is appropriate for children to know.

      We all, well except for cases of child abuse, grew up understanding there was a mom and dad, without knowing anything about sex, what moms/dads did in private, etc.

      Embrace the challenge and fair-minded people will remain fair-minded. Expose the lies, tell the truth, know that children ALWAYS absorb notions of what is going on around them, and show that, except what happens in the privacy of the bedroom, straight and gay parents aren’t all that different.

      People who are not fair-minded, well fuck them. We don’t need everyone’s support. And, as I pointed out above, the fair-minded Americans are quickly realizing that marriage equality is about the good old American sense of fairness and each individual’s right to their own happiness.

      May 13, 2011 at 11:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AxelDC
      AxelDC

      30 years ago, that video would been about the horrors of having a black woman teaching white kids.

      May 13, 2011 at 11:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AxelDC
      AxelDC

      What’s with the Foghorn Leghorn narrator?

      May 13, 2011 at 11:59 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      Off topic, but how great is the picture for this post? Any guesses on which one of those kids grew up to be “FABULOUS”?
      :)

      May 13, 2011 at 12:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kenny
      Kenny

      Parents are affected by emotional appeals that tell them their children are in danger. The “Princess” tv ad in California was incredibly effective at swaying voters. Its effectiveness was bolstered by the No on 8’s extended delay in responding to the ad.

      The sad reality is that when it comes to their own kids most parents (even liberal, white, female democrats) haven’t evolved much past the fear that Anita Bryant successfully preyed upon nearly 35 years ago.

      You need straight parents with straight kids talking about how they voted for Prop 8 out of fear (thanks to the Princess ad which most now admit was a total lie), regret the decision, and encourage New Yorkers (or who ever the audience is) to not make the same mistake. The message from straight parents with straight to other straight parents with straight kids should be – Don’t be afraid. Don’t be misled. Children are not in danger from gay people.

      I can’t believe that these types of people couldn’t be located in the SF Bay Area. It was this group of parents (white, female, democrats, parents with kids living at home) who gave Prop 8 the push it needed to pass. It was a simple fear reaction to the age old message – Parents of River City. You got trouble. Lots and lots of trouble. Why have we not figured this out yet?

      May 13, 2011 at 12:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the crustybastard
      the crustybastard

      The ad campaigns need to avoid all the soft issues like “do what’s fair” and “our love is valid too.” It’s time to take the gloves off.

      Our ads should be about FACTS and THEIR LIES.We need to show these assholes as the malicious bullshit factories they are, and make associating with them utterly toxic.

      Personally, I’d go all in. I absolutely WOULD run ads comparing the homophobes to Nazis. It’s not inapt. Nazis started with business boycotts, drove Jews out of the military, prevented Jews from marrying the person of their choice, prevented them from teaching, etc.

      Why? Because they despised a minority they thought was despised by God.

      FACT: The Nuremberg Laws began with a marriage ban. Herman Göring even referred to the ban as a “defensive action” — a defense of marriage, if you will.

      Seriously, we need to show them for what they are. NOW. Before they come after our right to speak. Because they’ll do that, too. Guaranteed.

      May 13, 2011 at 12:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • schlukitz
      schlukitz

      Great editorial, Queerty. It’s about time that someone stated the obvious…the elephant in the room, if you will.

      Straight people have been pushing the hetero “Agenda” from the get-go.

      Isn’t it time that we started pushing the homo “Agenda” instead of living in denial?

      I, for one, don’t want to be tolerated. I want to be accepted for the warm and caring human being I have always been and I want it understood that I am not deviate from the norm and something to point fingers at and be sneered and laughed at.

      74 years of that shit is enough, thank you very much.

      May 13, 2011 at 12:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cam
      Cam

      @the crustybastard:

      Agreed, what I noticed, is that people started to shut up and we started to get movement when we started labeling them what they are, Bigots.

      Mutual funds and investors wouldn’t have threatened Target with dumping their stock if we had simply said “You hurt our feelings”, they were threatening that, because we let them know that to be associated with those actions was to be lumped in with bigots.

      The same with the lawfirm that was going to take on the DOMA case for Speak Boehner. They were going to take the case until we started yelling about it.

      Politeness was what was needed a few decades ago.

      May 13, 2011 at 2:20 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • James UK
      James UK

      @the crustybastard:

      How about a slightly bloodied white sheet being hung out of the upper floor window of (an expensive) suburban home, with the detritus of an earlier wedding on the lawn.

      Cut to Maggie (or any other carnival barker GOP candidate) talking about traditional marriage.

      Voiceover – do you really want this woman examining your sheets?

      May 13, 2011 at 4:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Randy
      Randy

      I am a gay man but I take issue with the word indoctrination. Indoctrination is defined as teaching a doctrine or set of beliefs to someone. Homosexuality is not a belief. Sexuality merely exisits as a persons fundimental make-up, just like eye color and gender. Heterosexuals should conceive that being gay is just like being straight whether they like it or not, and they should accept all humans for being born the race, sex and sexual orientation that they are. Of course I wish we could all just get along but it’s not going to happen for a few thousand years.
      I understand that when you say indoctrinate you mean adults need to teach children that they should be accepting and kind to all people, so your point is well taken. However, that idea doesn’t need to be presented in an artical about mainstream acceptance of homosexuality. Now is not the time to pull the thorn out of our side and use it as a foil. It merely complicates things for an already simple idea that is still not understood by ignorant people.

      May 13, 2011 at 5:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • franklin
      franklin

      I am beginning to believe that this site is secretly run by an anti-gay group. To publish a headline like that which will be re-broadcast around the internet by the christianists goes beyond bad judgement and into the realm of self-destruction.

      May 13, 2011 at 8:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • IAbuseGays
      IAbuseGays

      Its not indoctrination to admit that some kids are going to be born gay. Its called being in touch with reality. In this country, indeed, the world, right now, reality is not something one is supposed to advocate. But, it is reality that some people are born queer.

      May 13, 2011 at 9:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffree
      Jeffree [Different person #1 using similar name]

      @Matt Baume: Thanks for your reply!

      I appreciate whatever you & your team can do to help keep this site getting better & better.

      May 14, 2011 at 4:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David Villareal
      David Villareal

      What an outrageously irresponsible headline. This is the “new” Queerty? It makes the old Queerty look like the BBC.

      Surely even the dullards who churn out text for the new Queerty must realize that our adversaries do not appreciate or understand efforts to “reclaim” terminology nor do they really get irony. To this day, they continue to cite as evidence of a nefarious gay agenda to eradicate heterosexuality a creative writing piece written 25 years ago by an unknown author who explicitly stated that the piece was satirical.

      How dare you jack up hits by tossing out incendiary language which can be abused and misused by our adversaries? More to the point, don’t ever use “we” to include both me and the writers of Queerty. “We” agree on very little, not least of which is your competence in carrying the blog forward.

      Change the headline and apologize.

      May 14, 2011 at 4:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Amanda
      Amanda

      I think we need to be careful about the difference between talking about *sex* and *sexual orientation*. I previously worked in an elementary school where several students had same-sex parents. It was something we discussed in class when we talked about respect and diversity. There are many different types of people and families – single parents, some kids live with their grandparents, some kids are adopted and are different races than their families, and some kids have two moms or two dads.

      I was able to use our state’s extensive bullying law as a shield – these kids need to know about Vermont’s protected categories so that they aren’t discriminating against others.

      Talking about LGBT issues in school is not a gay agenda, it’s a diversity issue – that’s the stance I take when working with kids, and parents have a harder time arguing with it. It’s pretty obvious I’m not teaching about sex in the classroom, but instead about respecting others and their differences.

      May 14, 2011 at 11:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Steven Harker
      Steven Harker

      Congratulations you irresponsible morons. Your post was immediately picked up by NOM and is now the subject of a post on NOMBlog. You bear full responsibility for whatever comes of this.

      It is despicable for you, a gay site, to frame this in a way that is both inflammatory and deceptive. Gay people wish to persuade others that we are equal. We do NOT want to “indoctrinate” anyone. And any such effort would be self-defeating because indoctrination depends upon a monopoly of information, something that is impossible in a pluralistic society.

      So your post was not only blatantly untrue, but it has helped the very people who hate us by feeding their deranged paranoid fantasies. You owe all of your readers an apology. You should immediately post something to that effect and also rebutting NOM.

      All of you should be ashamed of yourselves. If this goes viral, I hope it spells the end of all of your careers in media.

      May 14, 2011 at 5:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gabriel
      Gabriel

      Me make fun of other countries and call them “uncivilized” and yet they have NATIONAL laws that do not discriminate sex in marriage. I mean, in some south american countries the law does NOT say anything anymore about it, and so same sex marriage is as lawful as heterosexual marriage. We should go and learn something from those far down south.

      May 14, 2011 at 7:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • James
      James

      Steven is right – this is going to end up hurting our cause because the underlying message is dismissed by our adversaries in favor of short and out of context propaganda excerpts. The use of such coarse terminology certainly wasn’t warranted either.

      May 15, 2011 at 2:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Equality4All
      Equality4All

      No, this article is wrong. I do NOT want to “indoctrinate.

      ?”in·doc·tri·nate /?n?d?ktr??ne?t/ [in-dok-truh-neyt]
      –verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
      1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
      2. to teach or inculcate.
      3. to imbue with learning.”

      I do not want to “indoctrinate.”

      I want to right a wrong. I want to restore the U.S. Constitution to what it really means and what it says.

      I want everyone to understand why in the U.S.A. everyone is governed by the U.S. Constitution which has an Equal Protection Clause that is part of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution which says that “no state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” “After the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, the U.S. Constitution also protected rights from abridgment by state leaders and governments, even including some rights that arguably were not protected from abridgment by the federal government. In the wake of the Fourteenth Amendment, the states could not, among other things, deprive people of the equal protection of the laws.”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

      Therefore, no government in the U.S. A. has the right to restrict government recognition of marriage, and provision of special treatment because of marriage, to only marriage between an adult, non-related, man and a woman.

      That is not a doctrine or an ideology. It is a fact that until recently has not been recognized by the courts. Now some courts recognize this fact or principle. The real principle actually comes from the U.S. Constitution. The only difference is in finally realizing that the U.S. Constitution really means what it says.

      This is not a partisan belief or point of view. It is not a biased belief or point of view. It is non-partisan. It removes the U.S. Constitution from biased beliefs and points of view.

      All of this is probably beyond the ability of children and maybe even many adolescents to understand. So just tell children and adolescents that the U.S. is a nation based on and governed by laws not by personalities or prejudices, and the law says each person in the U.S. is equal before the law and the law applies equally to each person no matter what.

      May 16, 2011 at 1:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • greenluv1322
      greenluv1322

      Wonderful article Queerty! Keep up the good work guys.

      May 16, 2011 at 9:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jeffrey
      Jeffrey

      Ugh. I get it, Queerty, I get it. But, goshdarn it, you don’t. Should have left this site die out.

      May 17, 2011 at 3:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexandria
      Alexandria

      So some fuckwit posted this on Anne Rice’s Facebook page:
      http://www.nomblog.com/8519/

      I responded to the poster thusly:

      http://www.queerty.com/can-we-please-just-start-admitting-that-we-do-actually-want-to-indoctrinate-kids-20110512/

      Yes John I just read the actual article that your silly poster is all up in arms about and quoted from. yes, clearly that gay guy is pretty angry and he even uses naughty words. And guess what? he has every right to do so. Because he and his have been viciously persecuted by people like you in this country for decades if not longer. People like him have been MURDERED by people like you over and over again. So I understand his anger and hate. He has a right to them. But what you (and the moron who you link to) clearly don’t understand is that what you and he mean by “recruit” is worlds apart. When this gay writer says “recruit” what he means is that he wants every person (and yes, kid) who happens to BE GAY to be able to be open about it and accepted. Yes, he wants that even for YOUR kid if that kid happens to be gay. And he’s RIGHT to want that.

      However, what you and your homophobic hysterical tribe think “recruit” means is that he and his will come over and seduce STRAIGHT kids into being gay. And you actually believe this can happen because you are too damn dumb to read the science and realize that this thing you so fear CANNOT HAPPEN. No amount of exposure and acceptance can turn a STRAIGHT kid gay just as no amount of prayer and conversion therapy can “cure” a gay kid and make him straight. Human sexuality simply does not work that way! Get it through your head!

      But I suspect that you also think the world is about 6,000 years old and that evolution by natural selection is “just a theory” too. I, in fact, suspect you are a complete idiot.
      ********************************************************

      There was only one thing that bothered me about this article above and that was the rather hateful description of straight sex. I think that hurts your cause and may indeed drive away some of your supporters in the straight and bi population. Just as I’m sure you don’t appreciate it when morons describe homosexual acts as “disgusting,” displaying your own disgust over heterosexual acts and procreation is not going to win you friends among the very population whose support you most need. Just as you would like straight people to stop stupidly hating you for no other reason than that you happen to be gay, I’m sure you can see that people would not be happy with the idea that you hate them just for being straight, which is how this sounds. Was that really your intent?

      May 17, 2011 at 4:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cmh
      cmh

      You know for all this talk about indoctrination and teaching kids about gay sexuality in the classroom is just schlock.

      The kindergartners in my daughters class knew about gayness right off the bat. They didn’t know it was called that, the teachers didn’t have to teach it, it was because either one of my daughter’s moms would come to pick her up and the other 5 year olds would yell HEY EM ONE OF YOUR MOM’S IS HERE!

      And that is how I taught those other kids about gay marriage. They saw it for what it was. They just assume we do the things that their parents do, make dinner, do laundry, and sometimes hold hands and kiss. They don’t think much beyond that although some know there is a bit more too it. They come to our daughters’ birthday parties and they don’t bat an eye. They just know there are two moms and who cares anyway? We aren’t foreign, we aren’t other, we are neighbors. There is no putting that back into the closet. We are out, we have families and the right people (the youngers)are seeing us for what we are, like them.

      This is the last battle screech for NOM and their kind, they are pushing sooo hard because they know they are so close to really losing. They may be able to hold out for a time or delay but eventually this generation is going to grow up and scrub their laws off the earth. It’s too late to change the trajectory on SSM, it is really only a matter of time, though that doesn’t mean we should give up. Some minds will still change but really most of the minds who are against us are just gonna die out without the numbers to replace their ilk.

      May 17, 2011 at 7:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexandria
      Alexandria

      My teenaged cousin I am raising is both black and white. Her friends come from different ethnic and social backgrouds. Wealthy white girls who attend expensive Catholic schools. Black and white and hispanic kids from public schools. And yes, gay, straight and bi. And they’re ALL just kind of baffled by the “big deal” everyone is making of gay marriage. To them the idea is no big deal at all. They’re of the opinion that if our generation doesn’t make this right, theirs surely will. I’d like to spare them that effort since we’ll already be leaving them the mess of manmade climate change and a bankrupt economy to fix but I have to say their attitudes DO give me hope.

      May 17, 2011 at 10:50 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • micah
      micah

      this article was like a gift for the anti gay side… which of course makes me question the writer.

      May 18, 2011 at 3:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dayle
      Dayle

      Your point is entirely lost due to offensive deragatory language, and in fact gives lots of fodder for the Religous Right. And please, stop calling us Queer, and even worse Fag! Those are words for angry mobs. The article has some really good points about our goals to educate people that same-sex orientation is nothing to fear, and that it is not a choice. Inflaming it with vulgarity completely detracts from the point, and makes Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Transgender and Questioning people look like poorly educated rabble.

      May 18, 2011 at 12:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dayle
      Dayle

      @Steven Harker: Here Here!

      May 18, 2011 at 12:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gerry Fisher
      Gerry Fisher

      Nice post. IMO, our political losses in both California and Maine can be traced back to effective marketing by NOM that marriage equality involves teaching kids about different families and heads of families, and our lame denials.

      Regardless of whether we use the word “recruit,” we need more of a “Yes, we do favor such teaching. That teaching will progress independently of marriage equality. And this is why that kind of teaching is important and healthy….”

      We need to go right at that point instead of side stepping it or denying it. If we don’t, we end up looking as if we’re defensive and “trying to hide something,” because the school *really* *did* include “King & King” in the optional diversity reading list/bag in Massachusetts. And what that school did was *right* and *good*.

      May 18, 2011 at 1:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gerry Fisher
      Gerry Fisher

      >The fact that some people are gay, is one of the facts of life that should be taught at an appropriate age.

      I think that the struggle we face is that kindergarteners are old enough to understand that their best friend Heather has two mommies. So, education about “some families have two mommies, some have one, some have one grandma, some have two daddies” should begin in Kindergarten or 1st grade, because that’s when kids are beginning to run into the issue.

      Of course, NOM wants to translate this to: “they’re teaching kids gay sexuality in kindergarten, and they’re giving your kids the green light to have same-gender marriages.”

      It’s tricky marketing and messaging, but I think that we’ve seen already that the “That’s not true! Those issues are unrelated to marriage equality!” response doesn’t work. In fact, I’d argue that it was that tactical response that sank us in both California and Maine.

      We need an affirmative, concise, effective retort to “marriage equality means recruitment in the classroom.” Something like, “In addition to marriage equality, we support teaching kids about the different kinds of families they see with their own friends and relatives.”

      May 18, 2011 at 1:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • David in Houston
      David in Houston

      If your plan was to get Queerty back on the map, job well done. To bad it’s at the expense of the entire gay community.

      Every so-called “family values” organization from coast-to-coast is going to use this article as proof that homosexuals want to convert their precious straight children into the immoral homosexual lifestyle. We all know exactly what you meant in the article. But you did a really crappy job of saying it. These anti-gay organizations would sell their collective souls to Satan to get a gay publication to use the terms “indoctrination” and “children” in the same article. You gave them their Christmas present in May. Congratulations.

      May 19, 2011 at 11:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Carlos Wilson
      Carlos Wilson

      Excellent Article! You made your case without even mentioning how it would help reduce bullying rates and teen suicides, no less! Well done.

      May 19, 2011 at 1:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WorldOJeff
      WorldOJeff

      Congratulations, Moron

      NOM and our enemies search day and night for the perfect sound bite to use against us and you’ve just made their day. Your ridiculous, ill-advised, inappropriate and totally irresponsible headline has just set us back ten years. You have seriously harmed every LGBT citizen in the country.

      I hope you are pleased with yourself, Mr. Villarreal. Now crawl under a rock and SHUT THE FUCK UP. You do not speak for me, or for any decent LGBT people. We are not attempting to “indoctrinate” or “seduce”. I denounce you and refute your words.

      What a pity Queerty didn’t remain dead.

      May 19, 2011 at 1:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peter M.
      Peter M.

      Another right-wing organization picked it up: http://www.cwalac.org/cwblog/

      You can’t blame them, you have given a real gift to all of them anti-gay people and organizations with your totally inappropriate and poorly written article.

      I don’t think teaching children about sexuality (gay or straight) is appropriate until adolescence. However, there is an age-appropriate way to teach kids about gay people. People need to be able to separate being gay from sex, starting with you Daniel Villarreal.

      Neither do I want to indoctrinate anyone. How many time had I to defend myself on different discussion forums against the attacks of crazy homophobic right-wingers who argued that we want to indoctrinate and recruit children into the gay lifestyle and expose them to gay sex.
      Thank you for showing them that they have apparently a point.

      There is a big difference between education and indoctrination. To teach kids that being gay isn’t bad and that ostracizing someone because of it is bad, I dont call that indoctrination, I call it a basic education.

      Daniel Villarreal, do you have any idea of the harm you have done to our community with your poorly worded and EXREMELY irresponsible article?

      I totally agree with an earlier comment, you owe all of your readers and the gay community as a whole an apology. You should immediately post something to that effect and also rebutting NOM and CWA.

      Until then, you can count me out as a Queerty reader.

      May 19, 2011 at 2:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Peter M.
      Peter M.

      correction: … you owe all of your readers and the LGBT community as a whole an apology.

      May 19, 2011 at 2:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rev Doc
      Rev Doc

      I just want to say that I don’t Care if you are gay or not. Your Life Choice is between you and God, and you have to fess to him your sins. All I can say is don’t push your sick sinful lifestyle on me. Don’t ask me to deny my God and my Bible, and what God and Jesus call an abomination in the eyes of God, good. I don’t push my beliefs on you, don’t push your on me. I have enough of my own sins to fess to Jesus on my judgement day, I don’t need yours on my list too. This is not supposed to be a hate speach, just my two cents into this so called Homo war. As a Minister, I must tell you repent and confess your sins to God, leave away from this lifestyle and he will forgive you. As a Human being, I must say, Do what you want, just don’t include me. It is between you and God alone. From the post policy I read, this will probably get canned and never posted, but I made an effort to do what I feel is right.

      May 20, 2011 at 10:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Vada Lavina
      Vada Lavina

      “…to repeat the same lies about indoctrinating schoolchildren that they ran in 2009.”

      Umm…wait…what lies? I thought this piece was admitting the truth about capturing the next generation.

      Did that not happen in MA? Did that teacher in CA not have her class at her wedding? What lies?

      May 20, 2011 at 2:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • skipfoss
      skipfoss

      GOD does not create queers it is a gift of satan to freaks that have no better sence than to except GOD creates men and women for a reason .Satan implanted this queer idea in the mind of freaks that are to stupid to reject it and are so stupid as to beleive that we straight normal people will except their freakish ideas

      May 20, 2011 at 7:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marjorie 0120
      Marjorie 0120

      My view concerning the fear of legalizing gay marriage is probably not something you folks will wait to read.

      When trying to sort out issues, I try to look at both sides of an argument fairly. I spent most of my life in California, L. A. then Orange Cty. I marched in parades and had a very social life with equal numbers of gay and lesbian friends.

      What I see as a real big concern by many straight people is that if they allow gay marriage that the radical young gays will march into evangelico churches, demand to be marriaged and sue the hell out of everyone concerned if the church/pastor does not agree to do it. Whereas they see a legal joining less threatening.

      I used to be one of those radical young gays and yes I would have done exactly that, that or listening to a sermon and if gay life were condemned as against the bible then I would have jumped on that as descrimination or hate speech.

      Being a more mellow 64 and a half year old, I think differently now but the radical young gays still think the same as I did. That’s the hurdle in front of us. We have to figure out a way to take that kind of concern out of the picture because unless and until we do acceptance by a vast majority of Americans will not be forthcoming.

      May 20, 2011 at 7:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eugene
      Eugene

      What part of the Bible where it says that homosexuality, lesbianism, transgender, beastiality, pedophilia, incest and all other sex perverts, “IS AN ABOMINATION” don’t understand?

      WHAT DOES ABOMINATION MEANS IN THE BIBLE AND ELSEWHERE?

      FILTHY AND GROSS. WHAT ELSE DOES IT MEANS?

      IT IS WICKEDNESS IN THE HIGHEST SENSE OF THE LAW. PERIOD.

      May 20, 2011 at 7:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marjorie 0120
      Marjorie 0120

      @Rev Doc:
      God bless you sir, I respect you and agree in that, we don’t go to hell for anyone’s sins but our own.

      May 20, 2011 at 7:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marjorie 0120
      Marjorie 0120

      The use of the word recruit has a very limited meaning.

      transitive verb
      1a (1) : to fill up the number of (as an army) with new members : reinforce (2) : to enlist as a member of an armed service b : to increase or maintain the number of c : to secure the services of : engage, hire d : to seek to enroll
      2: replenish
      3: to restore or increase the health, vigor, or intensity of
      intransitive verb
      : to enlist new members

      To use this word in conjunction with gays and children literally means that you are seeking to add the children to your gay world. It absolutely has nothing to do with simply educating them about your group but it means to bring them into your group. A very bad choice of words unless you are seeking to incite anger from the straight world.

      What are you thinking? You don’t get to choose how a word is interpreted by the masses, it means what it means!

      May 20, 2011 at 8:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Rusty Shakleford
      Rusty Shakleford

      Lets face it the word gay was stolen. Perverted is a more apropriate word. OnE thing I was wondered was do perverts have sex with family members and animals or do they draw the line somewhere?

      May 21, 2011 at 6:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      It seems a bit late in the day to post here, I guess. But since comments keep dribbling in, I suppose my electronic monologue might as well be added to the mix.

      Seriously, it’s not like the article is as dangerous as so many people seem to think. The insane folks at NOM and in other hate groups will go on doing exactly what they’ve always done – blatantly misinterpreting any piece of news they can skew in their favour, and making stuff up when they can’t find any. Just about anything we say can be twisted by a loon, if they’re determined enough.

      This piece might be a little easier to twist, and to use to scare more moderate people; but the loons’ ads, deceitfully claiming that we’re after the children, were already effective. I doubt this will make much difference.

      What it might do is try and convince us to take back the grounds for debate:

      Yes, many of us are trying to recruit children in one very particular sense: as Villarreal basically says, we’re trying to recruit them into a new community and society that doesn’t hate gay people and queer people; that has respect for others and for the love, and desire, that others feel. As just about anyone can see, that’s not the same as trying to recruit children (a) to be gay (or part of a ‘gay world’), or (b) for sex. As Villereal says, many of us want to recruit people to the causes of mutual respect and acceptance – and to make it okay for boys to grow up into men who love men, or girls into women who love women, in exactly the same way as it is okay for boys to grow into men who love women, or girls into women who love men. And Villarreal is pretty clear in saying we don’t want sex with children (who even thinks we do, these days, except the seriously ignorant or deranged, such as Rusty Shakleford?) – he says we only want people to start fucking (each other, not us) after they’ve ‘[grown] up’, and how much clearer can you be!?

      And as for indoctrinate – that is what many of us want to do also. Yes it can mean imbue with a biased view, but it can also – as Equality4All ironically points out – mean just to teach, or to imbue with learning. I think most people can agree that NOM is in favour of the first meaning in guiding its own work, and in characterising ours – but that doesn’t change the fact that we do want to expose children to a doctrine of acceptance; to teach them about the importance of equality, and about the possibility of same sex love (which as just about everyone has worked out, doesn’t require teaching them about the mechanics of same-sex sex). In terms of the second and third meanings, we do want to indoctrinate children. We want to show them what harm they can do, what good they can do, and what possibilities are out there for them if they should turn out to be gay or queer, or for some of their friends and loved ones.

      For what it’s worth, I think Queerty brought up points that some members of the gay community need to take more seriously. At the same time, the post was polemical, a bit abrasive, and far too quick to speak for everyone or for ‘the gay agenda'; I don’t know how many different gay agendas there may be out there, but I’m pretty sure no one’s ever come up with ‘the one’ to which we must all subscribe.

      We’re a diverse community, and we need diverse voices to be heard. The fact that some statements may be taken up dishonestly by others shouldn’t dissuade us too much – because people that dishonest don’t need us to say anything at all to start telling people what ‘we’ ‘really think’ and what ‘our insidious plans’ may be. We should focus on exposing the lies of those who take up such dishonest tactics – rather than castigate those who they caricature and misrepresent.

      If all of this post seems to state the obvious – that’s good! I rather think it does; but it seems like quite a few people above disagree.

      May 22, 2011 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pastor Ernie
      Pastor Ernie

      Believing you are right does not make one right. I offer you this presentaion that you may know the One who is the Truth and that you may be blessed now and forevermore: http://www.eeinternational.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=31469

      May 22, 2011 at 2:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      That is very kind and civil of you.

      Doubtless it behoves us all to remember the distinction between certitude and certainty.

      May 22, 2011 at 2:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marjorie 0120
      Marjorie 0120

      Chris, there are many ways this article could have been written getting all of the same goals and points across. It was written to incite the reader to anger and more fear and it does exactly that very well.

      I never heard of this site and read about this article from WND, an ultra conservative website and yes, they jumped on it, picking out the continuous use of vulgarity and the wording of indocrinate and recruit.

      The article left nothing to twist or distort, direct quotes from it in full context of what is written leaves no need for manipulation by anyone. How could anyone make it uglier, the auther did all the work for them

      I don’t think it’s possible to portray the gay community in a worse light then this article did. Other visitors following the link as I did will come away positive that it lays out the true goals of the gay community. They will not interpret it as kindly as you did, but will take it at face value and leave in disgust, sure they finally know what the “gay agenda” really is…

      JMHO

      May 22, 2011 at 5:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      Marjorie, it is true that the article could have been written in a very different way, and gotten the same points across. But I don’t think it was written to incite the reader to anger or fear – it was written, after all, for a small segment of the gay community. More as a call for mobilization and the righteous indignation of its main constituency than for the anger of other readers.

      I think you’re right about how many people will come across and interpret this article; but I suspect many of these people will already have been sure of what ‘the gay agenda’ really was… And just what is the gay agenda it puts forward? With some colourful language, it calls for: “children to accept queer sexuality as normal” rather than wrong; a world where “anyone can kiss a person of the same sex without feeling like a freak”, where parents can be as proud of their queer children as they can of their straight children, and where people who love each other can finally marry each other and get on with their lives. There’s some outraged language, that will be read by people who see it not as outraged but as purposefully offensive; but that’s the real message.

      I do think you may well be right about how people will read it – but I very much hope that you turn out to be wrong; I will hope visitors see the message that it tries to put across. Anyway, my genuine thanks for engaging with my comment – I appreciate it. Though I’m going to stop posting, I think – I’ve talked too much already!

      May 22, 2011 at 5:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marjorie 0120
      Marjorie 0120

      Chris you are very gracious, I wish you could have written the article. I do however think you should go back and read it from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the gay comminity at large.

      I lived in the gay world for over 45 years as a gay woman, I no longer consider myself a gay woman, but that does not mean that I have no regard for the gay community.

      I cannot believe that the authors thought no one would see this article except for gay people, they know that this community is closely watched. As someone very sympathetic to the gay community, I was shocked by the crude language not just swear words but the vulgar terms and descriptive terms to describe gay sex.

      Perhaps I am just too old to hear what I thought of making love described as animal lust.

      Take care, Chris, it was a nice contact.

      May 22, 2011 at 10:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John Bleakley
      John Bleakley

      @Gerry Fisher: Gerry, the point is that whatever books might have been included in a diversity bag in one school in MA 5 years ago had nothing to do with whether gays could get married. Those books pre-dated gay marriage, as did the diversity curriculum. And the courts looking at this specifically held that there was NO indoctrination and that there was nothing in MA law that required teaching about gay marriage or the use of the 2 books in question. In fact, the books in question were selected by the school’s principal, at his personal discretion, and may not have been used anywhere else. And the issue has never arisen in MA since, despite the fact that some 1.5 million kids are in or have gone through the MA public school system since gay marriage came about.

      The linking of a state’s marriage law with school reading material is a complete lie. And anyone who muddles the issue and suggests that there is a link is aiding and abetting lies.

      May 23, 2011 at 1:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • hourman
      hourman

      ‘Indoctrinate’ is not entirely innaccurate. What is VERY accurate is saying your future as a movement and as a subset of humanity depends on it, because it does. If you are allowed to teach whatever you like about homosexuality in schools – graphic or mild – there WILL be some kids who appear to have suddenly, out of nowhere, decided to “go gay.” For all practical purposes, those kids will appear to have been indoctrinated, not educated because, once again, your future DEPENDS upon recruiting and opening up exactly those kids, however it’s done, and all of you know it.

      So the title of the article is 100% correct.

      May 23, 2011 at 9:01 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Walliy
      Walliy

      someone here said “and no one is suggesting, except the lying NOM ads, that gays and lesbians would go beyond what is appropriate for children to know.”

      A complete and total lie. There are numerous cases that straights can point to (BC Board of Education would be one) where exactly that has happened.
      NOM and the rest of them are afraid gays are trying to indoctrinate, rather than foment acceptance – and every single time someone crosses that line, we take a step back.

      May 24, 2011 at 8:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • NO FAGS PLEASE
      NO FAGS PLEASE

      I knew it!!! You nasty faggots only want to break up families and brainwash innocent children so you can molest/rape/destroy them.

      I hope you all die from AIDS. You all are horrible people!

      May 24, 2011 at 9:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • IATSH
      IATSH

      Smooth move Danny. I wish you pricks a Queerty would get your heads out of your self-righteous New-York-centric asses and remember that there are people out here who now have to explain over and over and over again that you are a self-centered NYC asshole that possesses not-a-modicum of empathy.

      It’s one thing to be critical of the terms of a debate, it is wholly another to miss the forest for the trees. Good job on the later.

      In the future when you’re writing your “irreverent take” on the issues please take the time to think that what you might be saying might be misconstrued. And I recommend you stop using cocaine. You’re going to be surprised by the number of people all over the world who are going to be affected by your little stunt. Now go and tell them what you meant & start apologizing. Dumbass.

      May 27, 2011 at 3:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • IATSH
      IATSH

      By the way this is how I found your shitty post. I wish y’all had stayed dead: http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9797 & http://www.christian.org.uk/news/us-gay-blogger-we-want-to-indoctrinate-children/

      May 27, 2011 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cameron
      Cameron

      i saw this article showing up in my google news when it was first published and read it, cringing. it was an really poorly written attempt at sensationalism that made me lose any respect for queerty.

      now, of course, your poorly written turd has caught on and is now being used as proof to the old vicious gay lie that gay people molest kids to turn them gay.

      so, really: thank you very much for setting the gay rights movement back in your sad desperation to provoke.

      May 27, 2011 at 6:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marjorie 0120
      Marjorie 0120

      @David Gervais:
      You cannot change the common definition of a word and then expect the world to understand that what you say is not what you meant, that there is an alternate meaning that was intended. A definition not given in any dictionary.

      Has anyone validated the ownership of this site? One would think a neo-Nazi gay hating group got a hold of it.

      May 27, 2011 at 8:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Cameron
      Cameron

      ” He continued, “I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality AND THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.” He was even more explicit in his goals for children saying, “I would very much like for many of these young boys to grow up and start f****** men.” Villarreal also said he would like for “young ladies to develop” into lesbians.

      [...]

      Gordon Klingenschmitt, a former Navy Chaplain from Colorado Springs, said, “This homosexual advocate now admits what we’ve known for years. Homosexuals are pedophiles who abuse and rape children; which they must do to maintain their available pool of future sex partners.”

      Klingenschmitt said most homosexual experiences occur in children under the age of 12. “Studies have shown the average age of an adult heterosexual’s first sexual experience is 17, but the average age of a homosexual’s first experience is 12, with half being 11 or younger when molested.? That’s how homosexuals recruit children, by violating their innocence, so when they grow up they are addicted to deviant sin.”

      http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9797

      —-

      congrats, daniel and the other people who write and publish this pathetic piece of shit blog: you’ve managed to give credance to a vicious and age-old stereotype because you don’t have a fucking clue how to write and don’t have the common sense to research before you put pen to paper.

      way to go, idiots.

      May 28, 2011 at 12:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alex
      Alex

      Let me teach you about something called “tact:” it’s what articulate people utilize to avoid making themselves look foolish.

      Way to be, Danny boy, way to be.

      And if anyone from outside the LGBT community is reading this comment, I’d just like them to know that this idiot doesn’t speak for me, he definitely doesn’t speak for the community as a whole, and apparently he can’t even speak intelligently for himself. Let’s put this child to bed so that us adults can have an intelligent discussion on the issues.

      PS Can QUEERTY go back to being closed now? Thanks!

      May 28, 2011 at 10:38 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lloyd
      Lloyd

      @Steven Harker: couldn’t agree more.Way to go setting us back thirty years.sigh.

      May 29, 2011 at 12:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert McNamara
      Robert McNamara

      People like you, that do not have command of the English language, should stop speaking for the Gay community. Your a fool.

      May 29, 2011 at 8:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • cookie
      cookie

      instead of SAME-SEX, can we use the words “SAME-GENDER”. when one says same-sex marriage, the visual is like two penis/vagina, SAME-GENDER marriage are just two men/women getting married. we need a major makeuver in our messaging. please, next time call it as SAME-GENDER MARRIAGE EQUALITY. less threttening.

      May 30, 2011 at 7:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ewe
      ewe

      We should stay focused on attacking their twisted gODD concepts and be done with catering to the delusions of these homophobes.

      Jun 1, 2011 at 12:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Ron
      Ron

      Don’t assume that if people with same-sex attractions are allowed to marry that it’s going to be a loving relationship. The FBI and liberal college professor/researchers present evidence that domestic violence is considerably lower among married heterosexuals than people with same-sex attraction.

      Hetero marriages last far, far longer, and heteros engage in less drug and alcohol abuse and make more dependable employees in the work place with lower rates of absenteeism.

      Jun 1, 2011 at 6:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jesus Was Gay
      Jesus Was Gay

      @Ron: Who stupidly wrote a bunch of Christo-fascist anti-gay propaganda. Oh, you forgot to mention that the leading cause of homicides among heterosexual women are heterosexual men — usually boyfriends and husbands. Hmmmmmm, I wonder how that slipped by you when you were handing out distorted and erroneous so-call “statistic” about GLBT families?

      So…way to go, Ron! By the way, did you get a nose bleed when you pulled that bunch of homophobic, deceitful, exaggerated, pseudo-statistical bovine excreta passed your head while extracting it from your posterior?

      FYI, Ron, I’ve been, and still am, with my partner for over thirty-six years (the last six of those legally married); he was the acting Post Master of a red state (probably one of your favorites) and he rarely ever missed a day of work in over thirty years — so suck on that, Ron!

      Now, go back to beating your wife; molesting children and trolling for prostitutes– something that hypocritical hate-mongers like you do best.

      Jun 3, 2011 at 5:32 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Forzza
      Forzza

      You will not succeed with your destructive agenda because you are prone to self-destruct, you have nothing to hold on to but your erroneous beliefs. We pray for you.

      Now, get the heck out of our schools.

      Jun 9, 2011 at 11:19 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      This article is a clear example of why gays and lesbians should not be allowed to raise children.

      Jun 11, 2011 at 10:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Gre
      Gre

      Is this for real? This sounds more like the right wing writing a piece mimicking left wing.

      If this is for real then I want the author to know that I am offended. It is inappropriate to equate children getting ‘fucked by another guy’ or a girl ‘munching box’ or whatever that was.

      Also, to the religious nuts posting comments to this piece:

      It isn’t homo’s who have an agenda it is the religionists who seek to indoctrinate our youth with hate and backwards thinking. It is also the religionists who insist on bringing sex into the school at every opportunity that they have. Gays just want to be respected and given the opportunity to NOT have to kill themselves while they are going through school.

      dumbasses.

      Oct 10, 2011 at 2:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • map1080@yahoo.com
      map1080@yahoo.com

      Once you sex a child, it self-destructs. It develops a drug habit. It begins to aggressively seek out behavious that will kill it, and wreck the lives of all those around it. It’s life becomes as a downward spiraling aircraft, slated for immenent wreckage.

      See gays, what doesn’t seem to occur to you, is that when you choose to sex children, they suddenly become a self-worthless disposable objects. It crushes the hopes, life, and dreams right out of their little heads.
      They are not there for the convenience of your libido. They have the right to reach sane and healthy adulthood without having to be somebody’s 45 pound piece of ass.
      They’re mentally, physically and emotionally not made to be sexed. When it happens, they self destruct toward imminent doom.

      Wouldn’t you gays rather have a long-functioning partner that won’t doom it’self in such a way? Like, for example, adult sexual relations?

      Oct 13, 2011 at 6:27 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • StonewallEpicFail
      StonewallEpicFail

      Once you sex a child, it self-destructs. It develops a drug habit. It begins to aggressively seek out behavious that will kill it, and wreck the lives of all those around it. It’s life becomes as a downward spiraling aircraft, slated for immenent wreckage.

      See gays, what doesn’t seem to occur to you, is that when you choose to sex children, they suddenly become a self-worthless disposable objects. It crushes the hopes, life, and dreams right out of their little heads.
      They are not there for the convenience of your libido. They have the right to reach sane and healthy adulthood without having to be somebody’s 45 pound piece of ass.
      They’re mentally, physically and emotionally not made to be sexed. When it happens, they self destruct toward imminent doom.

      Wouldn’t you gays rather have a long-functioning partner that won’t doom it’self in such a way? Like, for example, adult sexual relations?

      Oct 13, 2011 at 6:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • dan
      dan

      humans have evolved for 2 million years by having kids of their own and nurturing them.
      when you go against nature, which dictates that procreation is between a aman and a woman, you have a mental disorder and must be treated as such.

      jewish depravity is still being pushed on western cultures…..it IS going to be ended.

      Nov 7, 2011 at 3:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • GADEL
      GADEL

      People surely gonna do anything and everything to make lies seem like the truth and the truth smell like a lie.

      Nov 8, 2011 at 5:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Urinary Tract Fan
      Urinary Tract Fan

      “…rub urinary tracts together…?” Sounds better than rubbing a urinary tract with a digestive tract IMO. But if human reproduction is so distasteful, maybe you all should quit trying to ADOPT KIDS.

      Dec 20, 2011 at 3:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paul
      Paul

      Can I just say what an absolute idiot you are, and why the hell haven’t you pulled this article yet? You have just given the fuel to the right wing christian fire – http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/?p=2606

      Yes you’ve used the term recruit to mean educate, but you’ve done it in such a lazy way that it’s now getting misused all over the place. I’m gay and am adopting at the moment, so for the sake of my future kids, please pull this article.

      Feb 2, 2012 at 9:09 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bobby Raspberry
      Bobby Raspberry

      Its like you read my mind! You appear to know a lot about this, like you wrote the book in it or something. I think that you can do with a few pics to drive the message home a bit, but instead of that, this is wonderful blog. An excellent read. I will definitely be back.

      May 26, 2012 at 8:09 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Christopher de Vidal
      Christopher de Vidal

      This article has a GREAT example of doublespeak in action: “We want to deliberately educate children to accept ***queer*** sexuality as ***normal***.”

      Merriam-Webster defines queer as “differing in some odd way from what is normal.” So the statement above really could be rewritten as, “We want to deliberately educate children to accept abnormal sexuality as normal.”

      When the world operates on doublespeak, bad is good, war is peace. “Woe to those who call evil good” (Isa 5:20 ESV)

      Aug 19, 2012 at 6:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Reneta
      Reneta

      It’s not indoctrinating if you seek to tell people the truth, if you want people to know the truth without any agenda attached to it. Teaching people the truth about sexuality and gender in human beings is a morally sound pursuit. If it’s a fact of our nature that will cause suffering and harm to deny it, then it’s only morally sound do teach that fact. Being denied exposure to the reality of being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender has prevented no queer person, ever, from becoming such. It’s not exposure to culture that makes people this way, they just are. There is nothing perverse about it, and nothing innately harmful about it. And if we could teach that to children they’d be so much better for it in the future. It’s insanity to continue to do the same thing expecting different results.

      Reparative/Conversion therapy doesn’t work, and causes more harm than good. Ex-gays are never really “not gay” just repressing it, behaving in contradiction to who and what they are. People who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender are just as capable of being functional, moral, and upright citizens just as much as heterosexual, cisgender people are. Cisgender, heterosexual copulation is no longer required to produce children thanks to science. Every argument against teaching children reality is an argument for indoctrination of child on the basis of a belief driven agenda which has no loyalty to reality. Oppressing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people is far more harmful to society on a whole than giving us equality, and respect.

      Human beings have the capacity to know better about this nonsense, to not be subdued by our own emotional, irrational, superstitious (tendency to attribute things to patterns in life, and the world that don’t actually exist) natures. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people exist, and are part of human nature, something not overcome by ramblings, books or contrived authorities. To do anything less than educate children about the realities of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, to teach acceptance, or to allow us the same rights as the rest of our society would be uncivilized, morally reprehensible, and tragic.

      Apr 20, 2013 at 1:43 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Marjorie 0120
      Marjorie 0120

      @Reneta:

      A very well written comment but not truthful. Your first paragraph claims you want the truth out, but none of what is taught embraces the entire truth. I have watched several gay friends suffer through the long painful illness and finally die from full blown
      AIDS. That type of thing is never discussed by the media. I never hear the community warn about unsafe sex and the possible outcome of being promiscuous as a gay male. You don’t discuss the probability that you will end up old and alone because all of your older friends search for the younger “hot” bodies. The same as in the straight world, instead you paint a picture of a blissful, better than normal life.

      Don’t speak of ex-gays unless you are one, as I am. You can go on to live wonderful happy heterosexual lives. I wish I had tried it sooner instead of wasting my younger years in meaningless and unproductive relationships with same sex partners. There is NO gay gene that traps a person into one way of life, at some point, we allowed a passing attraction to a particular person to take control of our lives. The doctor who claimed he found the gene has long since admitted that his research was faked.

      The hardest part of walking away from the life is that most of the people you considered friends act as if you did it out of some sort of malice. Talk about bigotry and hatred, not understanding or being supportive. All of the things gays want changed in the public perspective are thrown squarely in your face.

      In order to get respect you must be respectful, in order to find acceptance, you must be accepting. I now think that the reason people turned on me was that I was proof that gayness is a choice, I absolutely know why I walked into the life. The community would like people to believe that there is no choice in being gay, when of course there is! As a society, we label behaviors in a way that offers excuses for those behaviors. I drink because I am an alcoholic, I take drugs because I am an addict, I am gay because I was born that way. Physical withdrawal symptoms aside, none of the “diseases” are outside of one’s control and that includes being gay. Alcoholics surround themselves with other drinkers, druggies with other drug users, same with gays. We form our own little circle of like minded friends and close ourselves into a pattern of life and deny other possibilities.

      Apr 20, 2013 at 1:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Reneta
      Reneta

      @Marjorie 0120: You’re arrogant to assume that the way things work for you are the way it is for all people. You make the assertion that because (assuming you are being honest) that you are ‘happily heterosexual’ now, that it means that this is true for everyone. And the reason for STD issues is poor sex education and lack of access to knowledge and medical resources, not “just a product of being gay”. Being gay isn’t a choice. I can no more change my sexuality than anyone can. You are obviously deluded, and unable to realize that your own experiences are anecdotal. We are not machines that you can just “replace cogs” when things don’t pan out as society or narrow-minded ideologues want.

      And you are also forgetting the fact that human sexuality and gender are incredibly complex and what works for one will not work for another. And to be honest, the right to marry, the right to be accepted, and the right to be allowed to exist doesn’t hinge on it being a choice. I’d rather die that be what I am now, and that is not because I “chose it”, but because for me to be anything other than what I am would be to make death seem like a better alternative. Your experiences with sexuality don’t count as evidence. I am happy that you found whatever it is that makes you happy, if you are truly being honest. But you should also be willing to admit that your experience doesn’t add up to much in the grand scheme of things.

      Point is, some peoples sexualities are more fluid and others is not. The truth of human sexuality is not convenient, it’s just reality. It’s not governed by my experience, or yours, it’s governed by the very rules within human nature upon which it was founded. Science speaks to that, and even if there isn’t a “Specific Gay Gene” that doesn’t matter, and it doesn’t make being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender any less or more a choice, or any less biologically dictated. You are also the one who is lying here, as I am speaking the truth. Am I perfect? No. Am I infallible? Hell no. But neither are you. You claim to know when the only person’s experience you can know is your own. That is arrogant, and prideful to assert that because you are X that you can then speak for all others.

      And the people whom dislike you now probably departed for you for the same reason I beg to differ from you. Stop blaming other people for your own shortcomings and just at admit that you don’t know what it’s like to be the rest of us. You are limited, and so are we. It’s arrogant to dismiss that, and even more pompous to claim that you can speak for everyone else, their rights, their needs or their essential constitution. Wake up, respect others and maybe people won’t give you so much crap about your asinine delusions and conclusions. Your friends may have been wrong, without context or situation I can’t know that, but you are equally wrong, and can’t claim more or argumentative high ground after stating your positions which are quite devoid of supporting evidence. The idea that not all people who are homosexual have to behave as such is not convenient to polarized party lines, anymore than the fact that some people can’t be heterosexual being inconvenient to those who see being gay as a choice. That is the truth. Get over it.

      Apr 20, 2013 at 3:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    !-- Sailthru Horizon -->
    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.