LGBT training in the schools

Michael Smith writes:  “I found the recent article about Iowa Safe Schools, the gay advocacy group disguised as an anti-bullying resource, to be intriguingly disturbing. This group has been teaching Humbolt, Iowa middle school students about homosexual relationships and anal sex under the watchful eye of government school administrators – and without the knowledge or approval of parents. According to the article in the Daily Caller, when approached with concerns of parents about such an agenda, “Nate Monson, executive director of Iowa Safe Schools, said parents who worry about middle school kids hearing about anal sex with strap-ons and analingus are ‘disgusting.’”

I’ve been watching with interest the recent SCOTUS ruling on same-sex unions and the very recent decision by the Boy Scouts of America to drop all prohibitions of homosexual scout leaders. I’ve noticed a pattern that develops as a social deviancy is mainstreamed. While it is true that the existence of homosexuality is a historical fact, it is also a fact that members of this group are a distinct minority and their behavior has been viewed as a deviant behavior for almost the entirety of the two centuries of America’s existence.

I am confident my observations are unoriginal – and my views are based on a premise that America is being subjected to a particular form of progressive ideology that demands individuals submit to the cognitive dissonance of the two mutually exclusive concepts that libertine behaviors are to be promoted yet regulated at the same time. I have deduced 6 laws from these observations:

In any given progressive-libertine societal system:

1. Deviant minorities will tend to erroneously define the majority’s tolerance of a specific deviancy as acceptance of the entire minority and/or a specific deviancy.

2. Majorities rarely unconditionally accept deviancy, but they do allow it.

3. The fallacious assumption that allowance constitutes acceptance of the entire minority and/or a specific deviancy leads to an equally fallacious assumption that such allowance mandates active celebration of the deviancy by the majority.

4. When a previously forbidden deviancy is allowed, the aggrieved minority will not treat it as with a passive acknowledgement of equality, it will be expressed as overt promotion of that particular deviancy.

5. Minorities are generally incapable of accepting equality as a contemporary status, they believe reparations and/or retribution for past prohibitions of the aforementioned deviant must be co-equal with the new “equality”.

6. When the deviant minority is challenged, they exhibit transference of guilt and responsibility by accusing the majority of equal or greater sins for retaining any opposition to the allowed deviancy.

For clarity, I do not use the words minority, deviant and deviancy as pejoratives, rather to describe aspects of society that are numerically small and distinctly different from the prevailing social mores of the majority.

LGBT activists have assured that the entertainment industry and government schools have moved quickly from allowance to acceptance to promotion of gay lifestyles, seeking to mainstream behaviors of an admittedly extremely small minority population. With the SCOTUS decision, the pattern is evident as they seek to do the same with commercial and religious activities. One wonders how soon the Boy Scouts will have a Gay Pride badge and what the requirements will be to get it.”