King and King Fairy Tale....Follow up

[Bonnie]

As a follow-up to my article “‘King and King’ Promotes Perversion” (http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=3222) I would like to comment on the courage of two families who recently sued their Massachusetts school system for reading the perverted book to a classroom of seven-year-olds. ‘King and King’ is a fairy tale (no pun intended) about a prince who rejects princess after princess before finally settling on another prince to “marry”. The book ends with a drawing of the two homosexuals kissing one another on the lips. Just what most Americans would like their children to see.

According to the American Library Association, ‘King and King’ has been ranked in the top ten of books Americans requested to be removed from libraries. They have good reason. The book promotes a lifestyle which most Americans (and everyone who believes the Bible) see as abhorrent and disgusting. Homosexuals (including lesbians) make up far less than one per cent of the population. Yet, though their numbers are small, they have used militancy and intimidation to force schools and libraries to promote their perversion.

Incidentally, the book, which was written by two Dutch women, has sold about 15,000 copies in the United States since it was translated into English in 2002. That’s not a lot of books. Obviously the general public is not interested. So who has bought the few copies which have been sold? Just as obviously (since we continue to hear complaints about schools exposing children to it), it is mainly being purchased by schools.

Why is it that schools and libraries feel they know so much better about what our children should be taught than we do? As we discuss this issue, the State of California is considering introducing school textbooks highlighting the role of homosexuals in its history. California parents should take note of what the parents discussed below have done and follow suit…

To begin with, I would like to personally congratulate parents Rob and Robin Wirthlin and David and Tonia Parker for having the courage to do something instead of just complaining. Most of America believes as they do that the State has no right to attempt to repudiate the values they teach their children by brainwashing them with filth disguised as sex education. But few Americans are willing to do anything more than talk about it to one another.

The Wirthlins and the Parkers have sued the town of Lexington, a wealthy suburb about 12 miles west of Boston. In addition, they have named Lexington Superintendent of Schools Paul Ash and several other school and town officials in their lawsuit. Good for them!

Homosexual activists have long used the courts to gain “rights” dreamt up by out-of-control judges and justices who insist on legislating from the bench. These imagined “rights” exist nowhere in the Constitution. Why shouldn’t people who believe in the values upon which this nation was founded use the courts to protect real rights based on the Constitution and codified by law?

In this case, the Wirthlins and the Parkers charge that the school broke a 1996 Massachusetts law requiring that parents be notified of sex-education lessons. They also accuse the town and school officials of violating the Massachusetts civil rights code, according to the families’ attorney, the Boston law firm Denner Associates.

The suit began when Robin Wirthlin complained to the school’s principal after her 7-year-old son told her about the reading of the book to his class of about twenty mostly seven-year-olds. Since Lexington is in the Socialist State of Massachusetts (the only state to legalized same-sex “marriages”), it should come as no surprise that the principal ignored her complaint.

The Superintindent of Schools, dreamed up a novel defense of the town’s actions. He claimed that this was not about sex education at all. Ash said, “I see this as a civil-rights issue. People who are gay have a right to be treated equally.” Isn’t that sweet? Ash is not a loose cannon school superintendent who brainwashes young children too young to even be thinking about sex. He is the champion of the poor, down-trodden homosexuals, who interrupt church services by screaming obscenities if they disagree with the church’s teaching.

(A common tactic of the homosexual activist group, Act Up, is to send large groups of homosexuals to churches where the pastor teaches what the Bible has to say about homosexual sin to disrupt the services and intimidate the ministers. The group describes itself on one of its websites as “an activist group, a lobby and a militant group.”)

After being ignored by the principal and the town, the Wirthlins were joined by another family whose child was exposed to the homosexual propaganda. David Parker had already been in conflict with the town since his son, then five, brought home a “diversity bag” that included the book “Who’s in a Family.” The book was a homosexual propaganda intended to make children believe that homosexual “marriages” were just as normal as heterosexual ones.

Parker was arrested for “trespassing” when he refused to leave his son’s school until the school promised to excuse his son from any discussions on same-sex “marriages.” Since when is it “trespassing” for a parent to be on public school property, particularly when his son attends the school?

In an online chat room on this subject, I came across this anonymous comment that says it well: “Kids need to be kids as long as possible, to give them time to mature emotionally. Then they will be better equipped to deal with whatever the world eventually places in their path.”

These parents had every right to protect their children from attacks on the values and religious education they gave them at home and in church. The town and the school had no right to undermine those values, in essence teaching the children that their parents were stupid and intolerant.

I’m proud that these parents stood up for their rights. I only wish more Americans would stand up and be counted. Unfortunately, most are willing to sit back and let others do the fighting for them.

In the words of a song I sang as a young man, “Freedom isn’t free. You gotta pay a price, you gotta sacrifice, for your liberty!”

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=3418&PHPSESSID=11abb748d17f11254109b89922a8769e

 

[dmp]

 

[Abbey Normal]

One can't help but wonder if in the King's search for love, he had all the fair studs in the kingdom try on the glass condom to see if it fit.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Homosexuals (including lesbians) make up far less than one per cent of the population

 

[CockySOB]

Most modern studies place the percentage of homosexuals in the USA population at 1-2% However, more of the pro-homosexual lobbies insist on using the 1948 Kinsey studies wherein that percentage was estimated to be around 10% of the USA population. However, Kinsey's research grouped results from several different result sets together to support his final conclusion.

So here's a question for you, Conley. What do you think the homosexual population density is? What are your sources for your answer?

 

[Mr.Conley]

Most modern studies place the percentage of homosexuals in the USA population at 1-2% However, more of the pro-homosexual lobbies insist on using the 1948 Kinsey studies wherein that percentage was estimated to be around 10% of the USA population. However, Kinsey's research grouped results from several different result sets together to support his final conclusion.

So here's a question for you, Conley. What do you think the homosexual population density is? What are your sources for your answer?

I don't have an opinion right now. Until you prove or fail to prove your assertations, my mind remains open.

 

[CockySOB]

Conley, here's a novel idea for you - try Googling the words "Kinsey homosexual" or "1948 Alfred Kinsey" of "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" (the title of his study's final report) and see how much info you get. You'll find all the evidence you want. But if you're too lazy to be bothered with a little research, then you're not serious about engaging the topic and not worthy of my additional time.

 

[Mr.Conley]

onley, here's a novel idea for you - try Googling the words "Kinsey homosexual" or "1948 Alfred Kinsey" of "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" (the title of his study's final report) and see how much info you get. You'll find all the evidence you want. But if you're too lazy to be bothered with a little research, then you're not serious about engaging the topic and not worthy of my additional time.

It's your job to find credible evidence to support your position, not anyone elses. If you can't do that, then I can't accept your argument. I'm merely asking a question as an onlooker.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I did take a look though, and the information I found does not support your assertations.

 

[CockySOB]

Here's information regarding studies supporting the 1-2% figures for homosexual popluation density in the USA.

Here's information regarding recent (2003) surveys in Canada which support figures lower than the 1-2% figures cites above for homosexual population density. the figures in this survey indicate percentages between 0.7% and 1.5% (0.2% claimed bisexual orientation).

BTW, the variance between the two studies is believed to come from sampling methods used and not from any perceived difference in societal makeup. Specifically, the first study was specifically targetted towards discerning sexual orientation, while the second study only observed sexual orientation among a group of other attributes.

These would constitute a couple of the more prominent studies on sexual orientation in the last 10 years. Kinsey's research comes from well over 50 years ago and exhibits questionable methodology as a matter of relational set theory. The Kinsey group made consistent errors in their approach to determining supersets and subsets based on their survey responses.

And yeah, there's a lot more where that came from. As a matter of fact, reading these studies will provide you with all the links and citations from previous and contemporary works to satisfy all but the more ignorant or pig-headed of h. librullus Americanus.

Also, do us all a favor and take notes on how to construct a post with productive content. Your posts tend to be sorely lacking in facts, supporting citations, and logical progression of thought. Trust me, once you begin using your brain, it will get easier to think wiht every use.

 

[Gunny]

I guess you missed the little blue letters and numbers that are underlined directly below the quote?

 

[Bonnie]

The whole point of my posting this was to illustrate how the homosexual agenda is being spoon fed to children while parents, unless they sue, have no real say. These parents cared enough to take the time to be invloved and fight back.

 

[CockySOB]

The whole point of my posting this was to illustrate how the homosexual agenda is being spoon fed to children while parents, unless they sue, have no real say. These parents cared enough to take the time to be invloved and fight back.

Amen! And every rational person should support such a fight against the tyranny of the minority - a minority of at most 2% of the US population who consistently fail to work through the appropriate channels to support their agenda, and instead try end-runs around the legislative process to force their will on the majority.

Bonnie, I apologize if I helped take the thread away from your original intent with posting it.

 

[Bonnie]

Amen! And every rational person should support such a fight against the tyranny of the minority - a minority of at most 2% of the US population who consistently fail to work through the appropriate channels to support their agenda, and instead try end-runs around the legislative process to force their will on the majority.

Bonnie, I apologize if I helped take the thread away from your original intent with posting it.

You certainly did not do that.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Here's information regarding studies supporting the 1-2% figures for homosexual popluation density in the USA.

Here's information regarding recent (2003) surveys in Canada which support figures lower than the 1-2% figures cites above for homosexual population density. the figures in this survey indicate percentages between 0.7% and 1.5% (0.2% claimed bisexual orientation).

BTW, the variance between the two studies is believed to come from sampling methods used and not from any perceived difference in societal makeup. Specifically, the first study was specifically targetted towards discerning sexual orientation, while the second study only observed sexual orientation among a group of other attributes.

These would constitute a couple of the more prominent studies on sexual orientation in the last 10 years. Kinsey's research comes from well over 50 years ago and exhibits questionable methodology as a matter of relational set theory. The Kinsey group made consistent errors in their approach to determining supersets and subsets based on their survey responses.

And yeah, there's a lot more where that came from. As a matter of fact, reading these studies will provide you with all the links and citations from previous and contemporary works to satisfy all but the more ignorant or pig-headed of h. librullus Americanus.

Excellent Work! Good digging. You've justified your position and I admire the effort, even if you were a bit hostile to the idea at first.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Also, do us all a favor and take notes on how to construct a post with productive content. Your posts tend to be sorely lacking in facts, supporting citations, and logical progression of thought. Trust me, once you begin using your brain, it will get easier to think wiht every use.

Do you have any evidence to justify your assertations?

Perhaps you should also consider your own position. After reviewing every post you've made, I have discovered that you have provided, in total, two links. Both of these links are the ones provided above, and you only presented them after an initial rebuke. You're posts ingeneral showed a surpising lack of information. Instead, you usually offered your own opinion as proof of an agrument. In your posts, you commit an large number of logical fallacies (a mean of over 3 per post) and demonstrated an unusual tendency of verbally assaulting the previous poster at the end of many of your own posts.

 

[CockySOB]

Excellent Work! Good digging. You've justified your position and I admire the effort, even if you were a bit hostile to the idea at first.

And you could have done the work from the original information I imparted, yet you were too lazy to do it. My hostility comes from dealing with far too many idiots who cite the Kinsey study as the end-all, be-all of homosexual population density studies without properly researching more recent studies.

Back to the question: do you find the 1-2% to be a fair representation of the homosexual population density in the USA? Why or why not?

 

[Redhots]

So, if its only 1-2% of the population its "ok" to deny rights... so then at what % then is it not ok to deny rights?

Also, if % of the population isn't important in this regard then why comment on it at all? (This question goes back to every post including the original article)

 

[Abbey Normal]

So, if its only 1-2% of the population its "ok" to deny rights... so then at what % then is it not ok to deny rights?

Also, if % of the population isn't important in this regard then why comment on it at all? (This question goes back to every post including the original article)

Becasuse gays and other libs regularly quote the fictional 10% number in support of their arguments.