Listed as a hate group
To the Editor:
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) — the radical gay activist organization that bullied the Anoka-Hennepin School District with its frivolous lawsuit — has added the local Parents Action League (PAL) to its “Hate Map” and has listed PAL as a hate group.
The reason? Heidi Beirich, who leads the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, put it this way, “They say terrible things like gays are more promiscuous than straights.”
To the SPLC it must be a terrible thing to tell the truth. A sanitized version of homosexual behavior is preferable to the truth — even if it is harmful to homosexuals and society in the long run.
Is it hateful to warn gay-identified youth that anal sex is the royal road to AIDS and that oral sex is leading to cancer of the throat, tongue and tonsils? Is the CDC hateful when it reports that men who have sex with men (MSM) have a 44 times greater chance of contracting HIV? Is it hateful to tell homosexuals they are not born-that-way and there is hope for change?
What about the SPLC’s gay promiscuity dismissal? Homosexual monogamy is an oxymoron as it is practically nonexistent in the gay community.
That is one of the reasons that HIV is so common among MSM. Any degree of sexual promiscuity increases the risk of contracting STDs, and extremes of promiscuity have been widely documented among homosexuals.
My friend Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a Pennsylvania psychiatrist and clinic director, stated, “The truth is that many homosexual men are going to be subjected to sexually transmitted diseases and go through major difficulties with sexual addiction.”
As for promiscuity, he comments, “The reality of the lifestyle is that there’s no such thing as commitment. The whole lifestyle involves rampant promiscuity and anonymous sexuality — that’s the reality.”
A 2010 study out of San Francisco looked at the sexual patterns of 566 gay male couples. The findings revealed that 47 percent reported open relationships, 45 percent were monogamous, and 8 percent disagreed as to what they were.
According to the study, the men stated that “open relationships were more honest to their nature…”
Three out of four homosexuals described non-monogamy as a positive thing.
The large-scale Bell Weinberg study showed that 28 percent of gay males had more than 1,000 lifetime partners. It also revealed that 79 percent admitted that more than half of their sexual contacts were strangers.
Even researchers David McWhirter and Andrew Mattison — who are themselves a gay couple — admit that infidelity is the rule, not the exception among gay males.
Yes, Ms. Beirich, gays are far more promiscuous than straights. As a former homosexual who is well acquainted with the gay underworld, I know whereof I speak.
Will the SPLC consider removing PAL from its list of hate groups? Beirich says there is a way off of their hate map — “PAL just has to erase anti-gay rhetoric from its website.”
If the truth be told, it is anti-gay to remain silent while watching someone continue on a path of destructive, unhealthy behavior that can lead to disease, death and spiritual consequences.
If revealing the truth about the unhealthy and promiscuous nature of homosexuality is labeled “hate” and “anti-gay,” so be it.
Beirich and the Southern Poverty Law Center prefer to erase the truth.
Historical help needed
To the Editor:
Blaine Historical Society needs your help.
The township of Blaine was established in 1877; however, it did not become a city until 1964. Next year will be Blaine’s 50th year as a city.
The Blaine Historical Society has been gathering information and items related to the history of Blaine in order to celebrate its 50th anniversary.
If anyone has pictures, news articles, stories, old Blaine’s Blazin’ 4th buttons, items that relate to its history or would just like to volunteer your time to our cause we would like to hear from you.
Please contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Censorship in schools
To the Editor:
Ms. Schroeder (June 7, Personal attacks) perceptively asks whether I support censorship in the schools. It’s an excellent question that cuts to the heart of the debate. In thinking through the issue,
I found three crucial situations, though there are certainly more.
First, classroom discussions could involve explorations of morality. I have no problem with expressing religious objections to homosexuality.
I also have no issue with counter-attacks that religious objections are irrelevant or unconstitutional in a secular context and immoral in a Christian one.
I strongly support open, civil exploration in classroom situations.
Of course, I expect teachers to model respectful, constructive discussions with a proper regard for accurate information.
My support does not include the gratuitous injection of anti-gay diatribes into every discussion, whether relevant or not.
This is disruptive to the purpose of the classroom and contributes to a hostile school environment.
Second, I have no objection to student-to-student evangelization on a one-time basis.
The third scenario is the problem. In a school situation, there may be many child-evangelists trying to “save” gay students and they may do so repeatedly, even on the same day.
At this point, free speech morphs into harassment that should not be tolerated.
Her letter asks, “Does that mean that it is “bullying” to make a child feel bad?”
This reeks of the third scenario in which the willing participation of the target is optional.
Considering the history of the bullying problem, the casual nature of her comment suggests “vicious behavior” to me. Cruelty is an acceptable tactic as her students exercise their “right” to ruthlessly evangelize a captive audience under state control.
I stand by my last letter.
Ms. Anderson states, “Schools can help put a stop to bullying….”
So can parents. Teach your kids to leave the gays alone and mind their own business.
Teach your kids that the world is vastly larger than just their personal doctrines and that other people deserve the same rights of conscience that we demand for ourselves.
Teach them the Golden Rule.
To the Editor:
Regarding the Muslim Quran Center recently OK’d for 87th Avenue in Blaine.
The Blaine City Council membership are a group of naive knee-jerking people who claim to want diversity as long as it’s not in their backyard.
I have never seen such a blatant disregard vote against a neighborhood’s opposition that had a petition of some 80 signatures against a Muslim Quran Center including the traffic potential seven days a week.
As time goes the Quran Center will only grow to unacceptable levels. There is already a big Muslim center at 121st and Aberdeen Street.
Why in God’s name do we need another? If this is representation of the people, by the people and for the people then extreme confusion reigns supreme.
Abeler votes questioned
To the Editor:
When Rep. Jim Abeler says, “When we a dependent on the government, we are absolutely not free,” I wonder if he felt less “free” when he voted to increase lease aid to charter schools in 2001 – while he was receiving money from a charter school that he helped found.
Or, when in 2011, as head of the House Health and Human Services Finance Committee, he pushed for a doubling of the number of chiropractic (the Abeler family business) visits covered by state payments.
Rep. Abeler is concerned that the future his three grandchildren will inherit will be a future where they will be “indentured debtors of our country’s careless spending,”
At the same time, he seems to believe they will be better off in a present where bloviating self-servers feel entitled to U.S. Senate seats.