(Warning: The following contains disturbing information of a sexual nature.)
My strength is as the strength of ten, because my heart is pure. ~ Alfred Lord Tennyson
My dear friend and colleague Dr. Judith Reisman, a visiting law professor at Liberty University School of Law, recently guest lectured during “Sexual Behavior and the Law,” a course I teach. Dr. Reisman’s lecture was filmed by CSPAN and will be airing soon.
In past years, Dr. Reisman has served as scientific consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). She is a world renowned expert on the discredited research of bug doctor turned “sexologist,” Alfred Kinsey.
Kinsey, though married to a woman who took part in his many filmed “scientific” orgies, was a promiscuous homosexual and sadomasochist. He managed to completely upend and twist the world’s perception of human sexuality in the 1950s and ’60s with his world famous “Kinsey Reports.”
Even today, most are completely unaware that during his tenure at Indiana University, Kinsey facilitated, with stopwatches and ledgers, the systematic sexual abuse of hundreds, if not thousands, of children and infants – all in the name of science.
Among other things, Kinsey asserted that children are “sexual from birth.” He further concluded, based upon experiments he directed and documented in his infamous Table 34, that adult-child sex is harmless, even beneficial, and described child “orgasm” as “culminating in extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting. …” Many children suffered “excruciating pain,” he observed, “and [would] scream if movement [was] continued.” Some “[would] fight away from the [adult] partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax, although they derive[d] definite pleasure from the situation.”
Yeah. Sounds like it.
It’s little wonder that Dr. Reisman identifies Kinsey as a “sexual psychopath.” These children were as young as 2 months old.
Disturbing though that may be, what’s equally disturbing is that nearly all of today’s liberal “comprehensive sex education” curricula – such as that pushed by groups like the National Education Association (NEA), PlannedParenthood and the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) – is derived entirely from the criminally fraudulent research of Alfred Kinsey.
But even more troubling is a recent discovery by Dr. Reisman. She found that the Obama administration, which fully embraces the debunked Kinsey sex-education model, has begun pushing a curriculum that, in many ways, eerily mirrors the “FBI Molester Grooming Paradigm.”
In short, she found that both Obama’s HHS and many public sex-education programs are doing to children, constructively, what pedophiles do to “groom” them for sex:
According to the FBI, child molesters:
Demonstrate sex acts to children. Offenders commonly use pornography to teach or give instructions to naïve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.
Lower the sexual inhibitions of children. Some children naturally fear sexual activities. Some offenders show pictures of other children engaging in sexual activities to overcome these fears, indicating to their intended victims that it is all right to have sex with an adult because lots of other boys and girls do the same thing.
Desensitize children to sex. Offenders commonly show child pornography to their intended victims to expose them to sexual acts before they are naturally curious about such activities.
Sexually arouse children. Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims, particularly those in adolescence.
During her lecture, Dr. Reisman shocked the 50-plus in attendance by illustrating that today’s Kinseyan-based sex education – as promoted by Obama’s HHS – does much of what the FBI describes above.
Graphic sexual images and explicit “values neutral” talk of sex and sexuality are rampant throughout classrooms across America, effectively desensitizing children and numbing their natural inhibitions. These inhibitions help protect children from potential predators.
According to Dr. Reisman, “the brain data fully support [the] finding” that such “sex education” literally changes the neural pathways of a child’s brain. There is mounting scientific evidence to support this hypothesis.
Whatever its motive, the Obama administration is guilty of employing these grooming techniques on children.
Consider, for instance, that just last year, the Department of Health and Human Services’ “Questions and Answers About Sex” website provided a “Quick Guide to Healthy Living” section which, like Kinsey, outrageously claimed that “Children are human beings and therefore sexual beings … which is healthy and normal.”
Get the implication? And what do “sexual beings” do? Well, they have sex, of course. “It’s hard for parents to acknowledge this,” admitted the page.
You think?
The HHS link then suggested that youth “may also experiment with sexual experiences, including those with members of the same sex, during the years they are exploring their own sexuality.”
Sound familiar? Remember, the FBI indicates that pedophiles will “teach or give instructions to naïve children about how to masturbate, perform oral sex and/or engage in sexual intercourse.”
Who needs pedophiles when we have today’s “comprehensive sex education”? It does all that and more.
Speaking of masturbation and other “sort of ‘sexual’ behavior … young kids exhibit,” the HHS is right there to help. The link says “Parents should only be concerned about masturbation if a child seems preoccupied with it to the exclusion of other activities.”
Otherwise, masturbate away, I guess.
Today’s Kinseyan “comprehensive sex education” model, embraced by Barack Obama and other “progressives,” is nothing short of educational malpractice. It’s child corruption. It’s criminally reckless. It’s undeniably “grooming” children for sex.
During the 2008 presidential campaign, a then-Sen. Barack Obama spoke about teaching “comprehensive sex education” to kindergartners: “It’s the right thing to do … to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools,” he said.
And by “science-based,” of course, he meant “Kinsey-based.”
So, what is age appropriate, science-based sex education? Well, we know what Alfred Kinsey thought was “age appropriate.” We know what he considered “science-based.”
I’d expect such “educational” grooming tactics and opinions from Alfred Kinsey or Jerry Sandusky, but not from public educators – not from the U.S. government.
And most certainly, not from the president of the United States.
Have you heard about the ACLU’s latest antics? Their most recent victory is so outrageous, so outlandish, and so ridiculous that words actually fail in trying to describe it. Not surprisingly, this legal theater of the absurd is being played out in Rhode Island.
Last year, a high school in Cranston, Rhode Island attracted national attention when it removed a “prayer banner” that had been displayed in the school for 20 years. (This was the text of the terribly dangerous, offensive prayer: “Our Heavenly Father. Grant us each day the desire to do our best. To grow mentally and morally as well as physically. To be kind and helpful to our classmates and teachers. To be honest with ourselves as well as with others. Help us to be good sports and smile when we lose as well as when we win. Teach us the value of true friendship. Help us always to conduct ourselves so as to bring credit to Cranston High School West. Amen.”)
Now, in 2012, with the help of the ACLU, Cranston, Rhode Island is back in the news. According to NBC News, “The school system in Cranston, R.I., announced it is banning traditional father-daughter and mother-son activities, saying they are a violation of the state’s gender discrimination law, the Providence Journal reported late Monday.”
Care to read that again? A father-daughter (or mother-son) dance or related activity constitute a “violation of the state’s gender discrimination law”? Is someone making this up? Not a chance.
“Superintendent Judith Lundsten told the newspaper the decision was in response to a complaint from the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a single mother who said her daughter was not able to attend a father-daughter dance.”
But of course! Normal life and normal society must be upended because one person is offended. Everyone’s freedoms and liberties and privileges must be removed because one person is left out. That’s the American way, according to the ACLU, and the truth be told, it has little to do with compassion for this girl who is living without her father.
But it gets worse. According to Steven Brown of the Rhode Island ACLU, “This is 2012 and they [public schools] should not be in the business of fostering blatant gender stereotypes.”
Blatant gender stereotypes? Like moms and dads and daughters and sons? Like husbands and wives and boys and girls? Like male and female? Is that what he means by “blatant gender stereotypes”? Is that what public schools should not be fostering?
It must be a constant source of frustration to people like Steven Brown that every day, expectant parents are told by their doctors that, “It’s a girl (or, a boy),” based on the physical form of the child, or that every day, wedding ceremonies culminate with the words, “I now pronounce you husband and wife.”
Perish the thought that public schools should be complicit in such blatant stereotyping. This, after all, is 2012, a time in which elementary school children are taught terms like genderqueer, a time in which girls kissing girls is the fad in middle school and high school, a time in which a mother in rural Georgia can have a baby girl, then undergo sex-change surgery and become the girl’s “father,” then claim that her/his child identified as a boy at 18 months, and then sue his/her daughter’s elementary school to force them to allow her/his daughter (now, allegedly son) to use the boy’s bathroom. Oh yes, this is 2012.
According to local station WPRO, Superintendent Lundsten sent out a letter in August stating, “I acknowledge that many of these events have long traditions and for many parents, these types of gender-based events are not an issue, however, this is a public school system and under no circumstances should we be isolating any student from full participation in school activities and events based on gender.” (For the record, “Lundsten said that while federal law banning gender discrimination gives an exemption for such gender-specific events, Rhode Island law does not.”)
As the host of a daily talk radio show, as well as a preacher, professor, columnist, and author, it’s not often that words fail me, but this report literally leaves me speechless. What has become of moral sanity? What has become of common sense?
This, however, is not the end of the story. The Associated Press reports that “School Committee member Janice Ruggieri said the school system can begin hosting ‘family dances’ to accommodate all kinds of parenting situations.” I’m sure the polyamorous families will be thrilled to hear this latest piece of news.
Thankfully, not everyone has lost their gender compass. The article I have been citing, carried by NBC News online, closed with this question: “Do you think father-daughter dances are inherently discriminatory?” As of this writing, 49,888 readers had responded. 88.3 percent said No; 11.7 percent said Yes.
Are you listening, Steven Brown and the ACLU? All hope is not lost in 2012.
We hear it from gay activists day and night, “This is about marriage equality. We believe in marriage for all.” In reality, what most of these activists want is a redefinition of marriage that suits them alone. For the rest, they want anything but equality.
Writing in Australia, Bill Muehlenberg notes that polyamorists have challenged the Green Party’s declaration that they support “Marriage for All.” The Australian press reported that, “The Greens have declared they have a clear policy against support for polyamorous marriage as they pursue their case for same-sex marriage. Greens marriage equality spokeswoman Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has declared . . . . ‘Our bill clearly states marriage “between TWO consenting adults” and that is the Greens’ position.’”
This statement was released after “Senator Michaelia Cash . . . challenged the Australian Greens to state their position on polyamorous marriage. This follows the disclosure that polyamorists have made submissions to the Greens’ Senate Inquiry on Marriage Equality. ‘Sarah Hanson-Young must explain whether she does support “marriage for all.”’”
Marriage for all? Hardly. Marriage equality? Not a chance.
Muehlenberg’s sarcasm is well-placed: “Shame on those intolerant, bigoted and hate-filled Greens. They are a disgrace. Instead of being open, inclusive and tolerant, they are just redneck haters who are denying lovers their dreams. How dare they exclude so many people from their basic right to love and marry?”
Really, it is remarkable that Senator Hanson-Young could declare emphatically that marriage is “between TWO consenting adults” without any apparent sense of embarrassment and without recognizing the extreme irony of her statement.
Throughout recorded history, marriage has never been the genderless union of two consenting adults. It has always been the union of one man and one woman, although in many cultures it has been (and continues to be) the union of one man and one or more women. This means that it is far more radical to redefine marriage as the union of any two people than it is to redefine marriage as the union of a man and a woman and additional partners.
On what basis, then, can advocates of same-sex “marriage” argue for their right to marry the one they love while refusing that right to other consenting adults? To say, “But marriage is the union of two people” carries no weight at all, since that is simply the definition they have made up (like calling a motorcycle a truck or calling a plane a car).
In case we have forgotten (and it appears that many have), the reason marriage requires two people is because it requires a man and a woman. Otherwise, why emphasize the number two? Why not three or more? Or why not just one?
After all, Nadine Schweigert, recently married herself, explaining after her ceremony that, “I feel very empowered, very happy, very joyous . . . I want to share that with people, and also the people that were in attendance, it’s a form of accountability. . . . I was waiting for someone to come along and make me happy. At some point, a friend said, ‘Why do you need someone to marry you to be happy? Marry yourself.’”
Well, why not? If there can be same-sex marriage, why not self-marriage? As crazy as this sounds, it’s happening.
A 30-year-old Taiwanese woman married herself in 2010, while an audience member watching Anderson Cooper interview Nadine Schweigert decided that she now wanted to do the same after her recent engagement broke off. Why not? After all, it wasn’t that long ago that the notion of two men marrying or two women marrying was considered just as crazy. (It is telling that the article on the Anderson Cooper website ends by asking, “What do you think? Is it too much?”)
Back in Australia, Rebecca and James Dominguez, the country’s most prominent polyamorists, have written to the Senate that, “The legal definition of marriage itself has changed over history, such as the removal on restrictions of inter-racial marriage and the provision for divorce.” And, “Just as we have allowed changes in the past to things considered ‘traditional’ (equality of women, humanity of non-white people), we can change ‘traditional’ understandings of things now.”
But of course. As Muehlenberg notes, “Now why is it that these ‘arguments’ sound so very, very familiar? Oh yeah, they are the exact same ‘arguments’ being used by the pro-homosexual marriage crowd. Absolutely identical. The reasoning for polyamory and group marriage is 100% identical to the reasoning for homosexual marriage.”
Indeed, “Once you throw out the fundamental core criteria of marriage (proper gender, proper number, etc) then of course anything goes. And we are seeing this played out before our very eyes at this very moment. And all along the homosexual activists have the gall to mock those who warn of a slippery slope, as they claim that group marriage and other combinations will never be demanded.”
This puts the same-sex “marriage” activists in a precarious position: Either they truly support “marriage equality” and “marriage for all,” embracing polyamorous marriages and self-marriage (and God knows what else), which means that the slippery-slope argument is true, or else they demonstrate the very intolerance and bigotry of which they accuse us.
Either way, they prove our point: Marriage must not be redefined.
he Huffington Post's Jennifer Nagy recently wrote that nobody under the age of 25 should be allowed to get married. Is this just another liberal double-standard? Find out.
How can we quote the Bible in support of our moral values when the Old Testament contains laws calling for the stoning of a woman who lost her virginity before marriage? Actually, based on biblical principles, both Judaism and Christianity teach that such laws are not for today. But could you imagine what America would look like if sex outside of wedlock was as scandalous in our day as it was in ancient biblical times?
In his talk to high school journalism students, Dan Savage mocked the fact that the Bible “says that if your daughter’s not a virgin on her wedding night – if a woman isn’t a virgin on her wedding night – she shall be dragged to her father’s doorstep and stoned to death.”
Was this law ever justifiable? In ancient Israel, which the Bible states was a theocracy instituted by God himself (according to the Torah, God delivered the children of Israel from Egypt and then spoke his laws to them from Mount Sinai) and which was part of a culture where it was almost unthinkable for a girl to lose her virginity to another man before marriage, a law like this was hardly exceptional.
That being said, by New Testament times, Jewish leaders had virtually abolished the death penalty for such offenses, Jesus stopped a Jewish crowd from stoning a woman caught in adultery, and Paul taught that there were spiritual consequences rather than corporal consequences for such offenses. As for today, in absolutely no shape, size, or form could I (along with every conservative Christian whom I know personally) ever dream of advocating the death penalty for premarital sex, nor could I could dream of advocating the death penalty for adultery or homosexual practice. Obviously not!
But let’s ask ourselves an honest question. While people on both sides of the debate categorically reject such legal punishments for sexual violations, is our contemporary society really in a position to make judgments on ancient Israel when it comes to sexual morality?
In America today, one in four teenage girls has been infected with an STD, and out of the hundreds of thousands of cases of gonorrhea every year, “teenage girls between 15 and 19 account for more cases than any other age group.” Some of the gonorrhea strains are developing into incurable “super bugs.” And we are the enlightened ones?
The CDC reports that one in 5 gay men has HIV, while gay and bisexual men account for half of the new HIV infections in the U.S., having AIDS at a rate over 50 times higher than other groups. (The rates are alarmingly high among gay teens.) Despite this, Dan Savage and his “husband” Terry Miller advocate being “monogamish,” admitting to at least 9 extramarital encounters between them since they have been together, even claiming that it has been a “stabilizing force” in their relationship. And Savage is criticizing biblical morality?
Let’s also consider the effects of the 1960’s sexual revolution on America. In 1960, 23% of black children were born out of wedlock; by 2008, the rate was up to a mind boggling 72.3%. In white America, children born out of wedlock rose from 2.3% in 1960 to 28.1% in 2008, an increase of more than 1000%. According to a Brookings Institution report published in 1996, “Every year about one million more children are born into fatherless families. If we have learned any policy lesson well over the past 25 years, it is that for children living in single-parent homes, the odds of living in poverty are great. The policy implications of the increase in out-of-wedlock births are staggering.”
And what about the modern plague of pornography? Recent surveys indicate that 40 million Americans regularly visit porn sites, that 12% of all internet sites are pornographic, that 25% of search engine requests are pornography related, and that the average age at which a child first sees online pornography is 11. And we are the ones standing on the higher moral ground? (This recent headline reporting on the UK says it all: “Generation XXX: 13-year-old boy sexually abuses 5-year-old sister thanks to porn, says therapist.”)
Perhaps rather than focusing on the issue of the death penalty for premarital sex in ancient Israel – which, to repeat, I categorically reject as a legal standard for today – we should take a hard look at the destructive effects of the rampant, out of control, sexual promiscuity of our day. Perhaps rather than gloating about our “progressive” attitudes towards premarital, extramarital, and homosexual sex, we should rue the fact that in 1969, 21 percent of Americans believed that “Premarital sex is not wrong” while in 2009, 60 percent stated it was not wrong.
Let the naked truth be told: America today is the land of Ashley Madison ads encouraging adultery, celebrity sex tapes ad nauseam, staggering rates of sexually transmitted diseases, and reality TV shows like “16 and Pregnant.”
All of which leads me to say: I’ll take biblical morality over the Dan Savage version any day of the week. In fact, I have staked my life on it.
(For the first article in this series, click here; for the second article, click here.)
(Warning: The following contains disturbing information of a sexual nature.)
