Laigle’s Forum

1. After MassResistance budget victory — State Sen. Dianne Wilkerson files budget amendment for $300,000.00 increase in homosexual programs in schools!  DON’T let it happen!

2. See video of horrific attack on photographers at May 10 state-run “Youth Pride”event - incited by speakers on stage.

3. Anti-Catholic / anti-Christian pamphlets given to kids at “Youth Pride” event causing national outrage.

4. Supporter reacts to homosexual lobby’s big money - donates $12,000 to MassResistance and challenges others to follow!

Dear Senator,

Would you spend thousands of taxpayer dollars to protect smokers? Would you want them to be taught that there is a “smoker personality” and that therefore, one is born either as a smoker or a non-smoker?

Don’t laugh at that, please, because back in the 60s when I was translating scientific papers for the Cancer Society but also for a tobacco company, I read several serious scientific papers that took the pro-smoking view. It was quite intriguing. The authors in the tobacco lobby’s pocket said that a person with “smoker personality” was a person who was excessively nervous and intense, and smoked because–to put it in today’s terms–he was essentially hardwired to do smoke.

Eventually, reason won out, but it was a tough battle because the tobacco companies had all the money and the best lawyers to defend their dangerous product.

Likewise, today, it is not at all clear that reason will win out, because the homosexual lobby has enormous spending power, enough to quell the debate vital to policy making.

Yet, as long as the debate can be kept alive, I believe reason will prevail.

Unfortunately, so far, because you fear a small but powerful lobby, MA is about to spend thousands of tax payer dollars to teach kids that it is perfectly ok to engage in a dangerous lifestyle, as long as you use “protection.” You the legislators have bowed to the will of a scary vociferous group of censors, who, as demonstrated at Smith College a little while back, will not tolerate free dialogue on this subject, while touting themselves as the keepers of tolerance.

That is like spending thousands on a program to tell kids that if they smoke they should be sure to use filters and not smoke more than a pack a day but not debating the issue of whether they should be smoking at all, and not allowing others to debate the issue.

Male homosexuals account for 71% of AIDS cases and a higher incidence of STDs and other diseases, some quite serious. They also suffer from more emotional disorders, and no, not only because people make fun of them or fail to tolerate them (after all, who would dare oppose them in today’s environment?). Those who do not practice homosexual activity are within the medically normal range.

Doesn’t that suggest that practicing homosexuality just might be a tad bit risky? Risky enough that one may wish to refrain from encouraging children to practice it?

Here is what I propose: Don’t take sides in the debate just yet and don’t spend any money yet. Look at studies on the subject, and I mean serious studies, not just anecdotal evidence and not just studies done by activists. Don’t automatically discount studies done by defenders of traditional values. Not all traditions are bad and not all traditional people are anti-intellectual, racist, sexist or homophobic, as is often supposed a priori by those of us indoctrinated in today’s citadels of higher learning. Look in particular at what happens emotionally to children in same-sex marriage.

I as a linguist can testify that there is no language known to me (I translate from over 20, including 2 Asian ones) in which the equivalent for the English “marriage” can mean anything but a union between a man and a woman. I wonder if that fact has ever occurred to policy makers who so glibly endorse the concept?

After all, it is not just a trivial fact. It is central to our survival on this planet, because embedded in language is the wisdom of the ancients, who passed it on to modern humans to help ensure the survival of the species. If homosexual marriage was ever tried, it failed, for whatever reason. No doubt you can imagine why.

Civilizations in which sexual promiscuity, whether homosexual or heterosexual, abounded are also known to be short-lived. (The First Emperor of China was legendarily promiscuous and was not tolerated by the common people, who dethroned him).

Finally, note that a well-known homosexual researcher just very recently tried to hold a debate on the subject of whether people can be or are, born gay. His debate had to be canceled because the gay lobby rioted.

Does that tell you something?

Suffice this message as a bit of a seed to be planted in your mind. Doubt is painful but good for us in the end.

Thank you for your attention and have a very nice day!

Don Hank

Editor-in-Chief

http://laiglesforum.com/

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.