Pornography and Sex Trafficking: The Rape of Our Children - What Can Be Done?

THE TRAGEDY OF SEX TRAFFICKING

Sex trafficking (sex slavery) has become BIG BUSINESS in our country. "The FBI estimates that more than 100,00 children and young women ages 9-19 are trafficked for sexual profit in the United States. The average age of entry into the sex trade is 11 to 13 years old." 1. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children estimates that 300,000 minors are at risk of being sexually exploited for commercial use. 2.

Recently the San Antonio Express News reported that a 13 year old girl in San Antonio had been "tied up and raped day after day by random men". Brothers who were supplying drugs in their neighborhood allowed men to rape her for 25$ extra. (12/8/10; 12/9/10:2B)

Tanya was a 12 year old girl when she accepted a ride home from an older boy who befriended her. Her life changed forever when he physically beat her to establish his 'ownership' and then prostituted her out to over 100 men per month. 3.

PORNOGRAPHY LIGHTS THE FIRE.

Pornography is fuel that fires the demand for this tragic market.

Without the demand, there would be no sex market and no sex slavery.

Before the 1950's, porn was sold undercover from the trunks of cars. In 1953 Playboy brought it into living rooms. The portrayal of children as sexual objects was promoted by Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler, which regularly depicted children in sexual scenarios. 4.

Pornography now brings in more $$$ than all the sports franchises combined!

NOT PROTECTED SPEECH

In 1957, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that prurient representations (images presenting immoderate or unwholesome sexual interest or desire) are not protected by the First Amendment.

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO COMBAT PORNOGRAPHY.

* Write letters of complaint to businesses that distribute or advertise pornography.

* Write letters to the editor of the local paper to express concern.

* Write letters to your U.S. Attorney and State Prosecutor, Senators and Representatives asking them to support legislation to actively prosecute obscenity in the media and to strengthen penalties for human traffickers.

* Ask religious leaders to address pornography as a spiritual problem.

* Support organizations that are speaking to these concerns, including:

- The American Family Association

- Citizens for Community Values

- Concerned Women for America

- Covenant House

- Morality in Media, Inc.

- Shared Hope International

- The Parents Television Council

SPEAK OUT!

Obscenity is defined by community standards which are determined by people who speak out.

+ To protect the well-being of our culture, our children, and our families, concerned people need to take a stand for decency in our cultural depictions of sexuality.

References:

1. Vincent, Lynn. World. April 19/26, 2008. Vol. 23, No. 8. pg.57.

2. International Crisis Aid. www.crisisaid.org. pg. 1

3. James, Teddy. "The New Abolitionists" AFA Journal. October, 2009:14.

4. Parillo, Vincent N. Contemporary Social Problems. Allyn and Bacon, Boston. 1999:105-109.

A Mushrooming Social Problem

Pornography is both a controversial and an emotional issue.

Pornography depicts sexual behavior in a way designed to sexually excite the viewer.

In defining pornography a distinction is made between erotica, (depiction of sexual passion and love) and pornography (depiction of sexual behavior that presents men, women or children in a way that dehumanizes, degrades or exploits them).

Pornography is further classified as either 'soft core' (R-rated) or 'hard core' (X-rated). 1.

IDENTIFYING OBSCENITY

Pornography is labeled 'obscene' when it sinks to exploitation and portrays humans as mere objects. Obscenity is not speech protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

In Roth v. U.S. (1957), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that materials are pornographic or obscene when:

1. "Taken as a whole", the dominant theme "appeals to a prurient (lewd) interest" in sex.

2. The material affronts "contemporary community standards",

3. The material is "utterly without redeeming social values."

In California v. Miller (1973) the Court removed ambiquities of the earlier decision by keeping the dominant "prurient" theme but explaining that community standards referred to the local community. The reference "without redeeming social values" was eliminated.

MANY DEEP CONCERNS

While there is controversy about what constitutes pornography, the fear that pornography corrupts people deeply concerns many Americans.

Almost everyone agrees that pornography should be restricted.

In 1996, a report published in Criminal Justice Statistics noted that:

* Only 3% agreed that pornography should be legal for everyone,

* While 38% agreed that pornography should be illegal for everyone,

* 58% agreed that pornography should be illegal

for persons under eighteen. 2.

PORNOGRAPHY MUSHROOMS

Before the 1950's, pornography was something considered inappropriate and sold undercover from the trunks of cars. In the last 60 years the distribution of pornography has mushroomed.

The publication of Playboy magazine in 1953 brought it out into living rooms and public awareness.

In 1973, Americans spent $10 million on pornography. By 1997, pornography had become an eight billion dollar industry. 3.

CHILD PORNOGRAPHY - A PARTICULAR CONCERN

The portrayal of children as sexual objects was promoted by Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler magazines, which regularly depicted children in sexual scenarios. A content analysis of these magazines between 1953 to 1984 yielded 6,004 depictions of children ages 3 to 11 in erotica/pornography. 4.

The portrayal of sex with children is of particular concern. Legislation in 1982 (New York v. Ferber) and 1990 (Osborne v. Ohio) defined any lewd depiction of a child under the age of 18 years to be illegal. 5.

Federal legislation provides prison terms to people who either produce or possess child pornography.

CONCERNING PORNOGRAPHY

Some people argue that pornography provides a safety valve for the private release of sexual fantasies. They hail it as 'safe sex', safe from pregnancy or disease.

Others are concerned that pornography degrades women and children and desensitizes men to violence against them.

In 1986, the Meese Commission, appointed by President Reagan, found "a causal relationship between exposure to sexually violent materials and an increase in aggressive behavior toward women." 6.

Specific findingsof the Meese Commission include:

1. Of 411 offenders, the average had 336 victims,

2. Rape increases where pornography laws are liberalized,

3. Rapists are much more likely than non-offenders to have been exposed as children to hard-core pornography.

4. States with higher sales of pornography have higher rates of rape. 7.

A DANGEROUS ADDICTION

Pornography is addictive and leaves the viewer wanting more. Addiction can lead to desires that escalate from viewing pictures; to visiting strip clubs; to prostitution and voyeurism; to felony behaviors.

A STAND FOR DECENCY

Our culture is being sexually saturated with an increasing avalanche of pornography. Obscenity is defined by community standards which are determined by people who stand up and speak out. If we are to protect the well-being of our culture, ourselves, our children and our families, it is necessary for all concerned people to become active in taking a stand for decency in our cultural depictions of sexuality.

REFERENCES:

1. Palen, J. John. Social Problems for the Twenty-First Century. McGraw Hill, Boston. 2000:447-450.

2. Henslin, James M. Social Problems. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 2000:75-81.

3. Veith, Gene Edward. World magazine. April 7, 2001. Vol. 16, No. 13:17.

4. Parrillo, Vincent N. Contemporary Social Problems. Allyn and Bacon, Boston. 1999:105-109.

5. AFA.net. American Family Association. www.afa.net/FAQ.aspx?id=2147484819.

6. Palen, pg.449.

7. Henslin, pg. 78.

Prude Pride - Restoring Sexual Sanity

"The real corrupters of society may be, not the corrupt, but those who have held back the righteous leaven, the salt that has lost its savor, the innocent who have not even the moral courage to show what they think of the effrontery of impurity." 1.

Sexual temptations are pulling the moral foundation out from under our culture, our children's lives and our families. Young people are being drawn into early and promiscuous sexual relationships.

Our parents and grandparents would have made a public outcry against the sexual portrayals that assault us. Today we are silent and leave it to the 'sexperts' to advise us.

CONSEQUENCES OF OUR SILENCE

* The Center for Disease Control reports that 1 in 4 teens has a sexually transmitted disease, often leading to cancer or infertility. 2.

* Since Roe vs. Wade, more than 50 million abortions have been performed in the U.S.

- 81% to umarried women; 52% younger than 25 years of age; 19% to teens. 3.

* 40% of births are now out-of-wedlock births. 4.

*Out-of-wedlock births and the increase in divorce leaves many men out of the important role of fatherhood and leaves 40% of children without a father for guidance and support. 5.

*Condoms, with a 14% actual use failure rate, are handed out freely in schools, even at the junior high level. 6.

* Homosexuality, the leading cause of HIV/AIDS, is being taught as a normal lifestyle even in elementary schools and kindergartens. "One in five sexually active gay and bisexual men has the AIDS virus, and nearly half of those don't know they are infected." 7.

SIMPLE AND COMPLEX PLEASURES

We have been blessed with an abundance of simple pleasures for our sensual enjoyment;

* sunshine sparking on water,

* brilliant flowers and sunsets,

* wind blowing through our hair,

* cool water on a hot day.

Sexual relationships are complex pleasures.

Sexual behaviors involve the life of another person in action and experience.

Relating to another person in a sexual way involves the physical, mental, spiritual, and emotional aspects of the person's life.

Sexual relationships are much more than toys for personal hedonistic and temporary pleasures.

Sexual behaviors affect:

*the way people feel about themselves and others,

* the way people relate to the past and the future, and

* the way people relate to family and friends.

Above all, sexual behaviors can produce new life which deserves honor and respect.

CONSENSUAL SEX HAS FAR REACHING TIES.

When family, friends, and community relationships are drawn into the often destructive and painful consequences of sexual behaviors, consensual sex cannot be appropriately limited to decisions between sexual partners.

When casual sex results in sexually transmitted diseases that cause infertility, AIDS, or other debilitating diseases more people are affected than the persons engaging in the sex act.

When adultery results in broken vows and broken marriages, innocent children and spouses are deeply and cruelly hurt.

Sexual relationships require interpersonal responsibility for the participating parties and for the larger community of family and friends in which the persons are embedded.

PRUDE PRIDE - It's time to speak up!

It's time to restore wisdom to our sexual behaviors, using caution, circumspection, reason and good judgment.

It's time to proudly and boldly uphold prudence in our approach to sexual relationships.

It's time to cherish and protect our sexual life and the sexual life of others.

It's time to speak up and restore sexual sanity in our society.

REFERENCES

1. Thom, J.H. 1928. Daily Strength for Daily Needs. New York: Grosset & Dunlop. pg.221.

2. Associated Press. March 11, 2008. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23574940.

3. Associated Press. Nov. 21, 2006. MSNBC.com.

4. Harris, Gardiner. "40% of babies born to unwed." San Antonio Express News. May 14,

2009:6A.

5. Blankenhorn, David. Fatherless in America. NY: Harper Perennial. 1996.

6. Workshop Summary: Scientific Evidence on Condom Effectiveness for Sexually Transmitted

Diseases. June 12-13, 2000. http://www.3.nlaid.nih.gov/about/organization/dmid/PDF/

condom report.

7. Stobbe, Mike. "HIV rate high in bisexual, gay men". San Antonio Express News. Sept 24,

2010:11A.

Summarizing the Second Year of Concerns

At the end of March 2010, 'Concerning This' celebrated it's second year of discussion and comment on social issues that create social problems. In his book, Contemporary Social Problems, Vincent Parrillo defined four elements of a social problem.

Elements of a Social Problem: 1.

1. They cause physical or mental damage to individuals or society.

2. They offend the values or standards of some powerful segment of society.

3. They persist for an extended period of time.

4. They generate competing proposed solutions.

* FIRST YEAR ENTRIES

The first year of blog entries in 'Concerning This' was summarized in the entry of March 27, 2009. These discussions dealt with social concerns related to the breakdown of the family, sexually transmitted diseases, pornography, secularization of society, euthanasia, abortion, and movements toward reproductive technologies, homosexuality and socialism.

* SECOND YEAR ENTRIES

Summaries of discussion from May 5, 2009 through this entry are listed here.

A Mother's Day Tribute - May 5,2009

Mom wrote poetry to express her thoughts and feelings. She passed away at 89 after passing on a rich heritage of love to her children and grandchildren. Six of her poems are included, ending with her ode to 'Night'.... "Listen, my soul, To the silence of peace, Enveloping night in it's lazy release."

Obama, Socialism, Jewish Influence and the Threatened Family - June 17, 2009

Pastor Jeremiah Wright and James von Brunn, who killed a security guard at the Holocaust Museum, both accuse President Obama of being influenced by Jewish socialism. A San Antonio Express News columnist, Jonathan Gurwitz, dismisses them as 'nutjobs on the left and right'. I reproduce my guest column that was printed in The Ithaca Journal on December 7, 1976. I wrote this article, titled "The Nuclear Family: Is It Threatened by Science?", as a graduate student at Cornell University. I express concerns related to ideas expressed by Dr. Urie Bronfenbrenner, a Jewish professor of Human Ecology, who was at that time actively promoting a movement toward socialism.

Health Care Reform Begins at Home - July 2, 2009

Each of us makes decisions about our physical and psychological health and wellness. Lifestyle choices related to eating, exercise, cleanliness, drinking, smoking, drug use, reckless driving, sexual behaviors, and family relationships can create personal illness and injury. Health and wellness begins with us and our personal choices.

Keys to Loving Family Relationships - January 10, 2010

Loving relationships within the family lay a foundation for personal health and wellness. The family is the unique organization in which we become whole in our relationships. This wholeness requires that we grow in the graces of faithfulness, patience, forgiveness and self-control. Four keys that help unlock healthy relationships in our families include: Positive communication, Money management, Conflict resolution and Attitudes of gratitude.

The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America - January 29, 2010

The movement to bring homosexual behavior into social acceptance is challenging every social institution with fundamental change, including the government and legal systems, educational systems, the professional health industry, corporations, religious organizations, the institution of marriage and family, the media, and the military. This entry introduces the discussions that examine the social problems introduced by this struggle.

(2) Reforming Education - February 3, 2010

In 1974 the National Education Association added 'sexual orientation' to its resolution on nondiscriminatory personnel policies. The normalization of homosexuality became politically correct in academic and educational settings. At the elementary level students are informed of the five gender orientations: male, female, gay, lesbian, and bisexual. Challengers are intimidated and silenced. Groups supporting traditional family values organize to oppose the gay takeover of educational institutions.

(3) The Professional Health Establishment - February 9, 2010

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association, under duress from a homosexual faction in the group, voted to strike homosexuality from the list of psychiatric illnesses. Only one-third of the membership was involved in the decision. When the organization made it a violation for a psychiatrist to help a homosexual patient become heterosexual even at the patient's request, therapists who help homosexuals change and ex-homosexuals threatened to file a lawsuit.

Christian groups, including Exodus and Love Won Out organized to minister to those who struggle with unwanted same-sex attractions.

(4) Politics of GRID-HIV/AIDS - February 13, 2010

HIV/AIDS was first recognized in the United States in 1981 when homosexual men were breaking out with a rare, ugly cancer, Kaposi's Sarcoma. This wasting disease was known then as GRID, "gay-related immune disorder". Unexpectedly the gay community's first priority was to protect the homosexual lifestyle as a normal and safe way of life. Homosexual activists moved to rename the disease to AIDS, "acquired immune deficiency syndrome", although gay related anal intercourse and promiscuity created and continues to preserve the American reservoir for HIV/AIDS. AIDS was politicized from the start.

(5) Safe Sex Becomes Seductive - February 19, 2010

Condoms are being distributed around the world as the solution to casual sexual behaviors in preventing pregnancies and STD's. However, the typical use failure rate of condoms is 14%, accounting for inconsistent and incorrect use as well as breakage and slippage. Life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is compromised by perhaps 20 years. Through 2007, the cumulative estimated deaths from AIDS in the United States was 562,793. Syphilis has reemerged as a public health threat because of male homosexuality. Anal cancer is a particular concern.

(6) Gays Confront the Media - March 1, 2010

Three years after the 1969 Stonewall Riots, representation on prime time TV became a symbolic target. Gays working in the TV industry were 'agents' who leaked information to activists about upcoming episodes in which gays were depicted negatively. Hostile and confrontational meetings ensued. Gay activists were invited by TV executives to comment on scripts dealing with homosexuality. In the 70's, more and more gay characters appeared on prime-time TV with the aim to educate the public to accept gay people and their lifestyles.

(7) Gay Demographics - March 7, 2010

Gays are estimated to exceed 18 million in the U.S. A large majority have disposable incomes above the national average with many holding professional positions in society. Marketing to the gay community has developed into a lucrative endeavor.

Gays are not randomly distributed. The 2000 Census reports that one-quarter of same-sex households were located in five urban areas: New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington D.C., and Chicago.

(8) Gays in the Corporations - March 10, 2010

Corporations recognized that singles without family ties were able to dedicate time to their jobs and were free to travel around the country. Employee associations developed in corporate America to lobby for gay rights. By 1995, more than 60 American companies had lesbian, gay and bisexual employee groups; half of the Fortune 1000 companies had nondiscrimination policies that included sexual orientation.

When Pepsico and McDonald's became publicly and actively involved in pro-gay policies, opposing groups responded with boycotts.

(9) The Gay Agenda Battles the Military - March 14, 2010

Since 1917, American military law has outlined punishment for homosexual soldiers. In 1981 the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a policy stating that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. President Clinton unsuccessfully sought to overturn this policy, settling for "Don't ask, don't tell". President Obama campaigned on a commitment to end the ban against gays openly serving in the military. Although Congress has moved in this direction, powerful groups continue to oppose this social agenda.

(10) Gay Reproduction - March 20, 2010

Reproductive technologies present many questions about the future of social, ethical, and family practices. In 1982 the Sperm Bank of California provided sperm to unmarried and lesbian women. Commercial egg donations and surrogacy offered the possibility for a man to create a family. In the 1990's homosexual couples began to use surrogacy in what was labeled a 'gayby' boom.

Gay activists want society to adopt a flexible definition of marriage and family. Dr. David Blankenhorn, a family scholar and founder of the Institute for American Values, argues that the rights of children are put in jeopardy. The child's right to a natural biological heritage is denied to him or her.

(11) Gay Adoption - March 25, 2010

In 2007, 65,000 adopted children were being raised in the U.S. by same-sex partners or singles and 14,100 foster children were living with one or more gay or lesbian foster parents. States differ in their laws for single gays and lesbians and same-sex couples who seek to adopt.

Opponents argue that children suffer from not having both a mother and a father. The Catholic Church has been highly involved in adoption services. Changes in legislation which prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation jeopardizes the ability of the church to continue offering family services.

(12) Moving Toward Marriage - March 27, 2010

Gay men and lesbians in steady relationships are unable to marry and obtain the legal benefits of marriage. Activists campaign for the right to marry. In 1996 Congress adopted the federal Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman.

When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the nation's sodomy laws in 2003, the highest court in Massachusetts ruled that same-sex marriage was permissible. A concern developed that courts would set social agendas. By 2008, 37 states had established their own Defense of Marriage Acts and 30 states had constitutional amendments protecting traditional marriage.

However, same-sex marriage was gaining acceptance. As of early 2010, 6 states and the District of Columbia allowed same-sex marriage, although no states had legalized gay marriage by referendum of the people.

(13) Gays Confront the Church - March 30, 2010

Scriptures from the Jewish Bible and the New Testament support husband/wife unions and condemn homosexual relationships. Gay activist groups challenged synagogues and churches to include homosexuals and allow them to participate without discrimination in church activities.

Fundamental groups held firm to scriptural guidance, while mainline churches, especially within the leadership of the denominations, were moving toward inclusion. Passage of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would make it illegal to hire or fire persons based on sexual orientation. Religious liberties of organizations and individuals would be threatened and put in jeopardy.

(14) Politics and Beyond - April 6, 2010

Gays are becoming increasingly more visible. The Power 50: The Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America were outed on the Out.com website. The five first choices are listed as: David Giffen, a Hollywood billionaire; Anderson Cooper, anchor of CNN News; Ellen DeGeneres, talk show host; Tim Gill, the country's biggest gay political donor, and Barney Frank, Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts. Throughout his campaign, President Obama made it clear that he supported the homosexual 'civil rights' movement.

(15) The Consequences - April 9, 2010

The normalization of homosexuality in society will bring about profound changes in social organization, particularly in regard to social integration, reproduction, health and the intergenerational transfer of cultural values.

Heterosexual family forms have been protected through centuries of civilizations and in virtually all societies. Normalizing same-sex marriage would subsidize reproductive technologies and endorse the idea that a child does not really need a mother and a father. Religious values of many Americans in regard to appropriate sexual relationships would no longer be legally accepted, leading to state imposed restrictions on religious freedoms.

(16) Equal Persons, Equal Ideas, Equal Behaviors? - May 31, 2010

Our patriotic 'faith' statement that all are created equal is not a statement of fact but a statement of 'faith' in the spiritual and eternal worth of each striving soul. Our 'right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' does not include the right to confront the well being of the larger social good. Equality of persons cannot be equated to the concept that all ideas or behaviors are created equal. We are now being told that ideas and behaviors held by a minority must be considered equal to ideas and values that have been cherished and protected by the majority of people.

Responsible debate and consideration of behavioral and social consequences are the best way to ensure well being for the larger good and the protection and support for all citizens.

Reference:

1. Parrillo, Vincent N. Contemporary Social Problems. Boston:Allyn and Bacon Pub. 1999:6.

(16) Equal persons, equal ideas, equal behaviors? : The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

Master Status?

Our society seems to now be identifying a person primarily by sexual orientation or gender identity. This places sexual behavior on the throne as the most important aspect of our lives. However, a person's sexual orientation is not their master status.

We are individuals who have potential for developing and making choices about how we live our lives. We are endowed with many abilities and opportunities to move and grow in many directions. We are not pre-determined. We all have potential for many sexual behaviors, depending on our nature, our nurture, our choices and our social influences.

Created equal

Our country was founded on a patriotic 'faith statement' that declares all men (presumably, people) are created equal. This is not a statement of fact, because in fact, we are not equal. We differ in innumerable ways. People differ in value both in regard to themselves and in regard to society.

The founding fathers affirmed a divine power. Our 'created equal' faith statement only has truth in the light that we have worth endowed by our creator as a searching and striving soul. We have spiritual and eternal worth. The assumption of the ultimate equality of each person cannot be separated from the soul.

Our democracy was founded on the essential assumption that individuals can and will strive for goodness. Our affirmed 'right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' does not include the right to violently or carelessly confront the well being of the larger social good.

Countries that lose a foundation of spiritual reality soon demonstrate that many people who are no longer contributing to or supporting the political agendas are no longer needed or wanted in the society.

Equal ideas / behaviors?

To say that all persons are created equal cannot be equated with saying that all ideas and behaviors are created equal. However, this seems to be the outgrowth and false conclusion that our culture is proclaiming. We are now saying that ideas and behaviors held by a small minority of persons must be considered equal to ideas and values that have been cherished and supported through the years by the majority of people. To negatively judge or evaluate the minority idea is labeled a hate crime.

Homosexual relationships have always been present to some extent in our society, for whatever personal or social reasons. They have been tolerated and allowed as a necessary condition for some.

Violence or disrespectful behaviors toward homosexuals or any minority group are inappropriate.

Consequences predominate.

Ideas and behaviors must be evaluated and judged by the consequences they produce for the persons involved and for the larger society.

It is now being promoted that homosexual behaviors should be taught to our children as equally appropriate social relationships.

It is not useful, appropriate or wise to use exceptions to argue for or define normality.

The normalization of homosexuality in society would create profound changes in social organization that warrant caution and serious consideration. Heterosexual marriage is a foundation for personal and social integration between the sexes and generations.

The traditional family preserves and passes down its unique cultural values to the next generation, providing checks and balances in society which guard against destructive extremism. The greatest sources of nurture, support and meaning for the majority of Americans are found within intergenerational family relationships.

Personal health risks associated with homosexual behaviors are deeply troubling. The American Medical Association confirms that homosexual youth are 23 times more apt to contact a sexually transmitted disease than their heterosexual counterparts.

Protecting democracy!

The concept of 'equality of persons' is not to be equated with the insistence that every idea or behavior of a minority or small group should be used to determine what all others must accept or abide by.

Democracy requires responsible debate and consideration of behavioral and social consequences when changes in social relationships are proposed.

This process is the best way to ensure well being for the larger good and to ensure protection and support for all citizens.

(15) The Consequences: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF NORMALIZING SAME-SEX MARRIAGE 1.

In considering the future of marriage, Dr. David Blankenhorn chaired three one-day seminars for researchers and family scholars in 2004 to address concerns raised by the prospect of gay marriage. Seminars were held in New York City, Washington D.C., and Atlanta, Georgia, with a total of 40 people attending, including leading family scholars. Some had spoken out in favor of gay marriage and some against. Serious scholars and leaders wrestled with the issue in an attempt to see both sides.

The results of the discussions confirmed that a movement toward gay marriage would not only affect a small minority but would constitute major social change. It became evident that the decision was not a morally easy one because when important goods conflict, any resolution will carry elements of loss. A diverse range of consequences were listed, both positive and negative.

Positive social consequences of extending marriage benefits to same-sex couples included:

* the improvement of well being and social worth for gays and lesbians,

* increased tolerance under the law,

* and equal treatment under the law.

Extending marriage benefits may:

* encourage gays to choose committed relationships,

* contribute to more stability and longer lasting relationships,

* and lead to less sexual promiscuity.

Negative social consequences that were identified in changing the public meaning of marriage from a social institution to a private relationship between two people included:

* the de-institutionalization of marriage, contributing to a social devaluation of marriage,

* endorsement of the idea that a child does not really need a mother and a father,

* opening the door to other forms of 'marriage', including group marriage and polygamy,

* subsidization of reproductive technologies,

* and fewer children being raised by their own married mother and father.

The religious values of most Americans in regard to appropriate sexual relationships would:

* no longer be legally accepted,

* lead to state imposed restrictions on religious freedom and freedom of expression,

* and lead to U.S. marriages becoming secularized, undermining religious conceptions of marriage.

The public socialization of young people into a marriage culture would be diluted to avoid suggesting that marriage is fundamentally heterosexual. If the decision was reached by the courts, a public loss in confidence in the judicial systems would result.

The total list of consequences identified by the 40 conference attendees included 23 negative, 24 positive and 12 'other' consequences that were considered important to recognize. The participants in this discussion concluded that gay marriage would represent "quite a bit of significant social change, affecting many aspects of society."

QUESTIONS ON GAY REORGANIZATION OF SOCIETY 2.

In 1993, Morton A. Kaplan, distinguished service professor of political science emeritus at the University of Chicago and editor of The World and I magazine, wrestled with the challenges to society being proposed by gay activism. Noting that the issues of gay rights and alternative family forms generated enormous anger and political energy, he concluded that, "As long as the family, as now understood, commands the rational and emotional assent of most people, it is hard for homosexuality to enter the mainstream of American life." Noting that "We cannot, even if we wished, withdraw from these issues" Kaplan concluded, "it is therefore, quite important to think through these issues as objectively as possible."

A series of considerations were raised.

* "Many homosexuals and lesbians are intelligent, honorable, hardworking, and valuable members of society. Many of them are fine parents...They tend to greater promiscuity than heterosexuals, but this may be a product of social and legal factors..."

* "No decent individual would desire to see homosexuals harassed or deprived of dignified career opportunities."

* "Although it is regrettable that a group of people should pay disproportionate social and psychological costs because of their sexuality, the survival of the larger group cannot be put at risk."

* "We legitimate the heterosexual family to preserve the group."

* In extending the concept of normality, "damage may be done to society that may take generations to repair...some degree of damage to limited groups of individuals may be justified for the greater good of society... every set of social norms injures some."

* "Are homosexual and lesbian tendencies genetically governed?...such behavior likely depends on more than genetics."

* "...there were also incestuous or pedophilic families...But where is the line to be drawn, and on what basis? And, if we cannot draw a firm line, will we remain successful in outlawing child pornography if the child consents?"

* Can we tolerate all forms of consensual sexual activity"... Our ability to function rationally depends on taboos and social and legal constraints that maintain character and a sense of appropriateness."

* I suggest prudence, that we do not allow a slippery slope to take us unawares... we need serious discussion rather than the polemics and the heat we are now generating."

CAUTION IS WISDOM

Social movements promoting the normalization of homosexuality in our society have, and will continue to bring about profound challenges and changes in social organization, particularly in regard to social integration, social reproduction, social health, and the intergenerational transfer of cultural values.

Social Integration

The heterosexual family unit has integrated men and women, children, grandparents and extended relatives in personal and caring relationships that transcend generations. Countless and consistent family research confirms that the greatest sources of nurture, support and meaning for the majority of Americans are found within the family unit.

Intergenerational Transfer of Cultural Values

The foundation upon which freedom is built rests upon the ability of autonomous family units to preserve and pass down cultural values to the next generation. This process develops a diversity of perspectives, providing the checks and balances in society which guard against destructive extremes.

Social Reproduction

As children are taught to accept homosexuality as a normal choice, the intergenerational transfer of cultural and genetic patterns in society becomes jeopardized. The normalization of homosexuality will create new forms of social reproduction. When society changes rapidly it is prudent to inquire, "Who benefits?" The commercialization of reproduction through the buying of sperm and egg and the creating of children through deliberate planning by professionals (at high cost) will replace the caring and loving union of mother, father, children, grandchildren, and extended relatives. This is a foundation for eugenics with all the questions to be asked in this regard. Whose sperm? Whose egg will be favored?

Social Health

The personal and public health risks associated with homosexual behaviors are deeply troubling. It is not useful to pretend that the dangers inherent in the homosexual lifestyle will be overcome by condom use, especially a careless distribution of condoms among the young.

Heterosexual family forms have been protected and passed down through centuries of civilizations and in virtually all societies.

The Slippery Slope

This discussion will leave the reader with questions addressed by Melik Kaylan in his article "The Way We Live Now." 3.

"...Most of the 'slippery slope' warnings of the last decades have proved tragically accurate despite the mockery that silenced them. From the domino theory, to drugs, divorce, to permissive sexuality, who can deny the devastation wrought by each -broken homes, addictions, AIDS?...

Already the era of gay parenting is here. It often involves an affluent gay couple adopting poor orphans and improving their material future immeasurably. How long before market forces noisily hold up such families as role models, pillars of style, tolerance, humor, free-thinking? Yet we have no idea how the children will fare emotionally, how anomalous they will feel... Will children, once reared know how to sustain a heterosexual marriage or family, having no inherited sense of its workings?...What will be the ultimate human cost, and who will have the courage, then to identify the cause?"

References:

1. Blankenhorn, David. The Future of Marriage. New York: Encounter Books. 2007:202-212.

2. Kaplan, Morton A. "Common Sense on Gay Rights." The World and I. 1993:361,403-407.

3. Kaylan, Melik. "TheWay We Live Now." The Wall Street Journal. Friday, August 8, 2003: Opinion Page.

(14) Politics and Beyond: The Gay Battle for Social Reorganization of America

Gays in Power

Politics involves the ability of interest groups to effect social and legal decisions in favor of their preferred results. Out.com notes that "influential gays are becoming increasingly more visible and more powerful." The Power 50: The Most Powerful Gay Men and Women in America were outed on their website. Four criteria were used to determine their choices, including; political clout, pop-culture resonance, individual wealth, and current personal profile.

Descriptions of their first five choices are listed as follows: 1.

1. David Giffen is a $4 billion Hollywood entertainment powerhouse. His money has bought him influence over Democratic presidential politics and his name on UCLA's medical school.

2. Anderson Cooper, as anchor of CNN News, pulls a $4 million salary.

3. Ellen DeGeneres hosts her own talk show that draws 2.3 million viewers on a daily basis. This out and proud lesbian is reportedly worth $65 million.

4. Tim Gill is the country's biggest gay political donor who made his fortune as founder of the publishing software Quark.

5. Barney Frank, Democratic Congressman from Massachusetts, assumed chairmanship of the House Committee on Financial Services when Democrats took control of the House and Senate.

Bankrolling the Battle 2.

Tim Gill, the leading funder of the homosexual agendas, is perhaps the most powerful force for homosexual activism. Gill grew up in Denver and became involved in homosexual activism after enrolling at the university of Colorado at Boulder in the early 1970's. With a passion for computer technology and making money he launched the software company Quark, which became a major international software firm, making Gill a very rich man.

In 1992, Gill refocused on gay activism after the passage of Amendment 2, which prohibited Colorado localities from passing gay-right ordinances. Feeling angry that "the forces of evil are out to destroy us" he began to funnel his wealth to work for pro-homosexual agendas. In 1994, he formed the Gill foundation through which he was able to use his fortune to "seed gay-rights organizations in all 50 states."

His support enabled the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) to grow into the leading gay-activist group in America's schools. By 2001, USA Today reported that the "Gill Foundation donations to homosexual-rights organizations around the country represented 20 percent of their annual budgets. As of this year, the foundation has made grants of well over $115 million."

Besides huge donations, Gill used creative and effective ways to promote the gay agenda. He launched training seminars across the country to "help the organizations sharpen their message, hone their efficiency and raise money more effectively." To portray homosexuality as mainstream, Gill also gave large grants to symphonies, libraries and colleges with the stipulation that the organization have a non-discrimination policy toward homosexuals and that they advertise through plaques, event programs, and annual reports that the funding came from the Gay & Lesbian Fund of Colorado.

In 2000, Gill became involved in "strategic politics". Focusing on local campaigns, Gill gave $300,000, followed by $800,000, followed by $5 million to influence political races. He recruited three multi-millionaires to join his pro-gay cause: Jared Polis; Rutt Bridges; and billionaire heiress, Pat Stryker, sister to a homosexual billionaire from Michigan, Jon Stryker. The four "Gillionaires" fed money into local races to shift control of legislatures in favor of gay-friendly candidates. In 2006, Gill and his allies targeted 70 state and local races in a dozen states. When Gill funneled $5 million into Colorado politics, Democrats took control of both the House and Senate for the first time in three decades. In New Hampshire, a new Democrat majority passed a civil-unions law. In Iowa, the Republicans lost the House; the Democratic majority was able to stop the state marriage amendment and the Legislature enacted a homosexual nondiscrimination law.

Obama's Rainbow World 3.

When Barack Obama was elected president, lavender, the signature color of the gay movement, became the preferred color of major media newscasters and talk show hosts. Purple and lavender ties, shirts, dresses, and suit coats blossomed. On inauguration Day of 2009 the Human Rights Campaign president, Joe Solmonese said, "Today's inauguration represents a paradigm shift. The pendulum has swung away from the anti-gay forces and toward a new president and vice president who acknowledge our equality."

Throughout his campaign, Obama made it clear that he supported the homosexual "civil rights" movement. Immediately after his inauguration, the Obama White House web site posted it's agenda, which include a section addressed to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) community. Obama is quoted, "Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us... But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."

On the web site (www.whitehouse.gov) Obama spoke to the relevant political concerns:

Hate-Crimes - We will "expand hate crimes protection by passing the Matthew Shepard Act."

ENDA - Obama "supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act...our anti-discrimination laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity."

Gays in the Military - "we need to repeal the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy".

Defense of Marriage Act - the President wants to "repeal the Defense of Marriage Act which was signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton. Obama wants to "enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions."

Gay adoption - In a letter to a gay rights group in Massachusetts, Obama said, "We have to eliminate discrimination against LGBT families. And that's why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws."

After taking office Obama disappointed many gay activists by not moving aggressively forward in pursuit of gay rights, and even defending some of the policies he criticized. Gay rights groups became outraged when the Obama administration filed a legal brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which Obama had opposed during his campaign. To lessen the anger, In June of 2009 Obama signed a presidential memo extending some benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. 4.

In February of 2010, Obama again disappointed homosexuals who were wanting to serve openly in the armed forces. Michael Mullen, the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm, reported that the Pentagon is conducting a year long review of policy change. President Obama and Congress will table this issue for the rest of the year. 5.

REFERENCES

1. Out.com. "The Power 50: The Most Powerful Gay Men & Women in America." http://out.com/detail.asp?id=22394. 2/26/10.

2. Paulton, John. "In the Image of Gill". Citizen magazine. Focus on the Family. Vol. 21, No. 12. December, 2007:24-27.

3. Vitagliano, Ed. "Homosexual Agenda." American Family Association Journal. Vol. 33, No. 3, March 2009:20-21.

4. Froomkin, Dan. "Consolation Prize for Gays." 6/17/2009. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-watch/a-consolation-prize-for-gays_pf.html. 2/26/2010.

5. The Washington Times. "Editorial: Obama disappoints gays again." Feb. 3, 2010. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/o3/homosexuals-disappointed-again. 2/26/2010.