CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg's commentary on issues of the day...

Social Engineers and the Abuse of Children

Oct 18, 2011

Whenever the radicals seek to remake society in their own image, there will always be casualties. And invariably children will be among the first to suffer. All these activists are concerned about is their own selfish agenda, and they don’t give a rip about how many others will be harmed along the way.

The push for same-sex marriage and adoption rights is a classic case of this. The militant homosexuals simply want to indulge their own lusts, and care not one iota who gets hurt in the process. But with all such radical social engineering, the biggest losers will be children.

In my new book, Strained Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality, I thoroughly document how children suffer as a result of the homosexual agenda being rammed down our throats. And I quote plenty of homosexuals themselves who realise just how destructive their lifestyle choices can be.

Let me offer a few paragraphs from that book: “One woman who was raised by lesbians now runs a support and recovery program for those coming out of the homosexual lifestyle and their families. She put it this way: ‘I realise that homosexuals feel they can give a child love and support that even many straight families can’t provide, but I’ve been there. I know the finger-pointing and the shame one carries. For years, you struggle with the thought that you might be a homosexual. People say “like mother, like daughter.” Most of us become promiscuous to prove we’re straight.’

“Another woman says this of her upbringing by two homosexuals: ‘From 40 years of experience, I can tell you that, even though my father loved me, his homosexual orientation handicapped my ability to learn to relate to life in a healthy way. My homosexual home stunted my growth as a person and as a woman, not to mention the damaging effect of 16 years of drugs and alcohol abuse on my early childhood development. I spent the first 20 years of my life in a family that nearly destroyed me and the last 20 years analyzing and being analyzed in order to make sense of it. The bottom line is: I was dearly loved by my father. His love alone was not enough to give me the foundation that I needed to grow into a secure young woman…. My father and I have looked back through the past and discussed the issue of homosexual parenting. With great remorse, he agrees the homosexual lifestyle, no matter how conservative, is not healthy for children. My father and I agree: homosexuality and raising healthy children exclude each other.’

“Or consider the tragic case of a twelve-year-old Melbourne boy who has run away from home five times. The reason? He refuses to live with his mother and her lesbian partner. The boy’s father has repeatedly been denied access to the child, and the boy has threatened to kill himself as a result.

“And finally, someone who can speak from experience in this area. A lesbian mother has publicly expressed her regret at bearing three children through artificial insemination. The New Zealand woman, who says she is ‘now in the process of becoming a heterosexual,’ had a stormy relationship with her lesbian lover, which eventually broke down. Her comments are worth noting: ‘I realise now that I deprived my kids of their right to a father, and I see the hurt in their faces every day. . . . I believe children should have the best opportunities in life. The best way they can have a balanced view of what is normal is with heterosexual parents’.”

In my book I also quote from one noted lesbian and pro-abortion feminist, Tammy Bruce. She is also the former president of the LA chapter of the National Organisation for Women, but she is greatly alarmed by homosexual activism. This is what she says about the issue of children and the homosexual agenda: “Today’s gay activists have carried the campaign a step further, invading children’s lives by wrapping themselves in the banner of tolerance. It is literally the equivalent of the wolf coming to your door dressed as your grandmother.”

She continues, “The radicals in control of the gay establishment want children in their world of moral decay, lack of self-restraint, and moral relativism. Why? How better to truly belong to the majority (when you’re really on the fringe) than by taking possession of the next generation? By targeting children, you can start indoctrinating the next generation with the false construct that gay people deserve special treatment and special laws. How else can the gay establishment actually get society to believe, borrowing from George Orwell, that gay people are indeed more equal than others? Of course, the only way to get that idea accepted is to condition people into accepting nihilism that forbids morality and judgment.”

Homosexual activists claim that same-sex marriage rights and adoption rights will harm no one, so we should just butt out and allow them to do their thing. But as I have just shown above (and in far greater detail in the rest of my book), this is simply one big lie. Such radical social changes affect everyone, and most importantly, children.

A story in today’s press provides yet another sickening example of all this. Here is how the story opens: “A lesbian couple in California who say their 11-year-old son Tommy who wants to be a girl named Tammy are giving their child hormone blockers that delay the onset of puberty – so that he can have more time that he can have more time to decide if he wants to change his gender.”

While this couple seems to think this is all just peachy keen, not everyone is impressed with this insanity. The article continues: “Critics of the treatment say 11-year-olds are not old enough to make life-altering decisions about changing their gender, and parents should not be encouraging them. They say it’s too soon to tell what the side effects of the treatments may be, and they say Tommy’s parents, Pauline Moreno and Debra Lobel, are irresponsible for seeking them and allowing them to be administered.

“‘This is child abuse. It’s like performing liposuction on an anorexic child,’ said Dr. Paul McHugh, professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University. ‘It is a disorder of the mind. Not a disorder of the body. Dealing with it in this way is not dealing with the problem that truly exists. We shouldn’t be mucking around with nature. We can’t assume what the outcome will be,’ McHugh said.

“Dr. Manny Alvarez, senior managing health editor of Fox News, said the hormone blockers also may pose a medical risk. ‘I think that it’s highly inappropriate to be interfering with natural hormonal growth patterns,’ Alvarez said. ‘There are significant potential problems necessary for growth and development. Potential long-term effects can include other abnormalities of hormones, vascular complications and even potential cancer. I think that if this child – as he finishes his puberty and teenage years – decides to undergo a transgender procedure – then there are proper channels to do so. But to do it at the age of 11 – to me – could be potentially dangerous to the health of this child,’ he said.”

Others have expressed their concerns as well: “Critics say that some children who question their identity at a very young age might change their mind when they start adolescence. ‘Most transgender patients will say that they knew at 6 years old. But what we don’t know is how many others had those thoughts and feelings that went away once they hit puberty,’ said Dr. Jeffrey Spiegel, a professor at Boston University and a plastic surgeon who specializes in facial feminization operations for transgender men.

“‘While it may be a good therapy for those who’ve committed to transgender, it may not be good for those who might have changed their mind once they hit puberty and beyond.’ Walt Heyer, whose book Paper Genders details his own experience transitioning from a man to a woman and back again, agreed. ‘The blockers should NOT be introduced to a child,’ Heyer said. ‘If they are going to make a transition, they should wait to do so when they reach 18 to 20 years old. When you start the therapy at that age you are not dealing with the fact that the mind is not fully developed.’

“Heyer also cited a Dutch study that said 61 percent of individuals who desire a gender change are found to have secondary psychiatric disorders, such as depression or dissociative disorder, which he suffered from. Other critics asked whether Tommy’s same-sex parents may be unknowingly influencing his questions about his gender.

“‘Undue influence on the child simply has to be ruled out,’ said psychiatrist Keith Ablow, a Fox News contributor. ‘It’s the psychologically correct thing to do, the ethical thing to do and the moral thing to do. Obviously, when two females adopt a male child, then assert that the child is not actually male, but is, instead, actually a female – like both of them. Everyone in the family should be psychologically evaluated in a comprehensive way before a step like gender reassignment is considered,’ said Ablow.”

But all this seems to mean nothing to these two selfish lesbians who not only want to remake society into their own image, but remake their own son into their distorted and troubled image. This is really part of a war which has been declared by the activists against our society and our children.

They will not stop until they have destroyed the social order completely and done irredeemable damage to our young people. They are on a search and destroy mission, targeting our communities and our children, and it is high time that we wake up to the very real dangers associated with this militant activist group.

For the sake of our children, we better start speaking up, and real soon.

www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/17/controversial-therapy-for-young-transgender-patients-raises-questions/

[1654 words]

12 Responses to Social Engineers and the Abuse of Children

  • Another appalling example of this occurred some years ago:

    “A lesbian couple in the US have provoked strong criticism by deliberately choosing to have a deaf baby.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1916462.stm

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Half way through your book Bill. I’m impressed so far – very well researched and written!

    Damien Spillane

  • Many thanks Damien.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • A lot of the driving force for this disastrous agenda is coming from the parliamentary wing of the homosexual lobby, the Greens.
    They seem to be unconcerned that on the one hand they consider it is perfectly OK for homosexual and lesbian couples to produce children; while on the other they see human populations increasingly as the principal cause of problems associated with the environment.
    If this is not a sufficient reason to have their bizarre behaviour certified as abnormal I don’t know what is.
    Dunstan Hartley

  • I agree with Damien.
    Ross McPhee

  • Some fantastic eye-opening testimonies here Bill. Can’t wait to read your book either 🙂

    Duane Proud

  • Thanks Bill for standing up and providing insight and wisdom that social reforms often carry unintended consequences, nowhere more so than in family policy.

    For your information Stephen Baskerville suggests in an exceedingly well researched and reference paper “The Real Danger of Same-Sex Marriage”, that a full appreciation for the implications of same-sex marriage likely is more likely if we examine it in the larger political context of marriage and the family.
    http://www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia.2005.6.htm#fn44

    He makes the point that same-sex “marriage” is a symptom, not a cause, of government’s larger effort to redefine the family.

    “the basic principle has been established for centuries and most emphatically in connection with what traditionalists themselves point out is the unique and foremost purpose of marriage and family: raising children.

    No known government, however brutal or tyrannical, has ever denied, in fact or principle, the fundamental claim of parents to their children…. A government that distributed children randomly… could not be other than tyrannical. … A government that paid no regard to the claims of biological parenthood would be unacceptable to all but the most fanatical of egalitarian or communitarian zealots

    same-sex marriage serves no useful social purpose; indeed, it is an absurdity. It attempts to apply gender interchangeability at precisely the point where gender difference demands that biological reality (motherhood) be reconciled to social necessity (fatherhood)

    Once marriage becomes detached from procreation, therefore, the entire system of domestic and social stability that marriage exists to foster unravels. Marriage then is no longer an autonomous and self-renewing institution, mediating the generational interface between public and private, and therefore limiting government power. Instead, it becomes merely a prize in the competition for power and one to be passed out by the very state it once served to control, a form of government patronage handed out to favored groups based on their relative power, like jobs or contracts. With this kind of marriage, the family no longer even renews itself naturally — its unique advantage over the state, according to Chesterton — since it cannot produce children of its own, but must take them from others.

    I am particularly disturbed with the concordance of gay marriage with the proposed family violence amendments which guarantees one parent, invariably the father (at first), will be removed from his children’s lives.

    Granting gay couples to the right to marry will inevitably confer the right to raise children, which by definition means giving at least one of the partners the right to raise someone else’s children, and the question arises whether the original parent or parents ever agreed to part with them or did something to warrant losing them.

    The vast majority of children of gay “parents” are created not by sperm donors or surrogate mothers but by divorce. Under the family violence amendments, which in effect presume the father guilty of family violence, now used interchangeably with child abuse, children can be removed from one of their natural parents through literally wrongdoing of that parent. The child with “two mommies” probably had his father forced out of the family by divorce.

    But what is most striking here is the absence of opposition. The genius of the feminist/homosexual extremists dominating social policy in this Govt is to vilify fathers in terms designed to incur the revulsion of decent people – “pedophiles,” “batterers,” “deadbeat dads”, “abusers” – and too many conservatives and Christians are being fooled.

    My apologies if I am sidetracking the gay marriage topic but it seems to me that these are both part of the same issue, namely, a direct and multi-pronged assault on the family at its most vulnerable point, fathers. It is father’s who are being removed and reduced to some sort of worker drone.

    Unilateral divorce has already torn apart families by the millions, and unchecked the family violence amendments with gay marriage will destroy the family altogether. The law will literally bribe Mothers to make allegations of domestic violence to legally seize the Father’s house, assets, kids and future income with any objections silence by a temporary protection order. 80% of child abuse occurs in single parent homes which will unavoidably increase.

    The “the divorce industry” and social services have virtually absolute power to take away people’s children without giving any reason, to confiscate their property, and to incarcerate them without trial, charge, or counsel. The more abuse they find the more money and power they get. This self-perpetuating cycle of abuse provides a significant revenue of children in need of adoption.

    “Destroy the family, and you destroy society.” (V. I. Lenin)

    Howard Beale

  • Thanks Howard

    Yes there is no question that the homosexual assault on the family is simply part of a much bigger war which has been declared against marriage and family. There are many fronts to this conflict, and all must be addressed.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

  • Minister Tom Kenyon on a recent ABC interview stated that in his opinion, same sex ‘marriage’ was not right (He is a Catholic). Matthew Abrahams, who was interviewing him, quite expertly boxed Mr. Kenyon into saying that Penny Wong could never claim the expected child as hers as there is no involvement physically from Penny Wong. He has been forced to apologise for his remarks, and I greatly fear that when (not if) same sex marriage comes to a vote, that Mr. Kenyon will feel obliged to vote Yes.
    Good to have you back in OZ!

    Joan Davidson

  • Thanks Bill for staying abreast of the issues.
    With civil union at the forefront of the media opinions are likely to get heated.

    I believe, for Christians, the difficulty and complexity of this issue operates on two basic levels – the individual and the communal level.

    On one hand, there is the argument that if we try to create policy that does not protect the freewill of the individual then we are in fact robbing those individuals of what it means to be human – God created individuals with free will choice and has respected those free will choices and the consequences of such choices, thus it seems almost ‘anti-God’ to restrict those who think and act differently to us from exercising their free will – regardless of how destructive it may be to them.
    Furthermore, creating and enforcing policy that protects a particular moral viewpoint may outwardly restrict individuals from violating that particular moral code, however it does not have any impact on the heart condition of those individuals nor does it offer any hope to them to be freed from the cancerous effects of sin that manifests itself through the acts they wish to endorse – only the love and grace of God, culminated in the redemptive work of Jesus can do that.

    However the flipside is whether allowing such policy will impinge on the freewill of others (particularly those without a voice e.g. children) and/or negatively impact society as a whole, thus contributing to sin’s destructive power at a community level. Given that marriage is so central to providing hope and love within our society and is designed to be a reflection of the unity that the Godhead itself experiences, thus serving to sanctify and grow the individuals involved and society as a whole, it is almost imperative that marriage be protected at all costs – not as an institution, but as a love covenant.

    These issues are seldom simple and the fact that they exist simply demonstrate the potency of sin within our society so that individuals and community groups as a whole become that distanced from love that they would find themselves in such a place of perversion. However it also challenges those on the side of love to question what it truly means to be in the centre of God’s love and how does that impact our desire and ability to love those who are deep bondage to sin.

    Although my heart pines to see men and women experience the fullness and joy of marriage as God designed it – for the sake of the individual and the community, i am also of the belief that a response to such issues that aims to protect a moral ideal rather than seeking to bring love, hope and life to those who are victims of sin and death will never be the right response.

    Damien Johnson

  • Thanks Damien

    I have dealt with these sorts of issues dozens of times on this site, so I will not repeat myself here. My short reply is that God ordained government to restrain evil and maintain justice (eg, Rom 13). So there is a very real place for public policy, law, government, etc, as a means by which God’s will and ways are manifest in this world. Of course it is not the only way.

    The state deals with crime while the church deals with sin. Both institutions are ordained by God, and may at times overlap. Sure, state legislation cannot change human hearts, only Christ can. But God chooses to use both to achieve his purposes in our fallen world. If Wilberforce thought that only evangelism was the way ahead, and that public policy could achieve nothing, then blacks would still be in chains today. He knew the value of both.

    Love and justice are both part of who God is, and we must seek to promote both in this world. So we pray for and witness to the abortionist, eg, but we also work to have laws which respect the sanctity of human life. Both means must be used: we seek to change the hearts of men by the power of the gospel, and we seek to implement godly laws to achieve a modicum of justice in this sin-affected world. There is no dichotomy between the two or contradiction. It is not a case of either/or, but both/and.

    But thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Leave a Reply