Saugatuck, MI., is a pleasant village on the shore of Lake Michigan. I’ve spent several nights there on my way home from speaking to teens and their parents in the Grand Rapids area. The first time, I had my cousin along for the trek. I made reservations at one of the local bed and breakfast establishments as a special treat. We were not disappointed. The village of Saugatuck is delightful: cottages with wide front porches, art stores, fine eateries, and the calm of lakeside living. We visited with everyone we met, including shop-keepers who were comfortable being “out.”
A year or so later, I returned, this time with my daughter-in-law and niece . I selected a different bed and breakfast for our night’s stay. By this time, it had been explained to me that Saugatuck is a popular weekend and summer destination for homosexual travelers from the cities. I guess it’s more than just a destination. For some, it’s their home. I know. The B & B I had chosen for Angie, Lisette and I was home to two women who greeted us, showed us to our rooms, and then invited us to come knock on their bedroom door should we need anything. Their obviously shared bedroom. As in “we are a couple” bedroom.
So, you might understand why I took special note when Saugatuck made national news. In June, the school board rejected a video for its eighth-grade anti-bullying program. The video’s title is: “Coming Out: What Every Teen (Gay and Straight) Needs to Know.” Some board members apparently would have supported the video for a sex-ed class, but noted that it had little to do with bullying.
Board member Jason Myers told the Holland Sentinel, “It’s about sexuality. We got sold on it as something more about bullying.” “This does little on the harassment and bullying component,” added board President Mike VanLoon. “It’s not the bulk of the video.”
Interested in what the homosexual community might have to say, I visited advocate.com. They reported that the vote was 5-2 against the video. Joan Lamb, board secretary, voted in favor of the video, noting that educational professionals had endorsed it and few parents opposed it. Steve Hutchins, who cast the other favorable vote, said Saugatuck’s demographics make it necessary for the school to address gay issues. Many businesses are owned by or cater to LGBT people. I remembered our B & B hosts.
Taking the demographics of Saugatuck into consideration, I find the school board’s vote curious. School boards across the country are under pressure. In a growing “gay community,” I wouldn’t have been surprised if the vote was 5-2 in favor of the video. Why?
Dan Savage is the founder of the “It Gets Better” anti-bullying campaign, widely seen in a variety of media outlets. But, has he adapted a bullying approach of his own — toward parents?
“The whole point of the campaign,” he said in an interview with Salon magazine, “is that we’re not waiting for permission anymore to talk to your kid, whether you want us to or not.”
Daniel Villarreal was just as candid as Savage in his article that appeared on the prominent New York homosexual blog Queerty in May. “I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach and expose children to queer sexuality.” Many things Savage said are unfit to quote, but the reason “gay activists want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality,” he said, is because “our future depends on it.”
It would appear that in the charming village of Saugatuck there is a battle of worldviews. The school board decision against a video that appeared to teach more about sexuality than anti-bullying may be evidence of conflict, but it is also evidence of hope. As activists for a behavior with harmful consequences push hard — and boldly — to indoctrinate our children and grandchildren, perhaps they are exposing their true agenda. They want nothing to do with abstinence education. They want nothing to do with real marriage or family values. But, they do want to teach children that they are “sexual from birth” and have every right to express their sexuality any way they choose. Maybe more and more parents are beginning to recognize the deception and danger.
Saugatuck is a beautiful place. I would like to visit there again. In the meantime, I want to think that the two women who hosted my daughter-in-law, niece and I in their home will continue to be hospitable. Good neighbors. Self-controlled. Not in favor of bullying parents… or indoctrinating children.
Excerpts from CITIZEN, August/September 2011 and http://www.advocate.com
Do you want your children under the instruction of Planned Parenthood or SIECUS?
Discover their worldview for yourself by visiting http://www.teenwire.org








Sexual Menu?
Posted in Biblical manhood & womanhood, Commentaries of others, Culture Shifts, Faith & Practice, Life issues, Parenting & Education, Relationships, tagged children, faithfulness, future of marriage, generations, harm, infidelity, Iowa, man, Mercatornet, monogamy, New York, parenting, same-sex marriage, sexual menu, social trends, suffering, woman on July 16, 2011| Leave a Comment »
I disagree. So does Michael Cook, the editor of Mercatornet. In his article of July 11, he asks: “Anything else on the menu?”
He offers three reasons why the legalization of same-sex “marriage” will, indeed, affect our culture. All come from authors featured in the New York Times. First, Michael Cook notes the commentary of Katherine M. Franke, a Columbia University law professor. She confessed that she really didn’t want to marry her long-time lesbian partner anyway. Why lose the flexibility and benefits of living as domestic partners? Cook quotes professor Franke, saying as far as she was concerned, “we think marriage ought to be one choice in a menu of options by which relationships can be recognized and gain security.”
“One choice in a menu of legally supported relationships?” Cook asks. “How long is the menu?”
Cook offers a second reason why legalizing same-sex “marriage” will impact society by highlighting another article in the Times by Ralph Richard Banks. Banks is a professor at Stanford Law School. What comes after gay “marriage”? Banks “puts his money on polygamy and incest” because legal prohibitions on either practice are losing strength. Society forbade them in the past because they were seen as “morally reprehensible;” therefore, society felt “justified in discriminating against them.” I follow Banks’ reasoning. Just as homosexual advocates are working hard to shift our thinking and normalize the behavior God calls a sin, so will advocates of polygamy and incest.
Two more behaviors, Cook notes, are added to the “menu of [sexual] options.”
The third reason why legalized same-sex “marriage” will have a domino affect on the culture is voiced by Dan Savage. The Times describes Savage as “America’s leading sex-advice columnist.” He is syndicated in at least 50 newspapers. Here’s what Cook writes about Savage. “Savage, who claims to be both ‘culturally Catholic’ and gay, thinks that gay couples have a lot to teach heterosexual couples, especially about monogamy. Idealising monogamy destroys families, he contends. Men are simply not made to be monogamous. Until feminism came along, men had mistresses and visited prostitutes. But instead of extending the benefits of the sexual revolution to women, feminism imposed a chastity belt on men. ‘And it’s been a disaster for marriage,’ he says. What we need, in his opinion, is relationships which are open to the occasional fling — as long as partners are open about it.”
Cook continues, “Traditional marriage — well, actually real marriage — is and has always been monogamous and permanent. There have been and always will be failures. But that is the ideal to which couples aspire. They marry ‘for better or worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part’. The expectation is exclusivity in a life-long commitment.”
Cook believes that legalization of same-sex “marriage” will most assuredly “affect the attitudes of young couples who are thinking of marriage a decade from now . . . it will be one of a number of options . . . they will have different expectations . . . marriage will include acceptance of infidelity, will not necessarily involve children, and will probably only last a few years.”
Advocates of same-sex “marriage” in New York say it’s good for marriage. Cook concludes:
“In a way, they’re right. Just as World War II was good for Germany because out of the ashes, corpses and rubble arose a heightened sense of human dignity and a democratic and peaceful government, same-sex marriage will heighten our esteem for real marriage. But in the meantime, the suffering will be great.”
Amen.
Mercatornet: Navigating modern complexities
Check it out!
Read Full Post »