The attempted normalization of homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, bisexual, questioning, or polyamorous "marital" arrangements has changed everything. Where once we would have said that a pre-school picture book with scenes of families (with a mommy and a daddy) going about their daily activities was NOT about sex, once a two-daddy family is included, it IS about sex -- even for the traditional families portrayed.Do you follow her logic? Who is talking about polyamorous martial arrangements, are we in Utah now? Does it make sense when she says showing two daddies in a cartoon book is talking about sex but a mommy and a daddy is not? What kind of sick & perverted mind would think this way? (of course she's trying to make us think that children think this way) She goes on:
From the time a child comes into the world, he observes his parents (one male, one female) interact. Sometimes they hug or kiss. And yes, he registers the fact that they sleep in the same bed. And sometimes the bedroom door is locked and he hears noises. This is a child's normal introduction to sex. It is simply put before him in the context of normal, healthy family activities. Pictures of a normal two-parent family in a picture book do convey a message to the child: This is a family.YIKES! Is that why I'm gay because I didn't hear my parents have sex? This is sick stuff, NOISES!! This is a normal introduction to sex? My parents are heterosexual, how come I'm gay? Is it because I didn't hear there noises? But wait, there's more:
If a young child is presented with a novel, unusual image of a family, with two mommies or two daddies (or three daddies?), the child will naturally next wonder if they kiss and hug and share a bed. How do they make babies? It's the perversion of normal relations that brings in SEX on a level beyond that a kindergartner should be dealing with. Then, it becomes a lesson on SEX at a level covered by state law protecting parental rights.Three daddies? She must have meant a mommy & daddy and Msgr. Eugene Clark, now that's a family. She then assumes a child's mind will go from seeing two mommies to imagining two mommies getting it on in the same bed, is she for real? I remember my childhood, it was about playing games and bothering my sister, there were no thoughts of sex although I used to dream about Robin, of Batman & Robin, and I wanted to be friends with him. The kicker is the last paragraph:
The Parker case is about "coercive indoctrination" of vulnerable, very young children. The homosexual activists know how powerful images are in their brainwashing campaign. That's why they're putting this book into little children's hands without parental knowledge.If you haven't followed the Parker drama, the book in question was part of a diversity book bag which was OPTIONAL. Additionally, it was talked about at a school meeting in which at least one of the Parker's attended when the parents were told the diversity book bag was OPTIONAL and they could OPT OUT of it. But they didn't. I really recommend you read her entire entry, it is quite shocking and give a lot of insight to the individual who wrote it.