WARNING!!! This is graphic stuff and NOT meant for children’s eyes.
Planned Parenthood, contrary to their claims, does all they can to break down children’s natural modesty in order to get them addicted to sex. American Life League has done a masterful job at putting it all together.
H/T Jill Stanek
Coming Home 
I have been spreading this link far and wide and will continue to do so. It is imperative that the average American see this. Thank you!
That was one scary video. Good grief.
WHOA! I had NO idea Planned Parenthood was this perverted! GREAT POST, Gerard! Thank you for making us aware!
If Planned Parenthood is really trying to “encourage increased homosexuality,” then how does this fit into their business model of “hooking kids on sex” to sell more birth control and abortions?
As far as I know, gay people don’t need any of that.
A bit disingenuous of you, L. The birth control/abortion paradigm holds up for girls. For boys, PP knows damned well that gays have frighteningly high STD rates compared to heterosexuals. So they get to do STD testing and treatment, and if PP Gulf Coast is indicative, they double-bill the government for their services.
But lesbians have very low STD rates, and don’t need birth control or abortion — it would seem foolish to cut out a big swatch of their customer base. They should at least encourage bisexuality, since bisexual women have a much higher sexually-transmitted disease rate than lesbians.
And did you notice that the “restructure family/encourage increased homosexuality” quotation was from back in 1969?Did they have to go back more than 40 years to find something like that?
Anyway, you know I’m a big fan of PP and I share their values, so I don’t expect you to take anything I say seriously.
I thought the video was very funny and I posted it on my own blog, but didn’t link to yours, so that none of my sex-positive, femi-Nazi commenters would come here and leave you more comments — mine is enough. More than enough — probably too much. I had stopped commenting, but I guess I gave self-restraint up for Lent. Have a good night!
L.,
Why should PP encourage any particular form of sexual behavior?
As for your contention that lesbians have very low rates of STD’s, the CDC states otherwise:
Read the rest here.
The CDC states that women who has sex with women shouldn’t be “presumed” to be at low/no risk — which is a good idea, when you’re treating individuals and not statistics.
That’s especially true because bisexual women have higher rates than “pure” lesbians. I found the study I was thinking of: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4365/is_14_41/ai_n29455577/
There’s a difference between “encouraging” and “enabling,” and I think PP does the latter.
Of course, since I am a very sex-positive person and am raising my children to hopefully share my values, some would say “encouraging” and “enabling” are in fact one and the same. But I see a difference. If my kids want to remain virgins until marriage, that’s up to them — but I let them know why I don’t think that’s a good idea, based on my personal experience.
Honestly, I don’t think PP needs to “encourage” sex. We humans are pretty capable of working up enthusiasm for it all by ourselves.
I’m sex positive, too! But only as long as it’s within marriage. Why expose children to heartache, disease and mental instability in the name of “social progress?” This is so sad…I’m sorry that Girl Scouts has any ties to this radical organization. I always thought it was unfair that my church (LDS) didn’t provide a Girl Scout program like it provides Boy Scouts. Now I think I understand why…PP is terrible!
Dr. Nadal,
What better way to lock people into all manner of confusion by encouraging any and every conceivable form of sexual activity at younger and younger ages? And what better way to reduce the human population by encouraging addictive (which it can be) sexual behavior that doesn’t result in reproduction of the species? Furthermore, the transmission of STDs through wanton sexual contact with multiple-gendered partners further ensures fewer people making it here due to damaged reproductive functioning. If PP’s aim is to reduce the number of people in the world, they are on the way to achieving their goal.
Yes, people enjoy sexual contact for a reason: God intended for humanity to be fruitful and multiply, and was kind enough to make the process enjoyable. What He didn’t intend was for that process to be skewed into an activity that would actually prevent the original end result…
Unfortunately, I think the discussion has been hijacked from the true question regarding homosexuality & the overall subject of reproductive health. No one in this country has a right to do whatever they want. That is a ridiculous and childish argument akin to “everyone else is doing it, so it’s OK”. The real question we should be asking is: Are we as a people going to consider homosexuality a mental / genetic disorder or not? It doesn’t really matter what angle the pro-homosexual movement uses (genetic vs. choice, ie. mental), the fundamental question is still the same.
I’m a heathen, so I have to come at this question from an evolutionary point of view, since we’re all just animals who have evolved intelligence. As far as good ole mother nature is concerned, sex is only to procreate the species, therefor heterosexual sex is the preferred & dominant genetic material. Anything else is considered, by nature, to be anti-thematic to evolution.
As a society, we have the right to decide if this is a behavior we can afford to tolerate (think post war when a society is trying to rebuild) and/or if this is a behavior we want to consider normal.
Once we have made this decision, then everything else becomes clear. If the society as a whole (or vast majority) feels this behavior is abnormal and detrimental, then we appropriately treat it as a mental/genetic disorder. If we all decide that it should be normal & isn’t detrimental, then we rearrange some document wordings.