LGBTQ+ Pride Fest is a Groomer Fest
Queer Advocates exist to queer the nation though propaganda and pushing the envelope. And their propaganda is working.
Pres. Barack Obama designated June to be LGBT Pride Month month in 2011, though Gay Pride Month had been around since 2000 when Bill Clinton established it.
Obama’s celebratory announcement contains all of the ambiguities and pieties that still govern the public presentation of LGBTQ+ Pride Month. On one hand, Pride advocates insist that Pride Month, Pride shows in the park, the parades, the story hours in the library, the dirty books for children are just about cultivating safety and supportive environments. On the other hand, the events point toward revolutionary change in what sex is and in what human beings are said to be.
This move from safety to celebration has been underway for decades. It is a deliberate rhetorical strategy from queer advocates. Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), delivered a speech to gay activists on March 5, 1995 laying out the strategy:
If the Radical Right can succeed in portraying us as preying on children, we will lose. Their language — 'promoting homosexuality' is one example — is laced with subtle and not-so-subtle innuendo that we are 'after their kids.' We must learn from the abortion struggle, where the clever claiming of the term 'pro-life' allowed those who opposed abortion on demand to frame the issue to their advantage, to make sure that we do not allow ourselves to be painted into a corner before the debate even begins. In Massachusetts the effective reframing of this issue was the key to the success of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth.
We immediately seized upon the opponent's calling card — safety — and explained how homophobia represents a threat to students' safety by creating a climate where violence, name-calling, health problems, and suicide are common. Titling our report 'Making Schools Safe for Gay and Lesbian Youth,' we automatically threw our opponents onto the defensive and stole their best line of attack. This framing short-circuited their arguments and left them back-pedaling from day one.
Under Jennings’s leadership, GLSEN developed “Safe Space Kits” and began to supply them free of charge to schools and corporations. These kits recommended the establishment of ally clubs, playing short films, and using gay-friendly lesson plans and special LGBTQ+ themed books in classes. They were all designed to address anti-LGBTQ+ prejudice. It was all about safety!
But, here is the rub. LGBTQ+ students can only be safe if there is a complete revolution in human affairs. They can only be safe if propaganda promotes a new, anti-marriage, queer ethic for all students. A heterosexual ethic is a dangerous ethic, according to this view. Children have to question their gender identity. Children have to admit that they are attracted to all manner of other students. Children must respect and celebrate sexual deviants. When Heather has two mommies that is great too.
As one activist writes, “We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it. . . .I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality and there’s nothing wrong with that” (emphasis is in the original). So it goes.
Perhaps in the 1990s it was possible to take the safety argument seriously and to believe that gays just wanted tolerance. The mask is now completely off. There is nothing accidental about Pride shows featuring men prancing about as sexualized women in front of children. There is nothing accidental about drag story hours. Queer advocates are coming for the kids in dozens of ways.
We are right to call this effort to propagandize children “grooming.” Individual teachers may not be readying or grooming individual students for sexual activity (though this is not unheard of). Individual drag performers may not want to have sex with or grope individual children. Queer advocates are readying or grooming students generally for a lifetime celebrating queer sexuality as the legitimate public expression of sexuality. They are grooming children to question their sexual identities. They are grooming children into earlier and earlier sex. They want children to consume pornography. They want children to embrace exotic dancing. Our schools are, as James Lindsay has shown in a penetrating and very long series of podcasts, groomer schools. Our Pride fests are, in fact, groomer fests.
Why do they want to groom children into such activities? Answer: Because they want adults to practice a lifetime of queer non-marital sexuality.
Perhaps we could not muster the courage to pass laws protecting children from such grooming today. But we still have obscenity laws on the books to prosecute child groomers. These laws are a fortunate inheritance from our wiser and more decent ancestors. Perhaps we can once again live up to the marital ethic they sought to promote with these laws.
And people who protect such things never seem bad to me.