Equality Maine is at it again, trying to distort people's perception of same sex marriage by calling supporters of marriage liars. Here's what I mean:

This recent ad from Stand for Marriage Maine makes a valid accusation against the Equality Maine organizers, namely, that Equality Maine had tried to push homosexual teaching in Maine schools back in 2005. In 2009, of course, they push for same sex marriage and push acceptance to neuter marriage where man and woman become meaningless attributes.

Stand for Marriage Maine rightly points out that if same sex marriage is adopted in Maine, the next step will be to push the gay agenda into schools. (Of course, homosexuals and gay rights advocates are fond of telling me "there is no gay agenda." Political activism to neuter marriage isn't an agenda? Give me a bag.)

Equality Maine flatly rejects the Stand for Marriage Maine "attack" on same sex marriage. They seemingly deny that Maine will never allow teaching same sex marriage and acceptance of homosexuality in the school system. Yet, what are they really saying? Here's the basis of discontent from Maine's attorney general:

Maine Attorney General Janet Mills ruled last week that the new law would not force schools to teach same-sex marriage, and in the wake of that ruling, gay marriage advocates want the ad taken off the air. (MyFoxMaine.com)

In effect, those in Equality Maine say that because, in the past, Maine rejected teaching same sex marriage in schools, that, in the future, Maine will reject teaching same sex marriage in the schools.

This is all smoke and mirrors. Gay activists have continually denied that they would push for teaching same sex marriage in schools. (Truth be told, back in 2003, gay activists vehemently denied they would push for same sex marriage. Look where that "promise" has led us. But I digress.) Yet, all we need is one instance where gay activists have pushed to teach same sex marriage in schools to disqualify Equality Maine's objection. Here's only one example from Massachusetts, where same sex marriage is legal:

Massachusetts parents infuriated that their second graders were read King & King, a fairy tale about two gay princes, are suing the school and the teacher in federal court. The parents say schools are violating their religious freedom. But in Massachusetts, where gay marriage is legal, public school officials say they not only can talk about gay couples, they are required to. (NPR)

How about this recent gem? This comes from an NPR radio interview with a Massachusetts teacher who not only taught about same sex marriage to her grade school class, but also taught about some of the finer points of lesbian sex and sex toys:

“I know that, OK, this is legal now. If somebody wants to challenge me I say give me a break.” — Deb Allen, Teacher (Beetle Blogger)

Will passing a law in Maine to allow same sex marriage open the door to laws and school policy changes to teach same sex marriage in schools?

You know it. I know it. Gay activists know it. We know it because this is exactly what gay activists want, complete acceptance and normalization of homosexual behavior and homosexual sex. In their dogmatic zeal, they will gladly hide one intention to gain another advantage. They will shout "You lie!" from the rooftops about same sex education in schools, all the while hiding behind their push to normalize the idea that two men or two women can also make a marriage.

Yet, Equality Maine and other political entities pushing to legalize neutering marriage dance the same dance, all the while producing volumes of smoke and roomfuls of mirrors in their zeal to bash those who think marriage ought to remain between a man and a woman.

Is this what you want, people of Maine? Do you want to help gay activists neuter marriage and, in some near future, teach your children that homosexual sex is all right?

Visit Stand for Marriage Maine by clicking on their banner and make a stand against the smoke and mirrors of gay activists.

Voters of Maine - Beware!

Once you stand up to protect marriage, vote yes on 1, and successfully pass a legal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, you will open the door for gay activists to stab at constitutional government.

What? Is that right? How does that work? How does defending marriage lead to gay activists challenging the foundations of US government?

Here's an example of the lengths gay activists will go: After Proposition 8 passed in California, gay activists took to the streets to protest - an understandable reaction for a group who think that their "rights" have been taken away. However, taking to the streets in this case, meant threatening others, unrestrained rage and destruction of property.

More egregious, however, was the huge backlash against the religious community for supporting the institution of marriage. The Mormons still take flak for taking a stand to protect marriage. (For example, note Keith Olbermann's recent diatribe against a Mormon general leader who supports the institution of marriage.)

"So what?" you say. Perhaps you could care less about religion and the religious. All right, but what about the backlash against the black community? Exit polls showed seventy percent of the black people in California voted to uphold marriage, in favor of Proposition 8. The result? Gay activists blamed the black community for their "insensitivity" to gay "rights." ("Blacks and Latinos are being blamed for helping put Prop. 8 over the top. Only the Mormon Church has been slammed harder, by loud and passionate crowds." LA Weekly)

"Okay," you say. "That can't happen in Maine. We're nothing like California. We know that marriage is between a man and a woman, and we'll settle this once and for all."

 Yet gay activism doesn't hold the view that elections settle anything. Gay activists will use any means to get at the institution of marriage that they deem necessary. This includes tactics that are outright dangerous to constitutional government.

Directly after last year's election in California, gay activists started an online campaign to publish the names and addresses of those who supported Proposition 8 with money. Besides setting a dangerous precedent for elections (a sort of payback against people you don't agree with), the action violates the very principles that gays strive to promote.

Homosexuals, as a group, have pushed for gay "rights" by arguing to interpret the concept of constitutional privacy. This "right to privacy" was established through such means as the court decision Roe v. Wade, where the Supreme Court created a woman's right to privacy and included the right to abortion within that right to privacy. In 2003, in the case Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas sodomy laws were unconstitutional, that homosexuals could engage in homosexual sex without constraint of law because those laws invaded the privacy of homosexuals.

Gay activism now bases many of its ideas of rights on the establishment of the Supreme Court conjured right to privacy. Gay activists argue that marriage is a private matter, and not a public one, in order to throw the weight of the right to privacy against the institution of marriage.

Yet gay activists are perfectly happy to break their sacred right to privacy, when it suits them politically, by publishing names of individual donors in an election. This tactic, while not unconstitutional, does eat away at the very idea of privacy that homosexuals depend on to exist as a protected class of citizens. In effect, gay activists imply that they have a right to privacy, while anyone who doesn't agree with them has no such right to privacy.

It gets worse. A group of gay activists have attacked the very institution of constitutional government and rule of law in their zeal to strike down Proposition 8.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker opened the gates to hell this month when he ruled that strategists for Proposition 8...must release internal campaign documents to measure opponents. (San Francisco Chronicle)

What? Is that right? A US District judge has ordered those who wrote Proposition 8, to release documents to determine if they were prejudiced in writing Proposition 8? Here's the dangerous implication:

Political activists of all stripes beware: Unless this ruling is overturned, the word will be out that sore losers who can't beat you at the ballot box and probably can't beat you in court can file a lawsuit designed to pry away proprietary information that they later can use to embarrass you. (San Francisco Chronicle)

Embarrassment is the least of the problems this strategy opens.

The plaintiffs - two same-sex couples, a gay rights organization and the city of San Francisco - cite a previous federal ruling to argue that if the court finds that Prop. 8 backers were motivated by discrimination, then the court can strike down the measure without having to decide if gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry. (San Francisco Chronicle)

This is the danger. This is the heart of gay activists who will stop at nothing to gain neutered marriage. This law flaunts the intent and purpose of rule of law to create rule of expediency. Make no mistakes about this, gay activists now attempt to get rid of an unwanted law by circumventing the entire constitutional process.

The slippery slope of this law suit staggers the mind. If anyone can challenge a law based on the "bias" of its backers, then any and all laws can be struck down. Why? Because all laws are backed through a process of bias, assumption, and discrimination.

Gay activists cry for equality, yet will not allow dissenters the same privilege.

Voters of Maine beware. This is what awaits you if you don't give in to gay activism and its demands to neuter marriage. You and your laws will be treated with the same contempt as those who supported Proposition 8 in California. The question is, will you give in to expediency? Or will you stand firm in the defense of an institution you know is the foundation of society?

Remember Maine's own values on marriage and the family:

 “The union of one man and one woman joined in traditional monogamous marriage is of inestimable value to society; the State has a compelling interest to nurture and promote the unique institution of traditional monogamous marriage in the support of harmonious families and the physical and mental health of children; and that the State has the compelling interest in promoting the moral values inherent in traditional monogamous marriage.” [1997, c. 65, §2 (NEW).]

 Is this no longer true for the people of Maine?

Once upon a time there was a cabinet maker. He produced fine, wood cabinets for the people of his village and they all came to him whenever they needed a cabinet for their home. He took great pride in producing cabinets, using wood from two different trees and fitting the crafted pieces together into a seamless union. His cabinets had many drawers and room enough to protect the things the villagers needed to store. The cabinets were strong and useful, built to last a lifetime.

Many villagers were glad to have a useful and beautiful cabinet in their home. The villagers used the cabinet's drawers to protect their possessions from dirt and bugs, filth and corruption. With care, a cabinet lasted a lifetime, protecting the villagers' possessions and making the villagers happy.

Yet, over the years, the cabinet maker discovered that many of the villagers didn't properly care for their cabinets. They no longer realized that even the best-made cabinets needed care and protection. Instead, some villagers left their cabinets exposed to the weather, to dry and crack. Some left their cabinets exposed to rot and filth. Termites ate away at others. Neglected, many of the cabinets broke to pieces. Some villagers even destroyed their cabinets outright in fits of anger or abuse. Some left their cabinets empty and unused, then threw them away because they could find no use for them.

Many villagers, whose cabinets decayed, blamed the cabinet maker for not building the cabinets strong enough. Even more villagers blamed the cabinets themselves, thinking that cabinets weren't worth the price and care needed to maintain them. Of course, the corrupted and broken cabinets weren't the cabinet maker's, nor the cabinet's fault. Neither were responsible for the villagers' neglect or abuse.

The cabinet maker shook his head in sad bewilderment at the villagers who blamed him or his fine cabinets. In neglecting or abusing the cabinets, the villagers blamed everyone but themselves.

One day, a stranger came to town, telling every villager he met that he, too, was a cabinet maker. He told the villagers that his cabinets were new and improved. The new cabinets, he assured the villagers, were much better than the old ones they were used to. He pointed to the broken and decaying old cabinets as proof that the villagers needed new and improved cabinets. According to the stranger, as soon as he set up shop to sell his new cabinets, the villagers certainly would not want any other kind.

The stranger soon showed up at the cabinet maker's door. The two shared few pleasantries, the cabinet maker finding himself in a quick and tense conversation with his new competitor.

"I understand you have a new cabinet you are trying to sell the people," the cabinet maker said.

"That's right," said the stranger. "My cabinets are newer and better than yours and soon everyone will want one. Your cabinets are now obsolete."

"We'll see," said the cabinet maker. " Do you have one of your new cabinets you can show me?"

The stranger pulled one of his cabinets out of the back of his truck and set it in front of the cabinet maker.

The cabinet maker was startled. In front of him was, not a cabinet, but an end table. "That's not a cabinet," he said. "That's an end table."

"No, you're wrong," the stranger said. "This is a new and improved cabinet and soon everyone will want one."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "it has no drawers. How can it be a cabinet without drawers? It cannot protect the villagers' possessions without drawers."

"Drawers are obsolete," the stranger said. "No one really cares about drawers anymore and those that do happen to need drawers can just stack them underneath the cabinet."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "it is made from only one tree and therefore is weak and cannot support the weight the villagers will place on it."

"Using two trees is old-fashioned. No one really believes that you need two trees to make a cabinet anymore. And besides, no one really expects cabinets to hold any weight anyway."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "it is a side table, not a cabinet. No one will buy this!"

The stranger got angry with the cabinet maker. "You are just an old man with stupid old ideas about cabinets! I will make sure your old and stupid ideas don't stop me from selling my cabinets!" With that the stranger packed up his side table and left.

The next day, the constable showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "The stranger filed a complaint against you," the constable said. "He said you were rude and unfair to him and wouldn't allow him to sell his cabinets to the villagers."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What the stranger makes are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The constable got angry with the cabinet maker. "That's just what he said you'd say. I'm citing you for unfair business practices and hate speech." With that the constable handed a citation to the cabinet maker and left.

Soon after, the stranger showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "You stupid, ignorant old man, what do you have to say about my cabinets now?"

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What you make are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The stranger got even more angry than the first time. "You are not only stupid and ignorant, you are a liar!" With that the stranger left.

The next day, the magistrate showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "I will declare from the magistrate's bench that your refusal to acknowledge the stranger's cabinet is unconstitutional, unfair, and takes away his civil rights. If you don't agree, you'll lose your business license and will never make cabinets again."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What the stranger makes are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The magistrate got angry with the cabinet maker. "Are you implying that I don't recognize unfair and unconstitutional acts when I see them? I'm declaring the stranger's civil rights from the magistrate's bench whether you like it or not!" With that the magistrate left.

Soon after, the stranger showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "You bigoted moron, what do you have to say about my cabinets now?"

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What you make are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The stranger got even more angry than the second time. "You are not only bigoted and a moron, you are a filthy liar!" With that the stranger left.

The next day, the mayor showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "I will pass a law that says that anything the stranger makes is indeed a cabinet. If you don't agree, you'll lose your business license and will never make cabinets again."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What the stranger makes are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The mayor got angry with the cabinet maker. "Are you implying that I'm getting paid off by the stranger to make these laws? I'm passing that law whether you like it or not!" With that the mayor left.

Soon after, the stranger showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "You old, decrepit cretin, what do you have to say about my cabinets now?"

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What you make are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The stranger got even more angry than the third time. "You are not only an old cretin, you are a filthy $&%**#$ scumbag liar!" With that the stranger left.

The next day, a student showed up at the cabinet maker's door. "My teacher told me that you don't believe in cabinets."

"But," the cabinet maker said, "you don't understand. What the stranger makes are not cabinets but side tables. They use wood from only one tree and have no drawers."

The student shrugged her shoulders. "Whatever, old dude. You are just as bigoted as the stranger said you'd be. Your ideas are soooooo yesterday!" With that the student left.

The cabinet maker sighed and went back inside his house. He continued to make proper cabinets, using two trees and building lots of drawers, just in case any of the villagers could still tell the difference between a cabinet and a side table.

---

A side table cannot be a cabinet. Same sex marriage cannot be marriage. Help protect the institution of marriage from those who would change and neuter its definition, and remember, marriage isn't merely an agreement between adults, it is an institution to protect children. Consider donating a few dollars to help Maine preserve the foundational institution of marriage. Click on the Yes on 1 link to make a donation.

From Euripides

 

Maine voters got more than they bargained for with a battle heating up over whether the state should allow same sex marriages. As a word of caution, be aware and beware the language the news media uses to describe the question of marriage. More often than not, the language shows a distinct bias against the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Here are a few examples from Fox 23, My Fox Maine which demonstrates the biased and sometimes inflammatory language that Maine's media uses to push its own pro-gay viewpoint. Unfortunately, It does this at the expense of the real debate, the protection of marriage and the family. Instead the media buys into the idea that same sex marriage is the only fair and natural version of marriage and will somehow be good for the country.

The first example is the headline: "Gay Marriage Foes Reach Signature Goal in Maine" (MyFOXMaine). Notice how those who think marriage is a union between a man and a woman are here characterized as "Gay Marriage Foes." Implied is that those who believe in natural marriage are somehow at fault for not agreeing with same sex marriage.

The end of the article, the "selling point" argument that news writers use to make their main point says this: "Six states allow gay marriage. Maine became the fifth state to allow gay marriage in May, and New Hampshire later followed suit" (MyFOXMaine). While giving the appearance of being informative, it also implies, by its placement as the final paragraph, that this is the way Maine ought to be - counted as the "progressive" states which have legalized same sex marriage. Yet, think about it. Is this the what the people of Maine really want? Is neutering marriage through language that no longer recognizes male or female, bride or groom, man or woman, is this progressive thought? Does legal language that does not recognize the unique differences of the sexes in marriage warrant such devotion from the people of Maine?

Additionally, by calling same sex marriage "gay marriage" the news media has also conceded the idea that homosexuals are a protected class of citizens. This special class desires special protection under the law, instead of equal protection as required by the 14th amendment to the US Constitution. Trying to change the nature of marriage itself is an example of such special consideration under the law.

Here's another example:

Stand for Marriage Maine, the group pushing for a people's veto of the new state law legalizing same-sex marriage, has launched a television ad (MyFOXMaine).

This story falls under another "Gay Marriage Foes" headline - FOX 23's established moniker for those who support marriage in the state. Notice, again, the language as an attack on those who support marriage between a man and a woman. Using words such as "pushing" indicates a negative connotation, as if the people of Maine wanted the poor law their legislators and governor created. Contrary to the news media's expectations, a vast majority of the people in Maine support marriage as a union between a man and a woman. By legalizing same sex marriage, who pushed whom?

In the same story, the "selling point" paragraph shows another offensive tactic:

The No on 1 campaign has fired back, says voters should "focus on the real issue of treating all families with dignity and respect" (MyFOXMaine).

Here the media actually changes the real issue: should marriage be defined as a union between a man and a woman? Yet the media and gay activists insist on throwing out a red herring which implies that anyone who doesn't agree with same sex marriage is also against "treating all families with dignity and respect."

Here's the problem with the argument: Those who want to change marriage, to make it into something it is not, have shown absolutely no dignity or respect for the institution of marriage and for families created from such a union. With no regard for an institution as old as history itself, gay activists now want to hijack marriage for their own, selfish goals.

Another interesting example:

Opponents of a new law legalizing same-sex marriage in Maine have recruited the help of the California public relations firm Schubert Flint Public Affairs, which led the successful Proposition 8 proposal to overturn gay marriage in that state (MyFOXMaine).

This is the media's attempt to demonize those supporting marriage by implying that they have no business bringing in big, corporate support to force the issue against the will of the people of Maine.

Before decrying the tactics, however, consider the heavy-handed tactics gay activists use. For example, the primary website promoting "No On 1" which calls itself a "grassroots" organization, was created and registered by AP Campaigns, PO Box 15007, Washington, District Of Columbia 20003. AP Campaigns is a company that lobbies in Washington, DC on behalf of gay issues, and now lobbies in Maine.

Consider, as well, the huge list of national gay activist supporters that the No on 1 campaign proudly displays on their website. These include such groups as GLSEN, Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund, Lambda Legal, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. The point of mentioning this list is to demonstrate the breadth of national involvement to try and overthrow the institution of marriage. The Maine news media trying smear marriage defenders by drawing attention to its supporters simply neglects the other side of the story.

As if these "grassroots" lobbyists aren't enough, Beetle, a fellow blogger, notes that various groups in California plan to campaign in Maine, bringing in outside gay activists to protest, organize phone campaigns, and plan paid "vacations" in Maine for a "get-out-the-vote" organized by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (Beetle Blogger). Consider that many, if not most, of the gay activists demanding "marriage equality" in Maine, don't live in Maine.

Like it or not, same sex marriage is an issue that has implications across the country. Just don't be fooled by those news and website outlets who profess that their same sex marriage campaign is anything but an organized attempt to convince the people of Maine of support that simply does not exist in Maine.

Don't be fooled and don't be taken in by the attack language of Maine's media and "grassroots" proponents of same sex marriage. They are out to bamboozle you with bias and bigotry. They will offer half-truths and inflammatory language. They will throw red herrings along the way to get Maine voters focused on anything but the issue of supporting the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

When considering what's at stake with marriage, I encourage you to vote in favor of protecting this fundamental institution.

From Euripides

To the Gay Community:

We, at the Monogamous and Heterosexual Education Network (MOHEN) have filed a federal class-action lawsuit against the discriminatory practices of the gay community and 27 of its politically active organizations. In the lawsuit, we raise the concern of 752 plaintiffs who have been disenfranchised from the gay community simply because they were not lesbian, homosexual, bisexual, or transgendered.

In the lawsuit, we argue that the social category "gay" is discriminatory and excludes any heterosexuals who want to express a caring and loving relationship without being homosexual. The belief that only same sex couples may participate in being gay is discriminatory and is therefore legally unjustifiable.

Gayness does not imply protected class status. That’s a false notion held within the gay community. Gayness is simply a variation of sexual practice. MOHEN argues that the heterosexual plaintiffs only want equal rights for themselves and for their children within the gay community. Both our Constitution and morality require it.

Those of us who support gay heterosexual equality realize that gays hold a bigoted view that discriminates against a specific group of citizens. Those who want to discriminate against heterosexual, monogamous couples in the granting of gay rights don’t want to be made to feel uncomfortable in their bigotry. We recognize, however, that such feelings will come with the territory since gays hold a bigoted point of view. They need to get used to it.

What we ask for is simple. All we want is inclusion into the gay community as heterosexuals. We want to express our love and devotion to each other without the bitter stigma of not being gay. We want our rights as members of the gay community: to express our feelings to each other as heterosexual members of the gay community.

We agree with Keith Olbermann when he said:

"Why does this matter to you? What is it to you? In a time of impermanence and fly-by-night relationships, these people over here want the same chance at permanence and happiness that is your option. They don't want to deny you yours. They don't want to take anything away from you. They want what you want—a chance to be a little less alone in the world." (MSNBC)

We also ask the questions: How does keeping heterosexuals out of the gay community have any impact on homosexual behavior? What are you afraid of? How can having a gay monogamous heterosexual possibly affect your personal lives?

Therefore, we call upon gay activists everywhere to open their hearts and allow monogamous heterosexuals to join the gay community and be called gay.

---

A Note from Euripides:
Those of you who have stuck through this post without vomiting, surely realize what point I make here. Substitute the concepts of same sex marriage and notice the same arguments gay activists use in order to push their ideas of same sex marriage on the people of the US.

One argument conveniently tossed aside by gay activists is the argument against changing the definition of marriage. This post shows an analogy which validates the definition change argument. Just as there is no such thing as a gay monogamous heterosexual, there is equally no such thing as same sex marriage.

Marriage is not merely a legal definition but includes a social aspect. What this means is that, since society has always defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, gay activists indeed try to change the definition to suit their political goals.

Now stop searching Google to find MOHEN's lawsuit.

New research shows that homosexual men and women do not suffer harm through counseling to change homosexual behavior. Though my gay friends won't agree with the source of the claim out of principle, the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality announced the new findings in the Journal of Human Sexuality.

"This research is a significant milestone when it comes to the scientific debate over the issue of homosexuality," said NARTH president Dr. Julie Hamilton. "It also confirms what we have seen evidenced in hundreds of individuals who have benefited from the help of NARTH therapists. We believe that every person should have the right to independently determine their own course in life and for many that involves seeking counseling options that affirm their personal beliefs." (NARTH)

Though pro-gay and worded in the negative, the American Psychiatric Association admits that previous research was inconclusive.

To date, there has been no scientifically adequate research to show that therapy aimed at changing sexual orientation (sometimes called reparative or conversion therapy) is safe or effective. (APA)

The NARTH research is good news for those who find themselves confused about expressing homosexual behavior and who wish to reject homosexual behavior according to their personal beliefs. It is also good news for faith-based programs that reach out to homosexuals who desire to change their behavior. Homosexuals no longer have to feel pressure from gay activists and gay propaganda that they have no control over their lives and choices.

This movie p*ssed me off.

No, I haven't suddenly turned into a movie critic, nor am I planning a whole series of movie reviews, nor am I likely to take up any reviews of Hollywood or movie stars or even famous people. (Go back into my archives and see how many times I blogged about Michael Jackson, for example.) (OK, I did talk about Kim Kardashian once, but I can explain that.)

The simple reason I tackle Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs is because the movie made me angry.

First of all, I paid money to take my family and see the movie. That makes me surly and a bit curmudgeonly, but that doesn't make me angry. I found the movie's storytelling to be laborious and dull. That makes me bored, wondering when the movie will end, but it doesn't make me angry. I found the characterization shallow, the exposition blatant, and the premise unbelievable. That makes me dislike the movie but it doesn't make me angry.

No, what made me angry about the movie is the insidious anti-family message buried within an animated film aimed directly at children.

Of course, this isn't the only movie that's ever chiseled away at family values. Hollywood has no end of such films. The anti-family messages in this movie are hidden and completely destructive of family values. Parents and children could go to this movie and never realize the movie-makers had hidden their anti-family agenda within it. Except the agenda wasn't clever or particularly well hidden.

I should give you a spoiler alert but since I recommend that you avoid this movie, I could care less if I ruin anything for you. Seriously, don't watch this film. Don't take your children. This movie is offensive to parents. This movie is offensive to families.

Offense 1 - Selfish Obsession
In the first Ice Age movie, the character Scrat is funny and provides a cute side story to the main story. In the current movie, the writers seem to have forgotten what made Scrat funny in the first place. Scrat chases after his beloved acorn, only to have it stolen by a female version of Scrat - Scratte. The two fight over the acorn throughout the movie (losing any comedy in the process). Scrat and Scratte finally end up together, the acorn long forgotten. They share a happy time with each other until the end of the movie. In a final scene, Scratte stereotypes a witchy wife who makes Scrat move the couch around their new home. Scrat hates the work, sees the acorn out of the window and, of course, obsesses about it again. He and Scratte fight over the acorn again, Scrat dumps his "wife" for the acorn, succeeds in escaping with it, only to lose the acorn and his love.

Moral: In a relationship, it's all right to be selfish and think only of your own needs above those of your partner. As long as what you do makes you happy, no one else matters. Not even your wife.

Offense 2 - Stupid Males
The two woolly mammoths, Ellie and Manny, are going to have a baby together. When the group goes to rescue Sid the sloth, Ellie is the first to jump into danger, showing how strong the woman can be, then bogs down the entire group when the baby arrives at an inopportune time. Manny becomes the stereotypical man who lacks any common sense or ability and must be directed by the woman or by Diego in order to show any sort of brains. Ellie is saved by Diego who can't seem to quite help out and needs the strong woman to finally get rid of the evil predator dinosaurs.

Moral: Without women, men are useless. This, of course, has been a main theme of Hollywood for years. Will Hollywood stop with this "role reversal" when men become completely emasculated and women dominate? Probably not, since Hollywood thrives on maintaining sex and class warfare as its bread and butter.

Offense 3 - Gay Is OK
Hollywood has taken up the homosexual meme and now feels it is time to promote homosexuality at all levels of film. Ice Age is replete with homosexual innuendo, dumbed down to teach children that it's OK to be gay. There are several overt homosexual jokes. One involves Diego and Manny in close quarters with a reference to sexual excitement.

Same sex marriage and other gay activist issues are addressed. For example, Sid the sloth is written as the compassionate homosexual or transvestite, a man who wants to be a good mother.

Sid finds himself lonely because Ellie and Manny are married and going to have a baby. What does Sid do? Does he go find a mate for himself? No, according to the movie, he's too ugly. So he finds three eggs that apparently don't belong to anyone and steals them for his own children. He wants to be their mommy. The eggs hatch into dinosaurs and Sid spends a day as an incompetent parent. The natural mom of the babies comes looking for her children and carries them and Sid off to The Land of the Lost, The Land the Time Forgot, or The Journey to the Center of the Earth. Take your pick. Eventually, the natural mother comes to accept Sid as mother to the children as well. Sid tells the mother dinosaur at the end of the movie to take care of "our" kids. Mannie then praises Sid for being a good parent.

Morals: As long as we laugh at implied homosexuality, we can allow our children to accept it and be taught how to express homosexual desires. Two moms is OK. Men can become moms. Stealing children makes them your own. Sid finally accepts that the natural mom is a parent as well. All you have to do to be a good parent is love your children - all failures in parenting will be forgiven because love is enough.

Offense 4 - Testosterone Males Are Evil
The big, bad dinosaur who terrorizes the whole dinosaur kingdom is just an overgrown, testosterone-laden male.

Moral: Any self-expression of male strength is always dangerous to the community.

Offense 5 - Family Can Be Any Group
The first Ice Age movie showed three unlikely heroes come together to form their own "herd." The idea could apply to any close-knit group which comes together to create a stronger whole. Ice Age 3 takes this idea and turns it from group or community, to family.

Moral: Any collection of people who agree to be family, is family. Blood ties are irrelevant. Species is irrelevant. Sexual preference is irrelevant. Legal boundaries are irrelevant. Sanity is irrelevant. Through love, any group can be a family.

To say that these messages are prevalent in Hollywood entertainment is an understatement. To place them so blatantly in a kid's film can only mean one thing. Hollywood producers want these messages inculcated into the minds of our children: marriage is not necessary, homosexual sex is normal, sex holds no taboos and children need to be a party in the discussion, men are incompetent, women are superior, family is merely a social construct unrelated by blood relation, gender is merely a social construct, anyone can be a mommy, love is the only thing a parent needs to succeed.

Write Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and let them know that you don't appreciate anti-family messages in their family films.

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp
10201 West Pico Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California 90035

Mail: P.O. Box 900,
Beverly Hills, California 90213
Phone: 310-277-2211
Fax: 310-203-1558

In 2006, three white Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a black exotic dancer. Though the three were later acquitted and all charges dropped because the accusation was false, the initial outrage at Duke University was palpable. Eighty eight faculty members signed a statement condemning the three for their racism. The lacrosse coach was forced to resign. The university president kept the lacrosse team from further participation the rest of the season. The three accused were vilified up one side of the mainstream media and down the other.

However...

Frank M. Lombard, associate director of the Center for Health Policy at Duke University was arrested and charged with offering his adopted five year old son for sex acts. Video evidence of his sexual acts exists. And by the way, both of his adopted children are black.

The Duke University 88 are silent on the matter. Duke University officials are silent on the matter. The mainstream media is silent on the matter.

Where's the outrage for a white man who is accused of raping his black child?

Mike S. Adams on Townhall.com brought this one to light. Reported by the Associated Press.

Here's another Duke University rape and controversy in the making. Frank M. Lombard, associate director of the Center for Health Policy at Duke University was arrested and charged with offering his adopted five year old son for sex acts.

The arrest warrant states that a person, later identified as Lombard, used video chat on the internet to perfom sex acts on a child under the age of ten. The child was later identified as one of two adopted children of Lombard. The complaint says Lombard's chat room ID lists him as "pervv dad for fun."

The warrant states that an astute police detective contacted Lombard through Yahoo! Instant Messenger. Lombard admitted performing sexual acts on his adopted five year old son. He wrote that he would drug the boy with Benadryl before molesting him. He admitted that he waited to molest the boy until his partner was out of town.

The warrant continues describing the next day, when Lombard offered his five year old to the detective to perform sex acts on him. The detective said he lived out of state, making the solicitation a federal offense.

OK, those are the particulars of the warrant against Frank Lombard.

Interestingly, the AP story neglected to mention that the molested child is black. In fact, both of Lombard's adopted children are black. As the warrant implies, both children were molested. The AP story also neglected to mention that Lombard and his partner are homosexuals raising adopted children.

As Mike Adams points out, mentioning those two facts might hurt the cause of homosexual civil rights and homosexual adoption. So, of course, those little details are left out of this sordid case.

After Mike Adams wrote his article, I decided, as he did, that these details need to come to light. As he states:

I believe that certain coalitions must be broken. And certain movements must be harmed. Let the political fallout begin. (Townhall.com)

Lombard, if convicted, faces 20 years in prison. I'm certain many of you will agree that time served is too good for the likes of Frank Lombard.

Steven Crowder shows the news media what stories really matter the most.