Death of Common Sense Ruled 'Natural Causes'

Today we discovered the passing of an old friend, Common Sense, who had been ill for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since both his birth and death records can no longer be found in government files.

He will be remembered as having cultivated long standing but now discredited teachings such as:
- No one owes you anything;
- Don't spend more than you can earn;
- Life isn't always fair;
- Maybe it was my fault (and his infamous corollary Maybe I don't know everything.)

It seems few will miss him.  Critics contend that Common Sense clung to outmoded principals.  "Simplistic ideas like 'adults, not children, are in charge' may be what people believed in the Dark Ages," said one critic, "but society is much more sophisticated today.  We now know that the Earth isn't flat."

News accounts report that Common Sense's first visible signs of deterioration coincided with results of well-intentioned regulations to 'protect freedoms and promote tolerance' in public schools.  These facilitated much needed new protections such as charging a 6-year-old boy with sexual harassment for kissing a female classmate.  Teachers and student clubs could also now encourage acceptance of alternative sexual behaviors regardless of parents' wishes or the associated health dangers.

Common Sense's health grew weaker with each new pretzel logic incident. Like when the State required schools to get parental consent to administer an aspirin and also ruled that children who were pregnant.and seeking to end their baby's life through a medical procedure called abortion needed to be protected by not involving their parents. 

His mood brightened when he thought he might have the answer to this paradox:  Perhaps many of these pregnancies were caused by incest and the students really were being protected by not informing the parents?  With some diligent research (almost an entire thirty seconds worth!) he confirmed that 99% of abortions stem from consensual sex and only 1% are reported as due to rape or incest combined.  Common Sense's mood once again darkened.

One teacher who would only speak off the record said, "His depression really accelerated when sex and gender were determined to be totally unrelated and taught that way to children in K-12 schools.  He said he  he had done his best to serve humanity for a thousand years but now felt trivialized and marginalized.  I think it pushed him over the edge."

The Superintendent of Progressive Public Education stated the accepted view for the record, "Common Sense obviously suffered from a severe mental illness.  He just didn't like being ignored.  Of course we feel sorry for him but today, it is our civic duty to protect our students from unscientific dangerous ideas like his."

One friend of Common Sense who spoke on the condition of anonymity believes the final straw came when Tolerance was elevated to the transcendent virtue governing all others.  "I think Common Sense finally lost the will to live when the practice of his teachings became defined as ignorance and hate speech," he offered quietly.

Political Correctness, also known as PC, was at first thought to be a person of interest in the death.  However, when questioned PC enlightened the investigators that Common Sense was obsolete and did not have the vision of the anointed.  Chastised investigators quickly realized that Common Sense died of natural causes and dismissed any need for further questions.

Common Sense was preceded in death, by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife, Moderation, his daughter, Personal Responsibility, and his son, Tradition.  No media accounts note their passing.

He is survived by four estranged cousins: I Know My Rights, I Want It Now, I Have No Shame, and I'm A Victim.  They issued this joint statement:  "It would not be appropriate to hold a funeral that may offend someone. We encourage condolences for Common Sense to be expressed silently." 

Editor's Note:  Those wishing to commemorate Common Sense should speak-up while they still can.

What's the Big Deal about Ex-Gays?

The small, all volunteer organization PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays) is once again making national news. They are supporting a shareholder's resolution at Disney (yes, that Disney) asking the media giant to include former homosexuals under their anti-discrimination policies based on sexual orientation.

PFOX has successfully taken powerful school systems like Montgomery County, MD, ( a suburb of Washington, DC) to federal court for pushing unsafe and untrue sexuality classes on their students.

PFOX brought mega-union National Education Association to the Superior Court of DC for blocking PFOX for years from even exhibiting at NEA national conferences while welcoming gay groups to train teachers.

In order to continue to ban PFOX from the national conferences, NEA argued that they could discriminate against PFOX and ex-gays due to their right to freedom of association.  PFOX did not get to exhibit in the future but forced NEA to admit in court what PFOX already knew: the NEA and gay activist groups like GLSN and PFLAG that target K-12 schoolchildren are in bed together.

Something else happened that the NEA forgot to mention in press releases:  The Court ruled that ex-gays are also protected from discrimination by the same laws that apply to gays.  PFOX forced the Goliath union out of the closet and set legal precedent--not a bad's day's work!

PFOX is the only ex-gay group in the nation to sign-on in support of California's marriage amendment. They participate in press conferences against federal hate crimes legislation.  Fox News reported that PFOX has confronted the mighty American Library Association.

(The ALA vets and recommends books for inclusion in K-12 libraries. They routinely reject anything written by or about ex-gays. Meanwhile, children's books on gay penguins, lesbian mommies, and details of homosexual initiation with  an older man get their imprimatur.) 

Why is this small Virginia-based group taking on mega-issues, mega-unions, and now Fortune 500 companies when ex-gay ministries like Exodus have walked off the public policy playing field? (PFOX is neither a therapeutic or counseling organization.)

Both the Left and the Right scratch their heads about PFOX. The Left wonders, "Who do they think they are and how can we silence them?" Some on the Right wonder, "Who do they think they are and do they know what are they doing?"

What do marriage amendments, hate crimes, school curricula, and library books have to do with the PFOX mission of supporting and advocating for 'ex-gays?'  And why this bizarre idea that ex-gays be covered by sexual-orientation anti-discrimination policies.

First, all the ex-gay ministries and support in the world will not keep up with K-12 schools, library books, and teacher unions that continue to promote homosexuality as normal and healthy to millions of children each day. 

Second, ex-gays are targeted for ridicule, economic harassment, and silencing.  Any discussion of changing one's homosexual attraction unleashes a spew of vitriol denouncing the bigotry and ignorance of such 'hateful' speech. If ENDA, Hate Crimes, same-sex marriage, and the rest of gay legislative laundry list become law, the next step is hateful speech becomes hate speech.

If saying change is even possible becomes illegal hate speech, exactly what many gays are pushing for, ex-gay ministries who support change will close-up shop.  All professional therapeutic or research support to overcome unwanted same-sex attraction will become unethical if not illegal.

In the last few years, radicals in the American Psychological Association almost succeeded in banning all  therapeutic support  for change as unethical--regardless if that is the patient's expressed desire.  Only pressure from ex-gays and their supporters demanding that patients rights to self-determination be respected defeated the gay action.


Not Hard to Imagine:  The Future is Already Here.

A Christian photographer passes on doing a 'gay wedding.' A single girl renting out an extra bedroom chooses not to have a lesbian roommate. They are sued, fined and ordered by the court to sensitivity training

Did the gay complainants have ample other choices?  Yes.  The constitutionally enumerated right to religious freedom of the defendant?  Does not matter.  Private property and personal rights of the young woman?  Does not matter.


eHarmony offers heterosexual match-making based based on years of psychological research on successful marriage.  It is not a generic dating site.  It has no research on same-sex relationships.  Doesn't matter. Ditto, Ditto.  The founder is an evangelical Christian.  Doesn't matter. (More likely, that is exactly what does matter.)

A New Jersey gay files for discrimination.  eHarmony is not found guilty but to end litigation agrees to launch a homosexual matching service called Compatible Partners.  Still doesn't matter:  Gays in California then file a class action suit claiming a 'separate but equal [site]' is discriminatory.

What does matter is that these are not future events. They already happened.  Jurisprudence does not exist in a vacuum. What is the legal trajectory after ENDA, Hate Crimes, and wide spread same-sex marriage?  The obvious result would be further  forced compliance by the courts to validate homosexuality in every manner .

Where would this leave those who want to leave homosexuality?   Or ex-gays?  Or un-affirming parents or teachers?  Is it so hard to imagine discrimination complaints followed by court ordered therapy to cure 'homophobia'? ( Remember, whether or not charges of homophobia  are untrue...doesn't matter!)


That's where public policy and PFOX intersect.  The underlying precept to pro-gay policies is that there is no such thing as ex-gays. This implies that anyone, including ex-gays, who believes change is possible are either mentally ill or prejudiced against gays.

Policies that protect the 'right' to be gay must also protect the right to become ex-gay.   If leaving homosexuality were mere science fiction, why don't gays ignore protection for ex-gays as meaningless?  Instead, they fight tooth and nail against any protection for ex-gays as a conspiracy to discriminate against gays, i.e. ex-gay is discrimination..  Hence, PFOX's strategic advocacy for inclusion of ex-gays in sexual orientation policies.  Q.E.D.

Gays are Self-Evident Proof, Ex-gays are Just Crazy.
 
Homosexuality is still not proven to exist as anything other than a mental perception.  The 'science'  that proves the innate nature of gayness is that gays self-identify and behave as gays.  We are told that we must accept homosexuality as normal and healthy even for ourselves or loved one and pass pro-gay protections against those less enlightened.


Gays set a little different level of scientific rigor for ex-gays. Ex-gays must prove that they were born gay and they must  also prove that they are no longer gay . That is, ex-gays must first prove what gays have failed to prove in four decades and then prove the null hypothesis to what has not been proven in the first place.

(No-no-no.  It doesn't work the say way in case your wondering.  Self-identifying as ex-gay, claiming to have less or no same-sex attraction  and behaving that way is not proof.  That's just ex-gay right wing ignorant crazy talk.)

PFOX fights for policies to keep the road to self-determination open for those who choose it and against policies that threaten it.  It's kind of like insurance or a constitutional amendment protecting marriage: you have to have it before you imagine you could ever need it. 

Because in spite of being assured that change is impossible and against all odds, thousands of homosexuals do start the journey each year to conquer their unwanted same-sex attraction.

It is a daunting, arduous trek. Some do not reach the life-changing goal they set. Gay activists exploit these most intimate personal disappointments as proof positive of the folly for all.

But many do reach their destination.  They leave homosexuality behind.  That truth is a lighthouse in the perfect storm of sexual politics. They prove to gays, parents, and lawmakers that self-determination in one's own sexual nature is possible.    They prove change is possible.

And that's a big deal.