Last week, I wrote of the controversy surrounding the inclusion of gay couples in the 2008 Clovis High School yearbook. Reader e-mails follow:

M in Clovis -- I agree with you, change is very difficult. In Clovis the pain has been great for so many. My child has been bashed for having homosexual friends. The hate and anger being spewed forth in the name of religious righteousness has been so hurtful to so many students. Thank you for writing a piece that did not condemn the students, if only others could be as kind.  

AF, Albuquerque -- I want to thank you for your article regarding the Clovis High School Year book. You are absolutely correct. The kids are way ahead of their parents. Just as with the Civil Rights movement, which was often led by children, so too, are these young people leading the way to a more open, respectful America.

Tim, Roswell -- Your column on the gay uproar in Clovis was right on the mark, calm and well reasoned.  But get prepared for some divisive religious attacks.  It's SOP for them.
Tim in Roswell
A 70 year old non-gay person with tolerance for gay rights, not gay basher.

TW -- Jim Belshaw wrote (May 28, 08) that it took courage for two staff members to include lesbian photos in the 2008 Clovis High School yearbook. It certainly did not take any courage for Belshaw to be politically correct.

SC -- How does that go?  "From your lips (or in this case, from your pen) to God's ear?
 
Thank you for your beautifully written column.  As a member of PFLAG and the mother of a gay daughter, I get impatient.  But you are right, our hope is in our youth.
 
I always enjoy your column, but this is the first time I've written to tell you so.  This one touched my heart.

JH, Albuquerque -- Sadly, I have to agree with your conclusion that the “courageous” students who included homosexual couples in the yearbook will win.  If you wonder why I consider the overturning of this “primitive taboo” against homosexual behavior to be sad, it is because I have looked at the historical evidence for what happens when it is overturned.  Haven’t you ever wondered why it took until the twenty first century for people to overturn the “primitive taboo” that marriage should be limited to one man and one woman?  Even if the Christian and Jewish faiths imprisoned the intellect of a large portion of the world with their superstitious beliefs, there have been plenty of other cultures that could have overturned this “primitive taboo.”  Were people of the past, so much less intelligent and sophisticated than we are?  Of course not, and the fact is that past cultures have overturned this “primitive taboo.’ The reason that we do not hear much about this is that to do so is cultural suicide.
 
A British sociologist named J.D. Unwin examined the effect of eliminating this “primitive taboo” on historical cultures during the 1930s when Sigmund Freud’s view that “primitive sexual taboos” were the cause of individual and cultural neuroses was vogue.  J.D. Unwin conducted a massive study of 6 major civilizations and 80 lesser societies covering 5,000 years of history in order to understand how sexual behavior affects the rise and fall of social groups. He included every social group on which he could find reliable information. Mr. Unwin found, in every case, the “expansive energy” of a social group comes from restricting sex to marriage, and sexual license is always “the immediate cause of cultural decline.” In other words, all the evidence he discovered showed that the survival of civilization or society depends on keeping sexual energy focused on supporting child rearing and family life and not allowing individuals access to sex in ways that do not support procreation and family life.  He found that “In human records there is no instance of a society retaining its energy after a complete new generation has inherited a tradition which does not insist on pre-nuptial [premarital] and post -nuptial [extramarital] continence.” In every verifiable case, he found once a group became sexually permissive, “the energy of the society...decreased and finally disappeared.”  He came across the same pattern over and over. A society would begin with high standards limiting sex to one partner in marriage for life. This produced great social strength and that society or culture would flourish. Then a new generation would arise demanding sex on easier terms and would lower moral standards. But when that happened the society would lose vitality, grow weak, and then die. He explained that “In the beginning, each society had the same ideas in regard to sexual regulations. Then the same strengths took place; the same sentiments were expressed; the same changes were made; the same results ensued. Each society reduced its sexual opportunity to a minimum and, displaying great social energy, flourished greatly. Then it extended its sexual opportunity [lowered standards]; its energy decreased, and faded away. The one outstanding feature of the whole story is its unrelieved monotony.”  These results are documented in his books Sex and Culture (published by Oxford University Press in London in 1934), Sexual Regulations and Cultural Behavior (published by Oxford University Press in London in 1935), and Hopousia: Or the Sexual and Economic Foundations of a New Society written with George Allen and published in London in 1940.  The data are there if we care to look at them.
 
Sadly, it is easier to accept the homosexual agenda without any thought because it is vogue and it feels bad to be “prejudiced” against any behavior.  When one has a megaphone as you do, one can foster the agenda, chipping away at the foundation of our culture and civilization.  Could either of us stop this destruction of our culture and civilization?  I doubt that my e-mails suggesting that we actually look at the data and think about the issue will.  Particularly, when so many unthinkingly accept the homosexual agenda.  I know that you and others will label me a homophobe and, to a certain extent, that is a correct characterization.  I do not fear homosexuals and am not fearful about my own sexuality.  However, I am deathly afraid of what history tells us happens to each and every culture or civilization that affirms homosexual behavior.  I pray that you and the other cheer leaders for the homosexual agenda will live long enough to see the consequences of your actions.  Given the current progress of that agenda, the general degree of “sexual liberation,” and the implacable enmity of our Muslim foes, I am fairly confident that my prayer will be answered.
 
May God have mercy on us all.

GC, Albuquerque -- I know you are a gentle man because I have often read your articles.  It seems the gentle thing to do to commend the high school students for what seems the gentle approach to dealing with the gay students. But, Jim, if your son went over next door and took out a knife and killed your neighbor's son with it, would you respond with gentleness to him, and say, "Oh, that's OK son, that's the way our society is going these days."?
 
Of course, these gay students are youth that need love and affirmation, but to affirm their wrong actions is not gentle.  It is very destructive for them and for our society. You mentioned God in your article.  God makes it very clear that homosexuality is a sin that He hates.  He loves the sinner but He hates that sin.  He wants all men everywhere to come to a knowledge of the truth--that there is sin in our world and we need to turn from it and to Him.
 
If we want to truly help our youth, we elders should be leading them in the standard of what is right and wrong, not what is "in" and acceptable by society's rules. Moral failure will bring a nation to ruin, as history proves, not to mention an individual's life. I have a feeling that is what the elders you mentioned were trying to do.  I'm sorry if they did it in an angry or unseemly way.

HK -- I am retired, straight man. Raising a daughter was the most important part of my life. Now I am grandfather.

It is frightening to think of the fuss going on in Clovis. Love is love. We can't have too much. People like Walter Bradley make me sick.

PB, Santa Fe -- I found it especially ironic to read about the yearbook controversy and next peruse my economist to find the featured obituary was on Mildred Loving

Mildred Loving | Economist.com

http://www.economist.com/obituary/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11367685&CFID=7458602&CFTOKEN=28548180

In my case these hidden and some time not so, stupid prejudices fly in the face of reason, I am a white Africa from Rhodesia and as such many people I meet assume incorrectly I have a strong hidden racial bent.

Isn't it ironic that both America and the old and new South Africa are two countries that promote racial perfection but classify there people in nice tidy color and sexual preference groups with some really vicious real world attitudes all covered with a religious cloak.

Yup as these kid already instinctively know black brown yellow white gay straight we are all gods little creations

What in the heck will these dumb politicians do when they meet a real off planet alien when we are so busy creating our own.

KSN -- Thanks for the completely astute article on the Clovis yearbook news. I appreciate you covering all the aspects of this case and knowing that those kids did what was truly courageous for the community at large.
I also wrote a letter to the editor on this issue called Clovis Kids With Mature Attitudes. I did bring up the fact that this is again The State vs Religion.  Thanks again for writing the truth.

Your Name:

Your Email Address:

Rate this article:
Poor Great

Comment:

BOLD

"QUOTE"

UNDERLINE