Extended Complaints with the Current Parents' Rights Movement

Is parental rights the best argument for
reforming schools and protecting children?

There are three issues that are dragging down the larger Parents Rights movement to stop LGBT promotion and perversion in the public schools. There is a great deal of compromising and political correctness when it comes to calling out serious issues that are harming children, undermining adults, and hurting our country.

1. "I just want to focus on parental rights."

Parental rights as a full and final argument for school and public policy are not good enough. Parental rights are not an absolute, and an argument based on rights alone inevitably leads to a clash of competing rights. 

Furthermore, there are parents who think they have a right to push sexual explicit themes, images, and ideas onto their children. They are wrong! There are parents who insist on trying to medically transition their children, even though the science and statistics are dead-set against this abusive, corrupt, vile practices.

No, parental rights is not a strong enough argument to stop LGBT indoctrination and exploitation. Parents, citizens, activists in general must speak the truth about homosexuality, transgenderism, and the rest of the sexual paraphilias forcing their way into the public square.

2. "Let's talk about religious liberty. Let's not worry about what people do in their bedrooms. Live and let live."

Frankly, the argument for religious liberty as a catch-all for defending children from sexually explicit and abusive content is a non-starter. The Satanic Temple in several states has filed lawsuits to nullify abortions bans. They claim that abortion procedures actually constitute a ritual in their depraved religious services. Furthermore, adding a sectarian element to the fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness creates more conflicts rather than resolving them.

Religious liberty is a copout for people who don't want to tell the truth about homosexuality and transgenderism. Religious liberty is an evasion for people who don't want to stand up for natural right and natural law, and who do not want to acknowledge that some cultures are better than others.

3. "It's not about gay sex or straight sex. I don't want you to talk with my kids about sex at all."

Granted, government schools do need to get out of the sex education business. For decades, before the 1960s, children were not receiving any comprehensive sex ed. They learned that there are two sexes, and they learned how babies were formed. That was pretty much it.

Now, we have perverted teachers, administrators, activists, and business interests dead-set on sexualizing children as early as possible. It's easier to manipulate minds that have been saturated with perversion and pornography at a young age. Indeed, from Ancient Rome to the Present Day, distracting and saturing people in sexual license is a great means for controlling the people. Worst of all, these sex ed programs want to normalize sex among teens, homosexuality, and transgenderism. Children are faced with enough confusion in the world, the media, the business sector. Now the education classes and sectors want to infuse them with more confusion, too. Enough.

However, like in the two instances above, parents don't want to point out that homosexuality and transgenderism are harmful, intrinsically disorder, and inherently wrong. It's not politically correct, it's not polite or right to point out that there are fundamental differences between natural marriage and affection compared to homosexual conduct and gender dysphoria as an essential aspect of someone's existence.

For those who want to hide behind the mantra "don't teach my kids anything about sex," LGBT activists will fire back: "Fine, then the married teacher cannot have a picture of his or her spouse on the desk, either." They will argue that the teacher should not even wear his wedding ring, or talk about her children.

See, there is nothing wrong with sex per se. People are born in one class or another: male or female. People have sexual desire which they wish to consummate in a marriage. There is nothing wrong with recognizing the natural institution of marriage, and there is certainly nothing wrong with a teacher stating that he has a wife or that she has a husband.

There is going to be some reference to sex, since individuals are male or female, and children need to be confortable with their identities as such. Any attempt to get away from confronting sexual perversion by saying "Let's not talk about sex at all" will bring out the vile, embittered hypocrisy of LGBT activists to enforce that prohibition pharisaically.

The best way to fight the cultural rot in our country is to tell the truth, and tell the truth without compromise or cowering. All the catch phrases like "parental rights" and "religious liberty" when it comes to the battle to safeguard children and preserve our communities is a cowardly copout at best, and a dangerous rode to accommodation for the LGBT mob at worst.