June 29, 1995
Dear Wes,
We just returned from a wonderful, much needed vacation and found your letter waiting for me., I want you to know I have given this great thought and consideration and now I will do the best I can to make clear my position.
Before I called you I called everyone in my family to ask their opinion and stated to them my belief that the Uncles Party was not the place or time to introduce Tom to the family as there would be small and young children present. At that time we were all in accord that Tom was not invited. While I was on vacation Susan, your dad and Charlene visited Astoria and apparently at that time some of the family changed their position which, of course, is their right.
As I told you, I contacted Harry (the party was to be at his house) to see if anyone had informed him that you were bringing Tom. No one had. I also called DeeAnne who once again has offered her home to have our annual family reunion, and asked her the same question and she also stated no one had told her. DeeAnne told me that when she receives your letters she does not open or read them but just burns them. She has not shared anything about you with her family. She said that she did not want to hurt your father's feelings and out of concern for him she would not say who could or could not come to the reunion, but the reunion belonged to all of us and we had the right to choose who could or could not come. She did say that Tom being there would make Merv very uncomfortable. With it being his home, his refuge, I can not understand why anyone would believe they have the right to make someone feel this way in their own home. I further believe that prior to Susan, Dan or you making plans to include Tom in the family parties, it would have only been common courtesy to contact all people concerned to see if this created a problem or conflict. It would appear than that you are not concerned how others feel but only about how you and Tom feel.
If my stance that Tom is not wanted at the family parties has created great hurt in the Texas side of the clan I feel that was your choice. Everyone was totally aware that the majority of our family does not approve of homosexuality but that didn't count, you wanted to force the homosexual issue. Also prior to Dan and Susan volunteering to do the party we had all agreed that we would skip it this year due to vacations and we didn't think there would be enough time to put one together when Dan and Susan decided they would do it. I believe I now understand why. As soon as I found out you were planning to bring Tom, I told Susan this creates a big problem and that her and Dan should feel free to discontinue planning the party, I could understand it creating great hurt if I had taken the stand that you were not welcome but that was not my position. I strongly urged you to come. I said we wanted you to come. My opposition WAS AND STILL IS Tom being there. No matter how much you want to insist that yours and Tom's relationship is wonderful, normal and loving, in my opinion it is an unhealthy relationship and it is not something I wish to expose my grandchildren, the other young children or even myself to.
I further suggested to both you and Susan that Dan and her do a party at their house and invite the adults and then the adults would have the choice if this is what they want to do without putting the children in any compromising situation. I guess from studying the homosexual movement I am totally aware of the homosexual North American Man Love Boy Association wherein they want to lower the the sexual consent age of minor children. Several statements put forth by NAMBLA Reports are: "NAMBLA takes the view that sex is good, that homosexuality is good not only for adults, but for young people as well. We support all consenual sexual relationships regardless of age Sexual liberation cannot be achieved without the liberation of children. This means many things. Children need to gain control over their lives, a control which they are denied on all sides. They need to break the yoke of protection which alienates them from themselves, a protection imposed on them by adults -their family, the schools, the state, and prevailing sexual and social mores. ...There is no age at which a person becomes capable of consenting to sex. The age of sexual consent is just one of many ways in which adults impose their system of control on children...." Furthermore, self described Gay revolutionist homosexual, Michael Swift, in the 1987 Gay Community News, had a long,detailed article of what the homosexuals intended for our children. I quote only part of it. "We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity...... we shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories,..... your seminaries............ Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. ......they will come to crave and adore us..........the family unit spawning of lies, betrayals and mediocrity,..... will be abolished......... The family unit must be eliminated........All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our holy gods are handsome young men.............. " If you are interested in reading the whole statement, let me know. So I believe my concern over what the children would be exposed to has great and realistic foundation. In one of my previous letters to you I asked about your feelings about NAMBLA and you did not respond in your letter.
Further let me make it very clear to you that my opinions and beliefs are not based on the standard homosexual statement "Fear and misunderstandings." If anything my opinions and beliefs are the result of many, long hours of research, reading books, articles, reports, written by both homosexuals and heterosexuals. This includes homosexual newspapers and statements made by homosexuals on what their goals are, so I have based my stand on factual materials. As for fear, what is there to fear? I believe I made the statement to you in one of my letters that I find it very humorous that if a person does not agree with the homosexual viewpoint that automatically makes them a homophobic.
I also want to say that because of the foregoing studies and including information from Oregon Health Department and the Center for Disease Control it is very apparent that the homosexuals and their communities run rampant with many exotic and common diseases. This does not only include HIV/AIDS (which alone should make people extremely cautious) but T.B., syphilis, all types of veneral diseases, fungusses and Hepatitis A,B,C, & D. Hepatitis C & D are deadly and Hepatitis is much easier transmitted than some of the other diseases. The increase of Hepatitis in the State of Oregon has increased greatly with the influx of the homosexual population. We all know that just the slightest amount of fecal material is deadly so why in the world am I expected to put Tom before any of my grandchildren, the other children, other people, and those of us who are already having health problems and low immune systems of our own. Also the new oral saliva swab test they now do for the HIV antibodies indicates that perhaps this virus can be spread more easily than first thought. I contacted the Oregon Health Department regarding this and they said their studies are still incomplete at this time, but they recommend extreme care and careful and strong disinfectants be used whenever a person may be exposed to this virus.
As for this being your last chance to come to Oregon or any party, please come. It is your choice. Tom certainly can come to Oregon also. Who in the world has any control over that. The only thing I said is that Tom is not invited to our family functions but we have not and will not exclude you. I am truly sorry that your health has deteriorated and I hope and pray the experimental drug will do you a great deal of good. However this does not change the fact that I do not believe a family function is the proper setting of introducing a homosexual relationship to our family. I feel that if Tom is this loving and caring person you portray him to be, he would be willing to say that rather than create a problem within your family he would not attend the family parties but would be unselfish enough to just meet the people who chose to come to Dan and Susan's to meet him. I know that if this was the case with either Joe or me we would be willing to do what is best for all of the family.
By allowing Tom to attend the family functions I feel that it would imply that we accept homosexuality as a normal lifestyle and I am not willing to say or imply to any of my children or any other children that it is anything other than a destructive and deadly lifestyle. I would rather be wrong on the side of the children and since you know first hand what this lifestyle has done to you, I would think you would also put the children first and not insist that Tom attend. Let me appeal to you and ask that you and Tom reconsider and make the choice that Tom will not attend the family functions because you care about our children and that neither one of you would want to lead them to believe homosexuality is a proper, loving and normal lifestyle that any of them should enter into.
In closing let me say that because I am not willing to compromise my values, beliefs or convictions does not mean that I think I am God, nor am I judgemental or wanting to cruciify anyone. It simply means that I truly believe homosexuality is wrong, destructive and deadly and I do not choose to expose anyone (children or adults) to the homosexual lifestyle and because of this I feel I must and that I have the right to remain true to myself, my values and my standards.
I continue to love, care and pray for you.
With love,
Aunt Priscilla
P.S. I am sending copies to all of the people that you sent copies to.
Previous letter |
Next letter 