Report: Homosexuality

 

CHAPTER 115.  INTRODUCTION TO THE “GAY RIGHTS” DEBATE: IS HOMOSEXUALITY BENEFICIAL, BENIGN, OR HARMFUL?

CHAPTER 116.  HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE “TEN PERCENT” MYTH

CHAPTER 117.  THE TRUE OBJECTIVE OF ‘GAY RIGHTS’ -TOTAL DOMINATION!

CHAPTER 121. HOMOSEXUALS: A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO OUR CHILDREN

 

 

==============================

 

CHAPTER 115.  INTRODUCTION TO THE “GAY RIGHTS” DEBATE: IS HOMOSEXUALITY BENEFICIAL, BENIGN, OR HARMFUL?

 

“When you lose the supernatural, the natural passes into the unnatural all too quickly.” --G.K. Chesterton.1

 

The Importance of Debating “Gay Rights” From the Humanistic Standpoint

 

The Irrelevance of God.

 

Our country, founded in Christian principles, is now truly a Pagan nation.

 

The Bible has been banned from our public schools. God -and even any framework of objective morality, religious or humanistic -has been stricken from all legislative and judicial functions. The expression of traditional Christian religious belief in all of its forms is suppressed and ridiculed. In place of the traditional Church, we now have Neoliberal, Paganistic, and Humanistic religions flourishing.

 

In a word, according to those who control the media and public opinion, God the Father and His Son Jesus are now largely irrelevant to our society and its functions.

 

On Natural Law.

 

Those Christian activists who oppose abortion, contraception, pornography, euthanasia, homosexual acts and other evils know that their position is not only supported by Scripture, but by natural law as well. Natural law manifests itself in each person’s God-given ability to distinguish between right and wrong from God’s point of view.

 

Christianity is a logical religion. God created mankind, and so He knows what is good for us and what is bad for us. He gave us the Ten Commandments as a simple guide to living in a morally sustainable society. Further guidance in the Bible elaborates upon these basic rules.

 

In other words, God has given us rules and His Church to assist in the survival of the human race. Those who ignore these rules not only injure themselves, they contribute to the accelerated demise of entire nations, as history has proven time and time again.

 

Moral Traveling.

 

In order to pull people out of sin and save their souls, Christians must journey to where the unchurched are spiritually (while taking extreme care not to be caught up in the sin being discussed); we cannot expect hardened sinners to come to us, because they have already decisively rejected our Christian value system and see no purpose in defending this decision. They have lost their moral compass and their self-discipline, and are determinedly wallowing in self-indulgence and sin. In other words, they have no desire to change or to better themselves morally.

 

In fact, it may truthfully be said that Christian activists and secularists speak entirely different languages, based upon radically different worldviews.

 

Humanists are proud of their ‘logical and rational’ natures. They refuse to believe in what they cannot see, taste, and touch; therefore they reject all religion, not just Christianity. ‘Authentic’ Humanists are not Christian, Moslem, Jewish, or Pagan.

 

Therefore, in order to make progress in saving souls, Christian activists must debate from the Humanistic point of view, confident in the fact that natural law parallels God’s law in all of its important details.

 

The Three Questions.

 

A Humanist determines whether or not a particular action or activity is moral by asking himself the following three questions;

 

  1. Does a particular practice ultimately lead to a greater degree of personal freedom and autonomy?

 

  1. Is the practice generally healthful to individuals?

 

  1. Is the practice generally healthful to society?

 

The Two Approaches.

 

The Christian can effectively present his case to a Humanist in two ways. He can either make the first move, or allow the Humanist to initiate the discussion and then respond.

 

A Christian may decide to approach a Humanist on a particular issue by initiating a chain of logical argument, as Jesus often did when answering His questioners. Under these conditions, if a Christian uses hard evidence and statistics (not just anecdotal evidence) to show a Humanist that homosexuality (or abortion, euthanasia or porn) is damaging to freedom and individual and societal health, the hardened Humanist will most likely ignore the evidence and continue his practices regardless. When a Christian approaches a Humanist on a social issue, the Humanist does not need to defend himself or even explain the logic that underpins his position, because the Christian has taken the initiative. Therefore, the Christian is not likely to make much of an impression.

 

The second method is far more effective. If the Christian takes the ‘defensive’ position initially and entices the Humanist into presenting his own evidence to ‘show’ that homosexuality (abortion, euthanasia, porn, etc.) is beneficial to society and freedom -and if the Christian then calmly and decisively points out the obvious fallacies in his evidence -the Humanist will be left with two possible courses of action only: To continue the debate or to admit that his beliefs are based upon faulty data.

 

If he refuses to do either, and instead walks away or simply asserts that he will not be convinced, the Christian can state that the Humanist is certainly not the open-minded “freethinker” that he proclaims himself to be, which will cut to the heart of a true Humanist.

 

Why Is Homosexuality Wrong?

 

Introduction.

 

As conservative Christian and Jewish activists, we are often confronted with the question: “Why do you think homosexuality is wrong? After all, it is just another permutation of the infinite variety of human love!”

 

Most Christians, when confronted with this question, become distinctly uneasy. Homosexuality is a touchy subject, and the average Christian does not know much about it, although he may have a few vague notions about it that may mildly disturb or disgust him. He may not reply to the question for fear of appearing ignorant, judgmental, or just plain ‘unenlightened.’

 

If the inquirer is another Christian (and, more specifically, one who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible), then there is really no problem. As described later in this chapter, there are many Scripture passages in both the Old and the New Testaments that very explicitly condemn homosexual activity.

 

If the questioner is a Humanist, or a ‘Christian’ who does not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, then this question must be answered with very concise and logical reasoning. It is not a difficult question to answer, but it needs to be analyzed and prepared for ahead of time so that the Christian can have a logical and coherent response ready. If a Christian intends to debate the subject of homosexuality, he must carefully think out and prepare his position ahead of time.

 

Judge the Sin, Not the Sinner.

 

To begin with, Christians must recognize that a homosexual orientation, whether genetic or acquired, cannot be sinful in and of itself. Homosexual urgings are similar to other human weaknesses, in that they constitute an unnatural and unhealthy manifestation of our fallen nature, like urgings for other forms of illicit sex, illegal drugs, and excessive food and alcohol. Perhaps the Lord Himself gives such crosses to people in order to test their resistance to temptation and sin. We are certainly more worthy in God’s eyes if we confront our weaknesses and, through the grace of God, defeat them.

 

The homosexual urge only causes damage to the person’s soul if he caves in and acts on his desires, in the same manner that an alcoholic does no damage to himself until he begins to drink.

 

In truth, homosexuals who are chaste and who successfully struggle against their urges through a lifetime of self-discipline carry a very heavy cross indeed and are to be admired. So the simple fact that someone has a homosexual orientation is not “bad” -unless the person acts on that orientation.

 

The Ten Reasons.

 

There are at least ten logical reasons why the “gay rights” movement in general and homosexual activities in particular present extreme dangers to individual and societal health and freedom. These are listed below and are briefly summarized in the following paragraphs.

 

These principles are described in detail in the referenced chapters. Anyone who wants to debate the “gay rights” issue intelligently should carefully study the complete texts of Chapters 115 to 122.

 

Why Christians Must Oppose the “Gay Rights” Movement

 

  1. The “gay rights” movement is a distinct danger to public health (Chapter 122).

 

  1. The “gay rights” movement is predatory in nature (Chapter 121).

 

  1. The “gay rights” movement is coercive in nature (Chapter 117).

 

  1. The “gay rights” movement disregards the rights of others (Chapter 117).

 

  1. The “gay rights” movement is violent in nature (Chapter 118).

 

  1. The “gay rights” movement enables addictive behavior to continue (Chapter 116).

 

  1. The “gay rights” movement degrades society (Chapter 117).

 

  1. Homosexuals are not a legal minority.

 

  1. The “gay rights” movement is superfluous (Chapter 118).

 

  1. The “gay rights” movement is unbiblical and, indeed, actually antithetical to Christianity (Chapter 115).

 

Introduction.

 

At first glance, it may seem that Christians should be on the side of “homosexual equality,” because Christ taught us that we should recognize the equal dignity of all human beings.

 

But we must look deeper into the homosexual agenda in order to find that homosexual activists are not just agitating for equality; they have that already under the laws of our country. The militant homosexual demands a superior position in our society.

 

It is essential that all Christian activists oppose the so-called “gay rights” movement, because it not only presents a clear threat to public health and safety, it will ruthlessly crush even those who oppose its immorality in good faith.

 

The following paragraphs briefly describe the primary threats that the “gay rights” movement poses.

 

(1) “Gay Rights” Endanger Public Health.

 

From a practical standpoint, anyone who is concerned with public or individual health must oppose any activity that significantly and adversely affects the health of a large group of people.

 

Perhaps the greatest physical threat posed by the homosexual movement is the fact that it is the most efficient transmitter of sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) known to humanity.

 

The primary objective of the “gay rights” movement is, quite simply, to allow promiscuous homosexuals to do whatever they please without legal or moral restraint. Even more significantly, if the “gay rights” movement attains its goal of public acceptance, many more people will be pulled into this lifestyle.

 

Even if there were no moral implications whatever connected to homosexual activities (as “gay rights” activists claim), Christians must oppose the homosexual agenda.

 

They must oppose it because entering the promiscuous homosexual lifestyle shortens a person’s life by an average of an incredible 32 years! This conclusion, based upon the examination of obituaries in the nation’s largest homosexual newspaper, is explained further in Chapter 116, “The Homosexual Orientation.” Compare this 32-year shortening of life to other hazardous behavior; heavy drinkers lose an average of 11 years from their lives; heavy (two-pack-a-day) smokers lose 9 years; and illegal hard-drug users lose an average of 14 years.

 

Additionally, homosexuals are commonly crippled by a variety of venereal diseases and parasitic infestations, most of which can be easily transmitted by sexual activity. These diseases are described in Chapter 122. According to the April 1987 British Journal of Sexual Medicine, while promiscuous homosexuals comprise only about two percent of the population, they account for one-half of all syphilis and gonorrhea cases, and nearly two-thirds of all AIDS cases. One in five homosexuals suffers from herpes, and they have ten times the rate of Hepatitis B infection that the general population does. They also suffer incredibly high rates of infection from cytomegalovirus, amoebic bowel disease, and a cluster of infections collectively referred to as “gay bowel syndrome.”

 

The average promiscuous homosexual suffers from two to four different venereal diseases simultaneously, as described in Chapter 122, “AIDS and Homosexuality.”

 

To encourage this lifestyle in any way is illogical from a public health standpoint.

 

(2) The “Gay Rights” Movement is Predatory.

 

The most pitiful victims of the “gay rights” pioneers are young and defenseless boys.

 

There exist at least a half-dozen organized pedophile groups with international memberships, including the Paedophile International Exchange (PIE) and the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). All of these groups lobby for the total elimination of age-of-consent laws so they can victimize children legally.

 

Chapter 121, “Homosexuality and Child Molestation,” describes how these predators victimize hundreds of thousands of small children every year -and get away with it!

 

(3) The “Gay Rights” Movement is Coercive.

 

Members of the “gay rights” movement constantly complain about limitations on their rights, but feel no remorse as they force others to accept their immoral lifestyle.

 

More than three hundred “gay rights” laws have been passed in the United States from the national to the local levels. Those churches that sat on the sidelines and watched (in order to be “tolerant” and “nonjudgmental”) are finding out to their shock that the laws that they refused to oppose are now being used as powerful weapons against them. They now realize that they should have defended themselves earlier, because they are now being forced to defend themselves when the laws are in place and they are at a much greater disadvantage.

 

A dozen of the countless examples of coercion by organized homosexuals are listed in Chapter 117, “Homosexual Objectives.”

 

Churches are being forced to hire and protect homosexuals. People are being forced to rent to homosexuals, even if they can show that they are destructive to property. Homosexuals can commit almost any act of violence against ‘straights,’ but ‘hate crime’ bills insure that any resistance to homosexual violence is instantly punished by the court system. And any resistance to the “gay rights” agenda results in blatant terrorism directed against individuals and organizations.

 

(4) The “Gay Rights” Movement Disregards the Rights of Others. As they complain that they are being oppressed, homosexual activists violently attack Christians, disrupt church services, and claim that they may legitimately use any means to achieve their goals -even murder!

 

Homosexuals have vowed to kill, maim, and murder in their quest for special rights, as described in Chapter 118, “Homosexual Tactics.” Any movement of people that feels that it is exempt from all of the rules that govern the rest of us must be opposed as a matter of principle, because, if it gains power, it will be absolutely despotic.

 

Every ‘homosexual rights’ ordinance, law, or executive order passed in this country forces others to accept homosexuality under pain of severe punishment.

 

Under “gay rights” laws, homosexuals are established in a superior legal position. Colleges give preference to homosexuals in legal disputes, housing authorities usually side with homosexuals against ‘straights,’ and “hate crimes” can only be committed against homosexuals -but never against heterosexuals. Finally, only ‘straights’ may be subject to “sensitivity” (i.e., brainwashing) sessions -never homosexuals.

 

“Gay rights” laws, by their very nature, are discriminatory and give one group legal protection that other groups do not enjoy, and this protection is based solely on the preferred group’s behavior. Such laws can only cause resentment and backlash and create a proliferation of case law that itself leads to judicial and legal logjams, conflicts, and confusion.

 

Some of the impacts of “gay rights” laws are discussed in Chapter 9 of Volume I, “The Victim Status.”

 

(5) The “Gay Rights” Movement is Violent.

 

When a group of people is given a blank check to engage in any activity they please with impunity, their lack of self-discipline inevitably spreads from sexual misconduct to total disregard for all of the rules of life.

 

Crime statistics show that promiscuous homosexuals as a class are the most violent group of individuals in the nation. Eight of the ten worst serial killers in our country’s history were active homosexuals. And homosexuals commit more than four times as many violent crimes in general than the rest of the population, as shown in Chapter 120, “Homosexual Practices.”

 

Incredibly, promiscuous homosexuals are more than 50 times more likely to meet a violent death than are normal people, and the homosexual ‘lifestyle’ has been shown to cost a person an average of 30 years of life, as described in Chapter 120.

 

(6) Homosexual Behavior Is Addictive.

 

As described in Chapter 116, “Homosexual Orientation,” homosexuals literally become addicted to their strange sexual lifestyle. By legitimizing such behavior, the “gay rights” movement is enabling individuals to become more and more immersed in the homosexual lifestyle, to the lasting detriment of both themselves and society. Homosexuals also suffer from a rate of alcohol and drug abuse three times greater than that of the normal population.

 

(7) The “Gay Rights” Movement Degrades Society.

 

For years, homosexuals have been demanding the redefinition of the family to include same-sex marriages and, indeed, any number of persons of any sex.

 

To elevate homosexuals who happen to be living together to the same status enjoyed by the family is to degrade and even ridicule the status of the traditional family unit. To place homosexual marriages on the same moral and financial footing as traditional marriages will adversely impact society in a profound manner, because when evil is officially placed on the same level as good, eventually society in general actually loses the capability of distinguishing between good and evil.

 

The implications of such a process are obvious.

 

(8) Homosexuals are Not a Legal Minority.

 

All minorities that have achieved protection under the law are defined by race, gender, and national origin -not by their behavior. To give a group special protection just because it acts differently from other groups is ridiculous on its face. Since laws operate on precedents, this will legally throw open the doors for any group, no matter how dangerous or perverted, to claim civil rights protection.

 

This type of legal end-run has already been tried by organized pedophiles like the Rene Guyon Society and the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA); by organized prostitutes under the banner of Cast Off Your Tired Old Ethics (COYOTE) and Johns and Call Girls United Against Repression (JACQUAR); and, of course, by pornographers, including the purveyors of ‘kiddie porn.’

 

(9) The “Gay Rights” Movement is Superfluous.

 

Chapter 118, “Homosexual Tactics,” demonstrates that, as a class, homosexuals earn more, travel more, are more highly educated, and own more material goods than any other subgroup of the general population. The “gay rights” movement does not really aim to free homosexuals from oppression, because they are already free -the objective of the movement is to give homosexuality and homosexual acts an exalted and special place in society, as described in Chapter 117, “Homosexual Objectives.”

 

(10) The “Gay Rights” Movement is Opposed to the Will of God.

 

The Metropolitan Community Church (formerly named the “Sodomy Church,”), the Unitarian Universalists, and many other ultraliberal churches claim that homosexuality is compatible with a good spiritual Christian or Jewish life. However, both the Bible and the Talmud explicitly condemn homosexual acts.

 

The Bible clearly condemns homosexuality as a “hateful thing,” and uses Sodom and the sodomites as a standard of evil against which all sinful activities are compared.

 

Anyone who says that Jesus and the Bible did not condemn homosexual activity is either completely ignorant or lying.

 

As far as the Jewish faith is concerned, it is first and foremost based upon a body of Commandments that include the seven Noahide Laws and a total of 613 parochial commandments. These laws, just as our Constitution is supposed to be, are interpreted (but not changed) by a vast body of rabbinic opinions and case law referred to as Halakhah (the Talmud), which is based upon divine revelation.

 

The difference between the two sets of commandments is quite clear. The seven Noahide Laws are universal, in that they apply to everyone, Jew and Gentile. The Noahide Laws are as follows;

 

·      Thou shalt not engage in idol worship.

 

·      Thou shalt not blaspheme God.

 

·      Thou shalt not kill.

 

·      Thou shalt not engage in incestuous, adulterous, or homosexual relations, nor commit the act of rape.

 

·      Thou shalt not steal.

 

·      Thou shalt establish laws and courts of law to administer these laws.

 

·      Thou shalt not be cruel to animals.

 

Although Modernist Christians and Jews have warped their original faith teachings beyond recognition to suit their own selfish purposes, those who faithfully adhere to the correct and original teachings will recognize that homosexual activity is one of the greatest evils in existence and must be opposed.

 

The homosexual rights movement categorically rejects any and all limitations on its behavior. It is virulently anti-Christian and rejects self-discipline, love of others, and even love of God. It is not an exaggeration to say that Christianity and the “gay rights” agenda simply cannot coexist. Either one or the other must eventually go down to destruction, and, at the rate the homosexuals are advancing in this country, Christianity will be reduced to rubble within twenty short years.

 

It is in the best interests of the children of today’s Christians for every believer to stand up now and resist the growing tide of sin and darkness that is washing over our once-Christian nation.

 

The Buzzwords

 

Introduction.

 

When debating homosexuality, Christians are often caught up in and confused by a morass of fuzzy ‘descriptive’ terms such as “diversity,” “perversity,” “normal,” and “unnatural.”

 

No Christian can hope to benefit from using these terms unless he assigns them very precise definitions. Otherwise, a homophile will use the principle of parallelism to attempt to render perverted acts morally equal to normal acts -a very effective tactic indeed. If the homosexual can throw his thick blanket of confusion over the conversation, logic will inevitable suffocate and illogic will prevail by default.

 

Therefore, the Christian must avoid using such nebulous terms at all costs if he hopes to keep the debate on a rational plane. He must focus instead upon the distinct and specific implications and effects of homosexuality concrete concepts that listeners can get a handle on.

 

However, since homophiles use these “fuzzy” words frequently, the Christian debater should be familiar with them and their effects.

 

Are Homosexual Acts Different?

 

Homosexuals acts are certainly “different.”

 

But so also are Lamborghinis, Italians, Christians, and a good home-made pizza.

 

Everything is “different,” because the word is a comparative term. Mere “difference” has no moral content in and of itself, and this is what the homosexuals are counting on.

 

Everyone acknowledges that homosexuality and homosexuals are “different.” In fact, homosexual activists revel in this “difference,” and use it as an essential part of their strategies of victimhood and infiltration and subversion. They most typically assert that Christians are “attacking us just because we’re different from them.” The homosexuals tend to equate “difference” with “good.” Thus the popular bumpersticker “CELEBRATE DIVERSITY.”

 

Homosexual acts are not merely “different.” They are other things as well, as described in the following paragraphs.

 

Are Homosexual Acts Perverse?

 

The Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “perversion” as “... an aberrant sexual practice, especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus.” Once again, the use of the word “perverse” can lead into a fruitless argument about heterosexual activities, some of which are certainly “perverse.” Many heterosexuals participate in the perusal of hard-core pornography, rape, incest, and even sado-masochism. However, the point that must be made here is precisely this: Perverse sexual activities are a defining characteristic of the homosexual lifestyle. They are not a defining characteristic of the heterosexual lifestyle.

 

To a homophile, of course, no sexual act is “perverse,” so the word loses its comparative function and becomes utterly useless in this context.

 

Are Homosexual Acts Unnatural?

 

The Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “unnatural” as “... not being in accordance with nature or consistent with a normal course of events.”

 

The most frequent sex-related activities that homosexuals participate in are certainly not natural. The anus was not designed for copulation; it was created for elimination. This is evidenced by the fact that the lower excretory tracts of homosexuals invariably sustain severe damage because they are being subjected to stresses (brought on by sodomy and other acts) that they were not designed for.

 

S&M (sado-masochism) is not natural. Healthy people do not enjoy pain and do not inflict it upon others. Only very disturbed individuals enjoy such activities.

 

Virtually every other type of homosexual activity, including “rimming,” “fisting,” and “wallowing,” is also decisively unnatural. Anyone who examines the list of activities described in Chapter 120, “Homosexual Practices,” will be able to discern this for himself.

 

Some homosexual activists will try to refute this point by claiming that many male animals engage in homosexual activity in the wild. This is true, of course -but only when there is a prolonged absence of females. They also neglect to mention that female animals never engage in homosexual activity. Besides, it is irrelevant and illogical to justify one’s behavior based upon observations of animals. What is natural for animals in many cases is not natural for human beings.

 

The above-mentioned phenomenon occurs among human males, as well. In an environment where there is a prolonged absence of women, a very large percentage of men (in some cases, up to one-fourth of the sample population) will engage in sodomy and other activities normally associated with promiscuous homosexuals -but only as long as they have no access to women. Long-term prisoners will commit these acts out of a form of ‘sexual desperation,’ and will vehemently deny that they are homosexuals just because they engage in sodomy and other acts.

 

Are Homosexual Acts Normal?

 

In the above definitions of “perverse” and “unnatural,” the word “normal” is pivotal. The Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “abnormal” as “... deviating from the normal or average.”

 

The difficulty inherent in the word “normal” is the same as that encountered with the word “different.”

 

Just as homosexual acts could be defined as “abnormal,” so could picketing an abortion clinic -or opposing pornography or homosexuality, for that matter. In fact, there are far fewer people picketing abortion mills and actively opposing the homosexual agenda than there are promiscuous homosexuals so, by this definition, pro-lifers and anti-”gay rights” activists are more abnormal than the average sexual pervert.

 

Thus, if a Christian activist becomes bogged down in a discussion about “normalcy,” he will inevitably lose. Once again, the term “normal” has no moral implications; it is only used by homosexuals to play a kind of counting game in attempts to justify their own behavior.

 

Debating From the Biblical Standpoint

 

“The explicit root-and-branch rejection of morality by gays has been real, pervasive, and baleful in its effect on both the quality of life that we create for ourselves within the [gay] community, and our p.r. [public relations] with straights ... There’s a simpler, darker reason why many gays choose to live without morality: As ideologies go, amorality is damned convenient. And the mortal enemy of that convenience is the value judgment ... Without morality, there can be no compelling basis for responsibility to others.”--After the Ball.2

 

On Pro-Homosexual ‘Christians.’

 

The most difficult person to convince of the innate ‘wrongness’ of homosexuality is a Neoliberal who alleges that he is a Christian.

 

Such ‘Christians’ either do not attend church at all, or occasionally visit a Neoliberal/Humanistic denomination such as the Unitarians. They may even attend homosexual ‘churches’ such as a Metropolitan Community Church, which began its strange existence as the Sodomy Church of San Francisco.

 

More likely, a pro-homosexual ‘Christian’ will be from a fallen-away “mainline” Protestant or Catholic church whose ministers or priests preach nonjudgmentalism and tolerance above all. In these churches, God’s love is strongly emphasized and His justice is completely ignored. Reaching out to a person’s physical needs is all that matters to these ersatz ‘Christians;’ as long as an individual has a full stomach, a roof over his head, and is safe from attacks by “right-wing bigots,” he is fine. Any reference to the condition of his soul is totally unacceptable and irrelevant, and is castigated as being ‘judgmental.’

 

“Children of God?”

 

Pro-homosexual clergymen and others will often claim that “We have to love everyone, because we are all children of God,” or words to this effect. It is true that Our Lord commanded us to love everyone, but it is not true that we are all “children of God.” Scripture refers to “children of the devil” in 1 John 3:8-10 (KJV);

 

“He that committeth sin is of the devil, for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

 

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: And he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

 

In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.”

 

Anyone who has seen cavorting, cursing, blaspheming homosexuals simulating perverted sex acts at a rally or “Gay Pride” parade should have no problem figuring out if they are children of God or the Devil.

 

The pro-”gay rights” person will always focus on the last few words of this passage, but we must then ask: What is true love -turning a blind eye while our brother treads down the easy road to Hell, or warning him of the horrible fate that awaits him? What is true love -wanting to spend eternity in Paradise with someone, or not caring if he burns in Hell?

 

The Standard of Sin.

 

Very few sins described by the Bible are condemned as explicitly as sodomy. Both the Old and New Testaments contain passages stating quite plainly that homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

In fact, the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah became a standard by which the sins of other cities and countries were judged in many Scripture passages. Biblical scholars know that only those entities that are superlative or excessive in some obvious respect are used repeatedly as a standard by which to measure other entities.

 

Sodomy is one of those few Biblical ‘standards of evil’ due to its extreme degree of sinfulness.

 

Christian Teaching.

 

Christianity teaches that there are basically two types of homosexuals.

 

There are those who have no intention of changing their sinful lifestyles. These homosexuals correctly recognize Christianity as their enemy and fight it overtly either as individuals or in groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), American Gay Atheists, and Militant Gay Atheists. They may infiltrate various churches and try to convince Christians that sodomy is acceptable through pseudo-religious groups such as Dignity, Affirmation, and the Metropolitan Community Churches. Or, they may simply masquerade as Christians and attend liberal churches to hear soothing sermons that accept them ‘just the way they are.’

 

And then there are those homosexuals who really want to repent of their past sins and live chaste lifestyles. Such homosexuals are to be greatly admired, because they are resisting extremely strong temptations.

 

Homosexual “Christians” in the “Feel-Good” Churches

 

Introduction.

 

Benjamin Franklin once said that “The mind’s greatest power is its ability to deceive itself.”

 

Nowhere is this more evident than in the pitiful spectacle of hardened sinners masquerading as Christians. Screaming Neofeminists, mega-abortionists, corrupt politicians, and complaining homosexuals desperately want to be a part of that which they so decisively reject. They want their consciences to be soothed by ultraliberal ‘pastors’ who tell them that

 

·      “You are really good Christians after all, the Bible is just another book, written by men just like us, liable to all the faults we are prey to and so its standards are just guidelines. The greatest goods are to be compassionate and nonjudgmental.

 

·      “There are really no Scriptural condemnations of abortion, lesbianism, bestiality, homosexuality, child abuse, and anything else that you happen to be practicing. So be comforted. Don’t change a thing. After all, there is really no such thing as Hell, and a kind and loving God would never punish any of His children.”

 

Yes, there really are bogus “Christian” churches that sell their parishioners this type of nonsense. This is an example of a symbiotic conspiracy, in that both the pastor and the people know the real truth, but are willing to systematically deceive each other in order to feel good and avoid mental stress.

 

Homosexual ‘Church’ Teachings.

 

Homosexual ‘churches’ like the Metropolitan Community Church haveexcised all passages condemning homosexuality from their ‘Bibles’ so that their members can continue to feel good about themselves as they glide effortlessly and comfortably down the wide road to Hell.

 

Homosexuals are very good at deceiving themselves. They have to be, because, deep down inside, they know what their fate is -and, even for a homosexual, such a fate is too terrible to face squarely, or even to contemplate.

 

Some of these ‘churches’ and ‘ministers’ even go so far as to imply or state outright the ultimate outrage: That Jesus was a homosexual! For example, Troy Perry, founder of the Sodomy Church (later the Metropolitan Community Church) argued in his book The Lord Is My Shepherd and He Knows I’m Gay that “Here was a guy [Jesus] that was raised by a mother with no father -typical of the homosexual syndrome. He never married and ran around with twelve guys all the time. Not only that, He wasn’t above bodily contact with another man: John the Beloved lay on the breast of Jesus at the last Supper. Not only that, but a guy betrayed Him with a kiss.”3

 

The following is a typical self-serving and self-deceiving letter published in a homosexual magazine, and sums up the homosexual attitude towards Scripture quite adequately;

 

“AN OPEN LETTER TO A GAY CHRISTIAN”

 

“How blessed and favored you are that God has made you Gay! He has given you an honor that far exceeds that of childbearing. He has exalted you above the angels by giving to you a place in heaven that is highest among men. He has given you a heavenly song that only you can sing.

 

“Do not be disturbed when other Christians tell you that our life-style is condemned in Scripture. It is not. Satan has so blinded them that they cannot see the great Truths that God has given only to us Gay people.

 

“He has given us the Great Gay Commission in the Old Testament. Jesus has told us that there are three ways that a man becomes Gay. God has given us a Psalm in praise of Gay marriage ...”4

 

Scripture On Sodomy.

 

Obviously, those who say that Scripture does not condemn homosexuality are those who are really blinded to the truth. The following are just a few of the more explicit Scriptural condemnations of this “hateful thing;”

 

“You must not lie with a man as with a woman. This is a hateful thing.” -Leviticus 18:22.

 

“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.” -Leviticus 20:13.

 

“The fornication of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other nearby towns was equally unnatural and it is a warning to us that they are paying for their crimes in eternal fire.” -Jude 7.

 

“You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not inherit the kingdom of God: People of immoral lives, idolaters, adulterers, catamites [pederasts], sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom of God.” -1 Corinthians 6:9,10.

 

Perhaps the most eloquent and pointed condemnation of homosexuality and a permissive society in general is contained in Romans 1. Every Christian activist should be intimately familiar with this chapter, because it describes our Western culture with a terrifying clarity.

 

PROPHECY FULFILLED: ROMANS 1:22, 26-32

 

“The more they called themselves philosophers, the stupider they grew, until they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for a worthless imitation, for the image of mortal man ...

 

“That is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions: why their women have turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices, and why their menfolk have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion.

 

“In other words, since they refused to see it was rational to acknowledge God, God has left them to their own irrational ideas and to their monstrous behavior. And so they are steeped in all sorts of depravity, rottenness, greed and malice, and addicted to envy, murder, wrangling, treachery and spite. Libelers, slanderers, enemies of God, rude, arrogant, and boastful, enterprising in sin, rebellious to parents, without brains, honor, love or pity.

 

“They know what God’s verdict is: That those who behave like this deserve to die -and yet they do it; and what is worse, encourage others to do the same.”

 

Figure 115-1 summarizes all known Scripture references to sodomy and sodomites.

 

The prophetic Romans 1 shows us that homosexuality and other perversions of nature and society are as old as civilization itself -and as current as the headlines in today’s newspapers.

 

The Case of Sodom.

 

Homosexuals are, by their own admission, great propagandists. They specialize in the half-truth, telling only the part of the story that supports their position.

 

For example, they are fond of saying that Sodom was destroyed -not because the townspeople were homosexuals, but instead because they weren’t hospitable to travellers.

 

This weak argument can be found in Father John O’Neill’s The Church and the Homosexual.[3]

 

What the homosexual propagandists intentionally omit are the fourth and fifth verses of the 19th Chapter of Genesis;

 

“They had not gone to bed when the house was surrounded by the men of the town, the men of Sodom both young and old, all the people without exception. Calling to Lot they said, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Send them out to us that we may abuse them.’”

 

Homosexuals and pro-gay ‘ministers’ also tend to conveniently omit the one sentence in the Bible that most accurately describes the character of the typical radical homosexual activist (Genesis 13:13); “The people of Sodom were vicious men, great sinners against Yahweh.”

 

Catholic Teachings on Homosexuality

 

Introduction.

 

As always, anti-life forces specifically target those organizations that they perceive may cause them trouble in implementing their agendas. Their weapons of ‘choice’ are confusion and obfuscation. Homosexuals are adept indeed at employing these tactics; after all, they have long experience in using them.

 

Dignity.

 

Dignity is a group cut from the same rotten bolt of cloth as ‘Catholics’ for a Free Choice (CFFC). Both Dignity, which embraces homosexual acts, and CFFC, which pushes abortion, know that the activities they are advocating are mortal sins in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

 

Yet they try to confuse the faithful by spouting lies and misinformation.

 

Dignity is a group of unrepentant homosexuals. They practice unnatural and unhealthy acts such as sodomy, “fisting,” and “rimming,” while insisting that homosexuality is a “perfectly acceptable alternative lifestyle” and while claiming that they are “adhering to the teachings of the Church.”

 

Jesuit Father John McNeill, co-founder of Dignity, has been dismissed from his Order for causing “widespread grave external scandal.” He constantly plays for sympathy by stating with a straight face that;

 

“I have publicly challenged the teaching and practice of the Magisterium [teaching authority of the Catholic Church] concerning homosexual persons ... because its present teaching and pastoral practices have caused enormous amounts of unjust suffering among gay people.”5

 

It is quite obvious that Dignity members -and the priests that celebrate illicit Dignity masses -are consciously undermining the teachings of the Church by sending a message to the ‘rank and file’ that the Church condones and accepts homosexuality. It is therefore clearly unlawful for any Bishop or priest to offer facilities to groups like Dignity or to allow such facilities to be used by them.

 

An “Intrinsic Disorder.”

 

The attitude of the Catholic Church towards homosexuals has always been perfectly clear.

 

On November 7, 1975, Pope Paul VI approved the Vatican Declaration on Sexual Ethics, whose pivotal paragraphs on homosexuality are shown below.

 

EXTRACT FROM THE VATICAN’S DECLARATION ON SEXUAL ETHICS

 

“8. At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

 

“A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution are judged to be incurable.

 

“In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, insofar as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

 

“In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. This culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.”

 

The policy of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuals was reiterated on October 1, 1987, when the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of Pope John Paul II, issued a letter entitled “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” to the Bishops of the Catholic Church. This letter reaffirms the Vatican Declaration on Sexual Ethics by reiterating that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered.”

 

With regard to use of Church facilities, the letter asserts that;

 

“The Church’s doctrine regarding homosexuality is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant biblical testimony ... He fashions mankind, male and female in His own image and likeness. Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God Himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator.

 

All support should be withdrawn from any organization which seeks to undermine the teaching of the Church. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and the use of Church buildings by these groups ...”

 

One point should be made perfectly clear: Despite the homosexual’s constant assertions to the contrary, the Catholic Church and other Christian denominations do not condemn homosexuals, but instead the practices of oral and anal sex and other unnatural and unhealthy acts, which not only contravene the laws of nature but ignore God’s Commandments.

 

The Homosexual Response.

 

Promiscuous homosexuals want to be free to act as they please regardless of societal constraints. And so, instead of responding favorably to a genuine outreach of help, they lash out with a degree of hateful ferocity that would be comical if it were not so pitiable.

 

Since their ‘lifestyle’ is more directly opposed to the will of God than any other, it follows that homosexual activists commonly manifest a truly Satanic loathing of Jesus Christ and of any conservative church. All homosexual publications literally brim over with hatred and vilification for Christianity.

 

A typical example in a large New York City homosexual publication shows how most homosexuals speak from a position of pure ignorance, illogic, and intolerance when addressing the Church.

 

The following author seems to writhe in the grip of incipient insanity as he gradually disintegrates into a frothing, nearly incoherent rage. Note the extreme degree of self-hatred in the passages, which are extracted from a series of letters sent to a Catholic priest which, among other things, threaten him with death;

 

“History has proven that the Catholic Church has been the biggest persecutor of homosexuals for the last two thousand years. There is not a force on earth that has committed more injustice and violence to homosexuals than organized religion. The Catholic Church is guilty of cold blooded murder.

 

“Formal religions grew as a result of fear of the unknown and the laity simply left all those unanswered questions of life and morals to the authorities -people like your stupid pope ... I will live to see your church punished and fined for all the atrocities committed against me or I will not live. That part of my mind that relates to my sexuality has been destroyed by the hate of your church ...

 

“I am asking you for money and I shall receive it. I feel no shame at all in asking your church for money. No shame! This is the last time I will make an effort to reach out to you. If you continue to ignore and deny my requests, do not be shocked, surprised or alarmed when I appear at your doorstep with weapon in hand ...”

 

“It is now time for this christ of yours to pay and he will pay plenty ... ask your church to take away this terrible stigma that has been placed on us by your church because of the activities of a few ugly, callous, dirty-minded men and the misinterpretation of your goddam bible written thousands of years ago by a bunch of asinine fools ...

 

“I learned that this ugly rash manifested itself on my body from the inner turmoil and struggle and emotional and mental conflicts going on inside me from trying like hell not to be what your goddam church said I goddam well better not be -a goddam faggot -a word so cleverly coined by the goddam Catholic church to further degrade, disgrace, and humiliate me.

 

“Your goddam mythical jesus god will pay for that rash. It saddens me to say that so powerful is the goddam Catholic church and the cult of your jesus that the church has convinced many gay people that they are really filthy and immoral and they spend their lives practicing self-hatred with feelings of worthlessness ...

 

“There are “virgin births” all over the place and each one of the dirty little bastards turned out to be a goddam god and in every case the name of the goddam mother was always Mary ...”6

 

This is certainly not an isolated example of homosexual rage and hate directed against the Catholic Church. Any article on the Church that appears in a homosexual publication is certain to be filled with anger, lies, propaganda, and name-calling -while it simultaneously pleads for “tolerance” and “understanding.”

 

======================================

 

[1] G.K. Chesterton, quoted in Ignatius Press’ “The Serious Reader’s Guide to Good Catholic Literature,” Winter 1989-1990.

 

[2] Quotes are from Congressman William E. Dannemeyer, “Christianity Under Attack By ‘New Bigotry.’” This article is included in a special section entitled “Anti-Christian Bias in America,” which consists of excerpts from the proceedings of the American Family Association’s March 1990 Conference on Anti-Christian Bias in America. Printed in the May 1990 issue of the American Family Association Journal and available as a 24-page reprint for $2 from the American Family Association, Post Office Drawer 2440, Tupelo, Mississippi 38803.

 

[3] Quoted in David A. Noebel. The Homosexual Revolution. Tulsa: American Christian College Press. 1977, 192 pages, $1.95 paperback. Pages 126, 129, and 130.

 

[4] “Scripture Supports Homosexuality.” Letter from “Father Thomas” in Guide Magazine, April 1989, page 4.

 

[5] “Jesuit Founder of Dignity Dismissed After Defying Order to Be Silent.” ALL News, February 16, 1987.

 

[6] Brendan Joyce. “Revealed.” New York City News, February 2, 1982; February 17, 1982; and March 3, 1982.

 

======================================

 

Further Reading: Scripture and Church Teachings on Homosexuality.

 

Greenhaven Press. Sexual Values: Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press Opposing Viewpoints Series, Post Office Box 289009, San Diego, California 92128-9009. 1983, 155 pages. Each section includes several essays by leading authorities on both sides of each issue. The questions asked are: “Is Nonmarital Sex Acceptable?;” “Does Sex Education Belong in Schools?;” “Is Homosexuality Acceptable?;” “Is Pornography Harmful?;” and “Should Prostitution Be a Crime?” Authors include Jeremiah A. Denton, Jr., Susan Brownmiller, Gail Sheehy, and Phyllis Schlafly. A catalog is available from the above address and can be obtained by calling 1-(800) 231-5163.

 

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. 26 pages, $0.50. Order from Ignatius Press, 15 Oakland Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528. This brief document outlines the Catholic Church’s position that homosexuality is an “intrinsically disordered condition,” and discusses the special pastoral concern that should be directed towards homosexuals.

 

 

==============================

 

FIGURE 115-1 SUMMARY OF SCRIPTURE REFERENCES REGARDING HOMOSEXUALITY

Explicit Condemnation of Homosexual Behavior

Leviticus 18:22

Leviticus 20:13

Jude 7

1 Corinthians 6:9,10

Romans 1:22, 26-32

Description of Sodomites and their Character

Genesis 13:13

Genesis 19:4,5

Other Scriptural References to Sodom and Sodomites

History and location of Sodom -Genesis 10:19; 13:10,12; 14:1-12; 18:16-33

Sodom was destroyed because of its sins -Genesis 19:1-29

Legal proscriptions against of homosexuality among the Hebrews -Deuteronomy 23:22-25.

Sodom was destroyed because it turned from God -Deuteronomy 29:23

Inhabitants of a town similar to Sodom try to force visitors into homosexual perversions and are punished by God -Judges 19:20-26

Corruptness of the descendants of Sodom -Deuteronomy 32:32

Description of the sins of Sodom -Ezekiel 16:46,48,49

Homosexuality is linked to idolatry -Wisdom 14:26-27

St. Paul classifies homosexuals as “ungodly,” “sinners,” “profane,” and “unholy” -1 Timothy 1:9-10

List of evil and ungodly behavior includes lustful actions -Galatians 5:19-24.

The punishment of towns that do not welcome the Apostles will exceed that of Sodom and Gomorrah -Matthew 10:15

Description of the destruction of Sodom -Luke 17:29

Description and condemnation of male temple prostitutes -Genesis 19:5, Deuteronomy 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46, 2 Kings 23:7 The Sodomites, whose practices were described in the first book of Scripture, became the standard of evil by which the most corrupt and wicked peoples and nations were judged. The following nations were compared to the wickedness of Sodom or were destroyed by God, as Sodom was;

The Samarians -Jeremiah 23:14

The sons of Zion -Lamentations 4:6

Jerusalem and Judah -Isaiah 3:9

Babylon -Isaiah 13:19

Edom -Jeremiah 49:18

Babylon and Chaldaea -Jeremiah 50:40

Israel -Amos 4:11

Moab and Ammon -Zephaniah 2:9

 

 

==============================

 

CHAPTER 116.  HOMOSEXUAL ORIENTATION AND THE “TEN PERCENT” MYTH

 

“I campaigned with Gay groups and in the media across the country for the Kinsey-based finding that ‘We are everywhere.’ This slogan became a National Gay Task Force leitmotif. And the issues derived from the implications of the Kinsey data became key parts of the national political, educational, and legislative programs during my years at New York’s Gay Activist Alliance and the National Gay Task Force.

 

“After years of our educating those who inform the public and make its laws, the concept that 10 percent of the population is gay has become a generally accepted ‘fact.’ While some reminding always seems necessary, the 10 percent figure is regularly utilized by scholars, by the press, and in government statistics. As with so many pieces of knowledge and myth, repeated telling made it so.” --Bruce Voeller, “Some Uses and Abuses of the Kinsey Scale.”1

 

Introduction.

 

“It was a good day. I was really glad to be part of a lesbian and gay contingent, because ‘choice’ includes choice of sexuality too. Abortion is about sex, not about life, but about sex and about women being able to have sex without fear of getting pregnant, and that leads to sexual experimentation, and that leads to women being able to sleep with women and men and whoever they want to ...” --Woman participant in the April 1989 “March for Death” in Washington, D.C.2

 

The Purpose of the Myth.

 

Activists battling “gay rights” must recognize that radical homosexuals do not do anything in the public realm unless it serves the homosexual movement very well indeed.

 

The most powerful weapon in the “gay rights” arsenal is the victim status.

 

A close second is the allegation that homosexuals are “born that way.” If it can be shown that homosexuality is a genetic trait, then they possibly have a legitimate claim to being protected as a ‘minority class’ under Federal and state civil rights laws.

 

This weapon has been very effective indeed at convincing those in power that homosexuals should indeed be a protected class.

 

“Born That Way?”

 

The psychology behind the advancement of the myth of inherent vs. acquired sexual orientation is quite simple. If a person is born homosexual, then he can claim that he has no choice in being created homosexual; in other words, he was, as homosexuals so loudly claim, “born that way.”

 

This allegation fails to explain why homosexuals commonly use the terms “alternative lifestyle” and “sexual preference,” which both imply that they choose their lifestyle. The terms “alternative lifestyle” and “sexual preference,” along with many others coined by the homosexuals, are artificial, sloganistic constructs coined for public consumption, rather like the abortionists’ coveted “potential life” and “pre-embryo.”

 

After all, we never hear about amputees adopting an “alternative leg style.”

 

What Freud Said.

 

Sigmund Freud, the most famous psychologist/psychiatrist of all time, precisely identified the critical turning point in a homosexual person’s life -the point at which a natural priority is subordinated to an unnatural urge;

 

“Moreover, it is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse -if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently. You will understand, therefore, that the gulf and turning-point in the development of the sexual life lies at the point of its subordination to the purposes of reproduction. Everything that occurs after this conversion takes place, and everything which refuses to conform to it and serves the pursuit of gratification alone, is called by the unhonored title of perversion and as such is despised.”3

 

The “Ten Percent” Studies.

 

Homosexuals desperately crave public acceptance for their perversions, and they will stoop to almost any deception in order to obtain it.

 

Perhaps the most effective tactic homosexuals use (after the victim status) is to wrap their allegations in a veneer of science. Members of the public automatically lend credence to any claim that originates with a professional medical organization or a prestigious journal, and homosexual theorists know this.

 

The four scientific events most used by homosexuals to support their viewpoints are;

 

  1. The original 1948 Alfred Kinsey report entitled Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, which was the first to claim that ten percent of the population is homosexual;

 

  1. The removal of homosexuality as a sexual dysfunction by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 1973;

 

  1. Simon LaVey’s 1991 study of the human hypothalamus; and

 

  1. J. Michael Bailey’s 1991 study of the sexual orientations of identical and fraternal twins.

 

This chapter examines these four studies in detail and exposes the fatal flaws inherent in each.

 

Following this section on the four studies is a discussion of four very important points regarding the reality of the homosexual orientation;

 

·      What homosexuals say about themselves;

 

·      What the experts say about the genetic basis of a homosexual orientation;

 

·      The actual percentage of homosexuals in the general population; and

 

·      The addictive nature of the homosexual orientation.

 

The Dubious Origins of the Big Lie: The “Ten Percent” Myth is Born

 

The Legend.

 

One of the most persuasive arguments that homosexuals have traditionally used to support their position is the assertion that fully ten percent of the population is “gay.”

 

Just as pro-abortionists label their organizations and publications to reflect the myth of the “pro-choice majority” (i.e., the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARRAL) refers to its newsletter as “The Voice of the Majority”), so do homosexuals attempt to perpetrate their myth with names such as “The Ten Percent Foundation,” “Project Ten,” and the “One in Ten Club.”

 

The original source of the ‘ten percent’ statistic is Alfred Kinsey, the country’s best-known sex researcher. His most famous ‘finding’ held that ten percent of the male population is “more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55.” Kinsey also claimed that four percent of all males are exclusively homosexual throughout their entire lives.4

 

The Institute.

 

It is instructive indeed to examine the life and methods of the world’s most famous sex researcher, Alfred Kinsey, and the research organization he founded, the Kinsey Institute for Research on Sex, Gender, and Reproduction. The methods used by this man and his organization reveal much about how the sex researchers and sex educators operate.

 

Every year, Kinsey’s Institute swallows millions of tax dollars and produces thick volumes of information that forms the basis for much of our country’s sex education ‘industry.’ However, the information and ‘research’ generated by Kinsey’s institute is dubious at best, because the Institute steadfastly refuses to reveal its sources and study methods. This, in and of itself, is enough to render its research utterly meaningless, because it cannot be checked by examination and replication.

 

The prime directive of scientific research is that it is useless without verification or replicability.

 

Kinsey was so fanatical about secrecy that he told his staff photographer William Dellenback that he would destroy all his files and risk imprisonment rather than let authorities see them.4

 

Kinsey’s unbendable rules included having no journalists present when he talked, and demanding that journalists submit any articles mentioning him or his Institute to him for approval before publication, in order to screen them for unfavorable remarks or implications.

 

All of this renders meaningless the Kinsey Institute slogan; “All Kinsey Institute activities derive from the belief that social policy and personal decisions about sex, gender, and reproduction should be made on the basis of factual information rather than on ignorance. The Kinsey Institute continues its commitment to providing such information.”4

 

In summary, the Kinsey Institute has received tens of millions of dollars in tax money but allows no inquiries whatever into its research methods. It is supposedly a library of information on sex, but it allows nobody to peek into its files, not even for the purpose of scientific verification.

 

The Most Important ‘Finding.’

 

The single most important ‘finding’ that Kinsey produced was unquestioningly his assertion that ten percent of the population is homosexual. This percentage is not only the basis of the homosexual-rights “ten percent” myth, but also serves as a cornerstone of the sex education classes being taught in the United States today.

 

Kinsey’s conclusions on sexuality were contained in the famous studies he co-authored with Wardell B. Pomeroy, C.E. Martin, and Paul H. Gebhard. These were entitled Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, both published by the W.B. Saunders Company of Philadelphia in 1948 and 1953 respectively.

 

Kinsey’s Flawed Research.

 

Kinsey’s research represents a classic example of looking for data to support a preordained set of desirable conclusions.

 

Gershon Legman, the original compiler for Kinsey’s pornography collection, revealed that

 

“Kinsey’s not-very-secret intention was to ‘respectabilize’ homosexuality and certain sexual perversions ... He did not hesitate to extrapolate his utterly inadequate and inconclusive samplings to the whole population of the United States, not to say the world ... This is pure propaganda, and is ridiculously far from the mathematical or statistical science pretended.”5

 

Sexual statistics were not the only areas in which Kinsey ‘fudged’ the truth. He often engaged in outright propaganda to slander those he considered to be the most dangerous enemies of his sexual agenda. For example, he would often claim that The Vatican possessed the world’s largest collection of pornography, a tactic commonly used by anti-Catholic pro-abortion bigots. He continued to spread this lie even after it was disproven.4

 

After his desired conclusions were drawn, all Kinsey had to do was insure that the study process supported them, regardless of what data was gathered and analyzed.

 

The best way to do this, of course, was to hire biased researchers. All applicants to the Kinsey Institute who believed that homosexuality was wrong were rejected.

 

After his conclusions were drawn and his biased researchers were hired, all Kinsey had to do to guarantee ‘successful’ results was to study a population that had a very high percentage of homosexuals compared to the general population.

 

Kinsey’s Male Report was based upon the detailed analysis of the backgrounds and sexual practices of more than 5,000 men. These men came from three classes that would inevitably guarantee a very high percentage of homosexuality: Convicted sex criminals, male prostitutes, and volunteers.

 

At least one-fourth of Kinsey’s sample population were prison inmates and convicted sex offenders, as compared to one percent of the general population.4,6 According to Male Report coauthor Wardell Pomeroy, “We went to the [prison] records and got lists of the inmates who were in for various kinds of sex offenses.”7 44 percent of all of the prisoners in the Kinsey male sample had had homosexual experience in prison, according to John Gagnon, a Kinsey researcher.6 Kinsey himself concluded that members of the prison population were more than four times more likely to be homosexuals than the normal population.8

 

Since the actual percentage of homosexuals in the general population is from one to two percent, this factor alone was enough to guarantee that Kinsey would get the “ten percent” figure he desired.

 

According to page 216 of the Male Report, Kinsey’s second sample population consisted of “... several hundred male prostitutes [who] contributed their histories.” Male prostitutes are by definition homosexual. So if we assume that 300 male prostitutes were interviewed for the Kinsey study, this factor alone would add a (300/5,000) = 6 percent rate of homosexuality to the final conclusion.

 

But Kinsey was not satisfied with skewing his results in just two ways. Most of the reminder of his sample population consisted of volunteers, many of whom were actively seeking Kinsey’s advice on sexual dysfunctions.6

 

This method automatically insured that he would include a heavy “volunteer bias” in his study. This well-known statistical principle proves that volunteers for any type of study in any field will invariably skew the study results, because they are always unrepresentative of the general population. A random sampling is always more accurate.

 

Even after leading statistical researcher Abraham Maslow experimentally demonstrated to Kinsey that a high percentage of volunteers would skew his study, Kinsey ignored him. Statistician Quinn McNemar of Stanford University confirmed this conclusion independently of Maslow.

 

Even the use of three biased populations was not enough for Kinsey. He wanted to make absolutely certain that his study results were “satisfactory,” so he deliberately asked his volunteers biased questions. Page 53 of the Male Report admits that “We always assume that everyone has engaged in every type of [homosexual] activity. Consequently, we always begin by asking when they first engaged in such activity” [emphasis in original].

 

Finally, the Truth. Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward W. Eichel co-authored a book on Kinsey and the sex educators entitled Kinsey, Sex, and Fraud. In this work, they characterize Kinsey’s most famous works, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female as “... the most egregious example of scientific deception in this century.”4

 

Despite the shoddiness of the research that backed up Kinsey’s “studies,” they have had a profound impact upon our society, because the sex educators seized upon his tattered results much as the population controllers pounced on Paul Ehrlich’s ridiculous book The Population Bomb.

 

Reisman and Eichel have concluded that the actual percentage of male homosexuals in the United States is one to two percent. This figure is strongly confirmed by the eight studies described in Figure 116-1, which shows that only 3.0 percent of men and 3.5 percent of women have ever had a homosexual experience in their entire lives. The percentage of “full-time” homosexuals is about half of these figures -around 1.5 percent, or one-seventh the representation claimed by militant homosexual groups.

 

An exhaustive study of human sexuality performed by sociologist Tom W. Smith of the University of Chicago’s National Opinion Research Center (NORC) showed that 93 percent of the American population has been exclusively heterosexual since the age of 18. Five to six percent considered themselves bisexual, and only one percent called themselves “exclusively homosexual.” The NORC study also showed that only 6.8 percent of the entire general population engages in “unsafe sex,” that is, sexual behavior that would put them at risk of contracting AIDS.9

 

Even the Kinsey Institute finally released the comprehensive results of its 1970 poll after 20 years and admitted that it found that less than two percent of all males had participated in homosexual activity in the last year.10

 

Kinsey Child-Molesting ‘Research.’

 

Kinsey’s research into homosexuality was not the only area in which he was unethical. Some of his ‘research’ was simultaneously pornographic and abusive of young children.

 

For example, Kinsey’s book Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (The Male Report) describes mechanically-induced orgasm in very young children.

 

According to Table 31 of the Male Report, “Preadolescent Experience in Orgasm,” children as young as two months were manipulated, and infants as young as 5 months “achieved orgasm.” Many of the younger children had to be masturbated for more than ten minutes, according to Table 32, “Speed of Preadolescent Orgasm.” Table 34, “Examples of Multiple Orgasm in Preadolescent Males,” alleged that an 11-month old achieved 14 “orgasms” in 38 minutes, a 4-year old experienced 26 “orgasms” in 24 hours, and a 13-year old had three “orgasms” in one minute.

 

Such intense physical stimulation appeared to be agonizing to the youngest children, as evidenced by the description of their reactions when being “manipulated;”

 

Extreme tension with violent convulsion, often involving the sudden heaving and jerking of the whole body ... gasping, eyes staring ... mouth distorted, sometimes with tongue protruding ... whole body or parts of it spasmodically twitching ... throbs or violent jerking of the penis ... masochistic reactions ... more or less frenzied movements ... groaning, sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children) ... extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting of subject ... panicked or frightened ... will fight away from the partner and may make violent attempts to avoid climax ...4

 

According to pediatrician Lester H. Caplan, “These children had to be held down or subject to strapping down, otherwise they would not respond willingly.”6

 

Wardell Pomeroy, in his book Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research, describes one of the “qualified researchers” who manipulated the children:

 

This man had had homosexual relations with 600 preadolescent males, heterosexual relations with 200 preadolescent females, intercourse with countless adults of both sexes, with animals of many species, and besides had employed elaborate techniques of masturbation. Of thirty three family members, he had had sexual contacts with seventeen. His grandmother introduced him to heterosexual intercourse, and his first homosexual experience was with his father.7

 

When syndicated columnist Patrick Buchanan read this material and dared to publish charges against Kinsey, pro-abortion lawyer Harriet Pilpel of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) threatened him with legal action.

 

The ‘Right to Privacy’ In the Schools.

 

Through the sheer force of publicity and compelled uniformity, sex educators of Kinsey’s time declared him to be the scientific equivalent of Newton, Galileo, and Einstein. They obviously made such absurd comparisons in order to advance the various points of their agenda.

 

They knew full well that no true and rigorous scientific research would support their views. Therefore, they had to create a “star:” Alfred Kinsey.

 

Kinsey’s preoccupation with privacy (described above) could only have one logical purpose: That of self-protection. This ingrained obsession with concealment naturally transfers to the public school system.

 

Homosexuality is uniformly presented as a higher good in secular sex education programs. This is perhaps the primary reason the school sex education experts will do anything to prevent parents from seeing the materials that their children are exposed to.

 

For example, the paganistic Unitarian Universalist Association’s sex education program entitled About Your Sexuality depicts, among other things, explicit scenes of anal intercourse -which it labels “harmless,” and “only one possible variation of sexuality,” equal to all the others. There have been many instances of parents being banned from even previewing these and like materials because of a lack of “open-mindedness,” “good faith,” or some other indefinable fault.

 

In summary, parental involvement in secular sex education programs is encouraged only when the parents are deemed to be “enlightened.” This terms applies only to those parents whose views coincide exactly with those of the sex educators and school-based clinic pushers.

 

In the lofty opinion of the sexologists, of course, the vast majority of parents are by no means “enlightened.”

 

The American Psychiatric Association Coup

 

Introduction.

 

Homosexuals commonly point to the fact that the ‘medical community’ -and, more specifically, psychiatrists -agree with them that homosexuality is a “normal human sexual response.”

 

It is certainly true that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its list of “mental disorders” twenty years ago, in 1973. This is a fact that almost always comes up in debates with pro-homosexual activists.

 

What they do not mention, of course, is that this sudden change in attitude was not based on any new scientific evidence. As described in the following paragraphs, it was a purely political move, induced by a relentless saturation campaign of deception, intimidation, and unethical collusion between the APA committee and activist homosexual groups.

 

Preparing the Ground.

 

In 1968, representatives of activist homosexual groups approached leading psychiatrists and the officers of psychiatric organizations and began to lay the groundwork for the reclassification of their perversions as normal manifestations of human sexuality.

 

These activists correctly recognized that such a move was absolutely mandatory if they were to win public acceptance. After all, society in general would not look very kindly upon the subsequent lobbying done by a group whose members were officially recognized as “mentally disordered.”

 

In the three years during which the APA’s Homosexuality Task Force was deliberating, it collaborated actively with numerous homosexual activist groups, including the Gay Activist’s Alliance, the Mattachine Society, and the Daughters of Bilitis, while completely ignoring organizations with views that contrasted with the homosexuals’.

 

Abram Kardiner, former Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, revealed that “A powerful lobby of ‘gay’ organizations has brought pressure on the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the category of aberrancy. This is only one facet of the tidal wave of egalitarianism and divisiveness that is sweeping the country ...”11

 

During this unethical collusion, Kinsey colleague Paul Gebhard said that anyone who was known to harbor the view that homosexuality was a disorder was systematically excluded from being a member of the Task Force or from even being able to present his views or evidence to it.

 

In other words, the pro-homosexuals packed this committee in the same manner that pro-abortionists and fetal tissue harvesters do: Only those people with the “correct” viewpoint were allowed to voice an opinion.

 

But the homosexuals did not focus on the APA alone; they intimidated psychiatrists all over the nation. While the APA Homosexuality Task Force was preparing its report, any psychiatrist or psychoanalyst who dared present documentation that homosexuality was a psychological disorder anywhere in the country was shouted down and even physically attacked at public forums or at local and national meetings of mental health professionals.11

 

The APA Caves In.

 

The years of hard work put in by the homosexuals began to pay off in 1972. The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality Final Report parroted Alfred Kinsey’s proclamation that “exclusive heterosexuality” and “exclusive homosexuality” were “sexual extremes,” and that most people were basically bisexual.12

 

This report in turn exerted a great deal of influence on the APA. In order to make its final report appear to be scientific, the APA’s Homosexuality Task Force sent a letter to all APA member psychiatrists. This letter did not ask whether or not homosexuality should or should not be declared “normal.” It was signed by all candidates for the upcoming elections for the APA presidency and urged all members to vote that homosexuality was thereafter declared to be on a level with normal sexuality.

 

This view was so voted by a very slim margin. The letter did not, of course, reveal the fact that it was written and funded by the National Gay Task Force (NGTF). One of the letter’s signers, in fact, later confessed that he knew that such knowledge would have been the “kiss of death” for a pro-homosexual vote.13

 

Subsequently, the APA eliminated homosexuality as a mental disorder from the 1973 edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual.

 

APA member Dr. Henry W. Riecken cut to the heart of the APA’s motivation as he wrote a scathing dissent in the appendix to the above-mentioned NIMH report entitled “Detailed Reservations Regarding the Task Force Recommendations on Social Policy:”

 

It is as if they [the Task Force] said, “Here is a phenomenon about which we know almost nothing and about which there is a great deal of anxiety and concern; therefore, let us suggest a major revision in public policy for dealing with this phenomenon.” I cannot escape the belief that this is an utterly unreasonable conclusion to draw from the sea of ignorance and misinformation in which we find ourselves.

 

The Essential Point.

 

The essential point to be made about this chicanery is that the sudden complete reversal in the APA position on homosexuality was not brought about as a result of a careful regime of scholarly research and study; it was a blatantly political move, a pre-determined vote, of all things, on the status of a mental illness. Furthermore, this vote was undertaken in a climate of deception and intimidation.

 

At no time before or since has the APA or any other psychological or psychiatric professional group ever addressed a mental health question in this manner.

 

Behind the Scenes.

 

It is fascinating indeed to see what psychiatrists really think about homosexuality when they are free of the restraints of intimidation and political pressure.

 

Almost simultaneously with the 1972 National Institute of Mental Health report, the New York County District Branch of the APA’s Task Force on Homosexuality produced a second report. According to APA member Charles Socarides, M.D., the document concluded that “... exclusive homosexuality was a disorder of psychosexual development, and simultaneously asked for civil rights for those suffering from the disorder.”11

 

It is even more revealing to examine the results of polls of psychiatrists taken since 1973 regarding the issue of homosexual orientation.

 

The original “voting” letter distributed by the APA Homosexuality Task Force in 1973 was answered by only about one-quarter of the recipients, leading one to speculate that the “volunteer bias” ignored by Kinsey in his original studies led to pro-homosexual results. It is quite certain that, if all of the APA members had returned their “ballots,” homosexuality would have remained a mental disorder in the view of the organization.

 

A later series of private surveys -which could be answered confidentially and without fear of retaliation -showed that two-thirds of APA member psychiatrists regarded homosexuality as abnormal despite the parent organization’s switch.11

 

More specifically, in 1977, four years after the APA ‘switch,’ the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality revealed that it had polled 2,500 psychiatrists on their view of what “current thinking on homosexuality” was, and, by a lopsided margin of 69% to 18% (nearly four to one, with 13% undecided), the respondents answered that “Homosexuality was usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation.”14

 

This is certainly a more accurate poll than the original APA letter because the original letter was subject to all of the “volunteer bias” that self-selected populations exhibit. However, by comparison, the 1977 survey was truly random, and so its results should certainly be given more weight.

 

But will this letter ever be mentioned by the pro-homosexual media or by homosexual activists themselves?

 

Don’t hold your breath.

 

Recent Studies “Supporting” the Allegation of Hereditary Homosexual Orientation

 

One effective tactic used by supporters of sexual perversions is the emphasis on ‘doctored’ scientific studies that ‘support’ pre-ordained (and invariably favorable) conclusions that in turn are used to lend credibility and legitimacy to the perversions of interest.

 

There are many examples of this anti-scientific nonsense. Alfred Kinsey used deception and outright lies to “show” that ten percent of the population of the United States was homosexual. The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) uses bizarre ‘studies’ and ‘surveys’ that purportedly support their position that sexual intercourse should begin shortly after birth. And the abortion-pill pushers produce heavily-flawed documentation of their position that RU-486 is “a necessity for women’s health.”

 

Perhaps the most egregious and laughable attempts at producing scientific support revolve around attempts to prove that homosexuality is a genetic, not acquired, condition.

 

The two studies most widely quoted that supposedly support the idea of homosexuality as an inborn condition are Simon LaVey’s study of the hypothalamus and J. Michael Bailey’s study of the sexual orientations of identical and fraternal twins.

 

These studies and their fatal flaws are described in the following paragraphs.

 

The Brain Node Study

 

Introduction.

 

Simon LaVey, himself a homosexual, examined the brains of 35 male cadavers (16 heterosexuals and 19 admitted homosexuals) to see if he could find any differences between those of homosexuals and those of normal people.15 He found that the INAH3 cluster of brain neurons was twice as large in normal men as it was in homosexuals.

 

Professional homosexual propagandists immediately seized upon this bit of information and alleged that it “proved” that homosexuality is an ingrained or genetic condition; i.e., that homosexuals are “born that way.”

 

Problems With LaVey’s Study.

 

However, there were several very obvious difficulties with LaVey’s study that the propagandists glossed over or ignored completely.

 

(1)   LaVey did not verify that his 16 “non-homosexual” subjects were, in fact, heterosexual. This is significant in light of the fact that six of these 16 men (37.5%) died of AIDS. LaVey acknowledged in his article that this was “a distinct shortcoming of my study.”

 

(2)   Three of the “heterosexual” brains had smaller node clusters than the average of the “homosexual” ones, and three of the “homosexual” brains had larger node clusters than the average of the “heterosexual” ones.

 

(3)   LaVey’s sample population size was ridiculously small. What he would like us to believe is that an examination of 35 cadavers somehow “proves” that the sexual orientation of billions of human beings is inbred or genetic. The best that LaVey could rationally claim is a percentage probability that his study reached the correct conclusion -not what he actually did, i.e., that his study had a 100 percent chance of reaching a correct conclusion.

 

(4)   LaVey’s logic is obviously flawed because the brain node in question has not been proven as being either a cause or an effect of homosexuality. In other words, the brain node might be smaller because of homosexual activity instead of causing it.

 

A Comparative Situation.

 

Perhaps the most serious difficulty of LaVey’s study is related to his painfully obvious conflict of interest.

 

This study can best be debunked by comparing it to a situation in which a pathologist hired by the American Tobacco Institute performs autopsies on 35 men. Sixteen of these men had never touched tobacco in any form. The other 19 began smoking at a very young age and smoked two packs a day until the day they died.

 

The pathologist removes and examines the lungs of the 35 men. He finds that the lungs of the nonsmokers are generally pink and healthy and the lungs of the smokers are obviously discolored and badly fouled by tar deposits.

 

Based upon the researcher’s data, the American Tobacco Institute announces that some babies are born with badly damaged and tarry lungs and that this trait causes them to become smokers. Conversely, those babies that are born with pink and healthy lungs will not become smokers.

 

This line of reasoning makes no sense at all, of course, but the media accepted the identical logic of the homosexuals in LaVey’s study without question.

 

The ‘Twins’ Study.

 

Introduction.

 

Dr. J. Michael Bailey of Northwestern University and Dr. Richard Pillard of Boston University School of Medicine found that, if one male twin is homosexual, identical twins are three times more likely to be homosexual than fraternal twins.16

 

In sets of identical twins where one brother was homosexual, there was a 52 percent chance that the other twin was homosexual as well. This number was 22 percent for fraternal (non-identical) twins and only 9 percent for non-twin brothers.

 

The conclusion that the authors drew from these comparisons was this: The incidence of homosexuality became higher as the genetic link between brothers became closer. Therefore, homosexuality must have a genetic basis.

 

Yep, More Problems ...

 

As with LaVey’s research, there were very serious shortcomings in the methodology of this study.

 

Incredibly, the advertising for volunteers for the study was done in a homosexual magazine. Therefore, it can be expected that the incidence of homosexuality among all respondents would be exceedingly high. After all, normal people don’t often read sex-saturated homosexual literature.

 

Secondly, the fact that 48 percent of the identical twins of homosexual brothers were not homosexuals themselves indicates that homosexuality is the result of environmental influences. Dr. Bailey himself acknowledged that “There must be something in the environment to yield the discordant twins.”17

 

Finally, previous research had shown an extremely strong correlation between incest and resultant homosexuality, but the authors dismissed the effects of incest as “insignificant.”18

 

Brown University developmental biologist Anne Fausto put her finger on the study’s fatal flaw, which was its failure to separate environmental from genetic influences. She said that “In order for such a study to be at all meaningful, you’d have to look at twins raised apart. It’s such badly interpreted genetics.”17

 

Has the Propaganda Been Effective?

 

Christian activists must recognize that the purpose of the above studies was not to convert the hearts and minds of the people. Average Americans have a good dose of common sense and instinctively realize that homosexuality and all of its entrained evils are unhealthy for both individuals and societies in general.

 

The purpose of these studies was to convince the power structure (in particular, the court system) that homosexuality is an innate characteristic.

 

After all, the court system is all that the homosexuals need in order to fulfill their many goals. The court system was used to enshrine abortion in this country over the objections of most of the population, just as the euthanasiasts are using it now.

 

It is very important indeed to note that a decade of intense pro-homosexual propagandizing by the media has done nothing more than harden public opinion -against homosexuality, as shown below.

 

 

Results of Gallup Poll on Public Acceptance of Homosexuality

QUESTION: “Should homosexuality be considered an acceptable alternative lifestyle?”

 

Yes

No

Undecided

Responses in 1982:

34%

51%

15%

Responses in 1992:

38%

57%

5%

CHANGES:

+ 4%

+ 6%

-10%

Reference: Judy Treible. “Changing Opinions on Gays.” Gallup Poll survey of 1,002 adults, Knight-Rider Tribune. The Oregonian, January 29, 1993, page A16.

 

 

These polls show that the intended effect of a full decade of homosexual and media propaganda -to ‘favorably’ change public opinion towards homosexuals -has not achieved its purpose. While more people have an opinion on homosexuals (only one-third as many people are now “undecided” than a decade ago), the margin of unfavorable over favorable replies has increased from 17% to 19%.

 

The Actual Percentage of Homosexuals in the General Population

 

“The notion that 10% of men are gay -born in the studies of Alfred Kinsey and popularized by activists -is dying under the weight of new studies.” -Kim Painter. “Only 1% of Men Say They Are Gay.” USA Today, April 15, 1993, pages 1A and 8D.

 

Figure 116-1 summarizes the results of the eight major studies that have been performed on homosexual orientation all over the world in the last ten years. The percentages of those persons who claim a homosexual orientation are remarkably consistent from study to study.

 

Even more significantly, the cumulative results of these studies show that 3.7 percent of men and 3.2 percent of women have ever had a homosexual experience -even if it was only one such experience. In other words, these tiny numbers include even that large number of people who “try out” perverted sex just once and, due to revulsion and/or shame, never try it again.

 

The percentage of ‘lifetime’ or ‘exclusive’ homosexuality would of course be much lower, and this fact is borne out by the studies as well. For example, the most recent study, completed by Alfred Spira of the Bicetre Hospital of Paris in June 1992, showed that only 1.1 percent of men and 0.3 percent of women had had a homosexual experience in the last twelve months.19

 

Since the average percentage of homosexuality among both genders would thus be about 0.7 percent, the “ten percent” myth exaggerates the true incidence of homosexuality by a factor of about fourteen.

 

What Homosexuals Think About Their Condition

 

Introduction.

 

It is all well and good to debate about scientific studies and scholarly opinions, but nothing is more revealing than to find out what homosexuals really think about themselves. Only in the homosexual mind is the truth about ‘homosexual orientation’ known.

 

The homosexual activist has two faces; one is for ‘straight’ consumption, and the other, which is remarkably truthful, finds its expression in the homosexual media and in certain radical segments of the scientific community.

 

It is important to be able to separate propaganda (the line that is fed to the outside world) from what the homosexuals really believe. Nowhere is the dichotomy between the two greater than in matters relating to ‘sexual orientation.’

 

Not Really ‘Born That Way’ After All.

 

Perhaps the most damaging evidence against the “born that way” theory is provided by the homosexuals themselves.

 

Homosexuals themselves generally don’t believe that their orientation is genetic or inborn. Sexologist Alfred Kinsey (the originator of the “ten percent” myth) conducted a survey of 979 homosexuals in 1970, before the “gay rights” movement had gathered momentum. He found that less than ten percent of all his respondents believed that they were “born that way.” More than 80 percent attributed their “sexual orientation” to childhood trauma or other environmental influences.

 

The actual responses to Kinsey’s survey were as follows;

 

Results of the Kinsey Surveys on Reasons for Homosexual Orientation

Reasons Given for Orientation

Percent

“Early homosexual experience with adults or peers”

22%

“Around homosexuals a lot, have a lot of homosexual friends”

16%

“Poor relationship with mother”

15%

“Poor relationship with father”

14%

“Unusual development (labeled sissy, tomboy, etc).”

15%

“Heterosexual partners unavailable”

12%

“Social ineptitude”

9%

“I was born that way”

9%

 

References. (1) A.P. Bell. “Homosexualities: Their Range and Character.” Paper in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. J.K. Cole and R. Dienstbier (eds). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1973. (2) Paul Cameron. What Causes Homosexuality? Lincoln, Nebraska: Institute for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (ISIS), 1984.

 

One Step Further.

 

Even if society were to grant that homosexuals have no control over their sexuality, they would not be satisfied. They have gone one step further and now assert that it is impossible to turn away from homosexuality. They even vigorously resist any attempts to prove otherwise by censoring media presentations of “reformed” or “reforming” homosexuals and by attacking any institution that assists anyone in turning away from their homosexual perversions.

 

Homosexual literature and pornographic fiction are replete with the strange theme of heterosexuals who, when seduced by homosexuals, suddenly “convert” into homosexuals. It is therefore reasonable to assume that homosexuals can be “reconverted” back to normalcy. However, the homosexuals do not buy this logical argument; they insist that changes in “sexual orientation” can only be one way; a kind of perverted check valve, if you will.

 

Several studies have confirmed that many or most homosexuals can overcome their lust for other men. In one of these, Bieber and Bieber concluded in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (24(1979) 409-421) that 30 to 50 percent of homosexuals can actually overcome their sexual orientation to a certain extent, and the remainder can be helped to achieve greater self-control and higher self-esteem.20

 

Many homosexuals not only change their behavior, they change their orientation to the point where they become disgusted with their previous activities.21 If homosexuality were innate, this would not be possible. It is now recognized that alcoholism is probably genetic and that there is no such thing as a fully-recovered alcoholic: The urge to drink will always be there, even if it is latent. Recovered homosexuals, by contrast, usually have no desire whatever to re-enter the perverted lifestyle they left behind.

 

It is obvious that homosexuals realize that this fact is a great threat to their “ten percent” myth; this is why they vigorously attack any research or statement that shows that homosexuals can be turned into normal people.

 

The critical point to remember is this: If homosexuality is genetic or innate, then environmental influences would not greatly affect the incidence of this characteristic.

 

However, environmental influences do have a profound impact on the number of people who become sexual perverts. The most effective of these influences, of course, is religion: Those persons raised in households without religious values are 450% more likely to become homosexual than those raised in homes where religion is important.22

 

Homosexuals engage in a wide range of perversions, including sodomy, fisting, rimming, pederasty, transvestitism, necrophilia, and sado-masochism. It is ridiculous to assert that all of these behaviors are innate. In fact, if homosexuality was an innate characteristic caused by a particular gene, then homosexuals would more likely participate in a narrower, more uniform range of deviations.

 

The Experts Speak on Homosexual Orientation

 

Relief From Responsibility.

 

If the public accepts the homosexual assertion that their ‘orientation’ was passed on to them by their parents, then their sexual perversions will lose all of their moral implications. Homosexuality will become absolutely neutral in content, like a person’s gender, left-handedness, or skin color.

 

This would naturally relieve homosexuals of any responsibility for their actions. If they contract gonorrhea of the mouth, it’s not their fault. If they get AIDS, it’s not their fault, they can just shout for the government to come to their rescue. If health authorities close a “gay bathhouse,” they can claim that they have violated the Constitutional rights of homosexuals (and of all people) everywhere.

 

The Objectives of the Movement.

 

Chapter 117 describes in detail the actual stated objectives of the homosexual movement.

 

Believe it or not, these objectives include;23

 

·      the closing of all churches that oppose them;

 

·      the total destruction of the family;

 

·      exile and actual murder of those who oppose them in any way;

 

·      the “conversion” by forced sodomy of all young men to homosexuality;

 

·      the official condemnation of normal love between men and women, and

 

·      the raising of private armies of thugs to enforce their agenda.

 

If anyone opposes this hateful agenda, the homosexuals just snivel that their civil rights are being violated, and demand that the “homophobic bigots” responsible for their “oppression” be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and forcibly indoctrinated in “sensitivity sessions.”

 

Opinions of the Experts.

 

Unfortunately for the homosexuals, they cannot be relieved of responsibility for their actions under this argument, because it is a lie. The world’s leading experts on human sexuality agree that homosexuality is an acquired orientation, not a hereditary orientation.

 

Some quotes by these experts are listed in Figure 116-2.

 

Homosexuality: A True Physical Addiction

 

“In 1981 we drew back and became more sexually conservative because of fear of the AIDS epidemic. Now we have decided that certain death is preferable to dull sex lives.” -A homosexual radio spokesperson.24

 

A Sexual Addiction.

 

Promiscuous homosexuals display every one of the classic attributes of substance addiction.

 

In reality, they are physically addicted to perverted sex. Dr. Gerard van der Aardwag struck to the heart of this matter when he stated that

 

[The] homosexual’s erotic drives consume much of their thinking, more so than in heterosexuals. Homosexual impulses really have something compulsive about them, in that they resemble other neurotic disturbances such as phobias, obsessional worries, and obsessive-compulsive neuroses. They make the sufferer restless. The driving force of this compulsiveness is the inferiority complaint. This makes the longing insatiable, because the same complaint will always recur.25

 

If this “addiction theory” seems like a novel concept, consider the classic signs of substance addiction as applied to active homosexuals. These indications, listed in Figure 116-3, precisely fit the promiscuous homosexual deathstyle.

 

The Evidence is in the Ads.

 

Another indication that homosexuals are true addicts is provided by The Advocate Magazine (originally The Advocate: Newspaper of America’s Homophile Community).

 

This stylish weekly bills itself as “The National Gay and Lesbian Magazine” and is configured to appeal to ‘mainline’ (i.e., most non-activist) homosexuals. Therefore, it accurately represents the opinions and desires of most homosexuals.

 

The addictive aspect of the homosexual orientation is revealed in the massive pull-out classified ad section of the magazine. An analysis of the photo and written ads in The Advocate Magazine by The Institute for Media Education revealed that 100 percent dealt with sexual matters. 15 percent advertised torture and brutality; five percent had a strongly Nazi theme; and 11 percent implied a desire for adult/child sex.26

 

Homosexuals often play on the sympathy of ‘straights’ by asserting that they are capable of long-term monogamous relationships, but all of the available evidence points to homosexuals caring only about their sex lives with as many people as possible.

 

The Institute for Media Education found that only one percent of the sex ads in The Advocate revealed a desire for a ‘permanent’ or ‘loving’ relationship. As far as homosexual ‘marriages’ go, they average 30 months in duration, and more than half of the ‘partners’ cheat even during this short time interval27

 

Escaping the Deathstyle

 

“There has never been a single documented case of change in sexual orientation.” -A. Damien Martin of the Institute for the Protection of Lesbian and Gay Youth.28

 

A Big Secret Indeed.

 

Homosexual propagandists in the “gay rights” movement have a very important secret.

 

Homosexuals can leave their lifestyle.

 

Why is this so important?

 

Because, if it can be shown that homosexuals can be ‘converted’ to heterosexuality, then the theory that ‘gays’ are ‘born that way’ is effectively refuted.

 

And if the ‘born that way’ allegation is debunked, the homosexuals lose their claim to being a protected minority under civil rights laws.

 

What the Homosexuals Say.

 

The most truthful indicators of whether or not the ‘gay’ lifestyle can be given up are naturally provided by the homosexuals themselves and those who study them carefully. It is interesting to hear their opinions on this subject.

 

·      61 percent of homosexuals agree that they could be ‘converted’ to exclusive heterosexuality and 58% agreed that “People are homosexual only if they want to be.”29

 

·      Masters and Johnson (the famous husband and wife ‘sexologist’ team) reported that 79.1 percent of their clients who attempted to discontinue homosexual behavior were successful immediately, and 71.6 percent remained successful after an elapsed period of five years.30

 

·      About a quarter of all homosexuals believe that their condition is a disorder and 37% believe that they themselves are “psychologically disturbed” because of their sexual orientation.31

 

·      When asked the question “If a teenager who was just starting [homosexual activities] came to you and asked your advice, what would you tell them?,” 80 percent of all homosexuals recommended cessation over continuation.32

 

Help in Escaping.

 

Just as those addicted to drugs or alcohol can free themselves from slavery, so too can promiscuous homosexuals. They may or may not always suffer from their cravings, but they can learn to control themselves and reintegrate themselves into society.

 

For information on how one can turn away from homosexuality, contact one of the following organizations.

 

Beyond Rejection Ministries, Post Office Box 2154, Hemet, California 92343, Telephone: (714) 925-0028. James Johnson operates an AIDS hospice and a ministry that helps homosexuals turn away from their ‘lifestyle.’

Courage, St. Michaels’ Rectory, 424 West 34th Street, New York, New York 10001, Telephone: (212) 421-0426

Exodus International, Post Office Box 2121, San Rafael, California 94912-2121, Telephone: (415) 454-1017. Exodus International is the nation’s leading clearinghouse in helping people overcome a homosexual orientation and offers information on more than 60 different national ministries.

Homosexuals Anonymous Fellowship Services, Box 7881, Reading, California 19603, Telephone: 1-800-253-3000. Provides group support and a 14-step recovery program.

Metanoia Ministries, Post Office Box 33039, Seattle, Washington 98133

Outpost, 1821 University Avenue South, #S-296, St. Paul, Minnesota 55104

Regeneration Books, Post Office Box 9830, Baltimore, Maryland 21284, Telephone: (301) 661-0284

Spatula Ministries, Post Office Box 444, La Habra, California 90631

Transformation Ex-Gay Ministry, Box 12121, Washington, DC 20005, Telephone: (202) 483-3800

 

 

Final Notes

 

Abortion ‘Rights’ vs. Gay ‘Rights.’

 

Conservative activists have frequently noted that the various liberal-left philosophies often clash because they are so inconsistent. In the future, there is one area in which this will become more and more evident -in the conflict between homosexual ‘rights’ and abortion ‘rights.’

 

Currently, it is considered acceptable to abort an preborn baby right up until the moment of birth because he or she is handicapped. And, generally, pro-abortion groups embrace sex-selection abortion, even though the vast majority are directed against preborn baby girls.

 

What will happen, then, if there really is a gene for homosexuality that can be detected before birth? Will the pro-abortionists continue to demand that there be absolutely no limits upon abortion?

 

Philip Arcidi, president of the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians (PLAGAL), has said that

 

“If, as recent scientific discoveries suggest, homosexuality has a genetic basis, the day is not far off when doctors will be able to determine if a child in the womb is predisposed to be gay. At this point, it will be possible to do by legal surgery what all the homophobes throughout history have tried and failed to do -eliminate lesbians and gays once and for all.”33

 

We must also ask ourselves other tough questions regarding genetic weaknesses. For example, psychologist Harold Fishbein of the University of Cincinnati suggests that there may be a genetic disposition towards racist behavior.34 It is also generally accepted that alcoholism is genetic. We do not excuse aberrant behavior by alcoholics, and we would certainly not allow racist behavior, even if the racist could prove that his actions were ‘hard-wired’ into his genetic makeup.

 

Why, then, do we allow promiscuous homosexuals to justify their frequently unhealthy and repulsive behavior with the “born that way” excuse?

 

Is Genetics Truly Relevant to the Debate?

 

God has given all of us crosses to bear. Perhaps these crosses, in many or most cases, come to us in the form of genetic weaknesses of one kind or another. It may very well be possible that most of us have genetic predispositions towards one or more of the capital sins: Pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, and sloth.35

 

We are all weak in one way or another. We can choose one of two courses: We can either coddle and excuse our weaknesses, becoming more and more enslaved and powerless all the time, or we can resist them, thereby becoming stronger and better persons, and proving to God that we love Him through our efforts.

 

The choice is ours to make. And the consequences of our choice will be eternal.

 

======================================

 

[1] Bruce Voeller. “Some Uses and Abuses of the Kinsey Scale.” Homosexuality, Heterosexuality: Concepts of Sexual Orientation. The Kinsey Institute Series, June Machover Reinisch (general editor), Oxford University Press, 1990, pages 35 and 36.

 

[2] Female participant in the April 1989 “March for Death” in Washington, D.C. Quoted in Voices for the Unborn [Feasterville, Pennsylvania], October 1991, page 4.

 

[3] Sigmund Freud, “The Sexual Life of Man.” Quoted in The Major Works of Sigmund Freud: A General Introduction to Psycho-Analysis. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., Chicago, London, and Toronto. Lecture 20, page 575.

 

[4] E. Michael Jones. “The Case Against Kinsey.” Fidelity Magazine, April 1989, pages 22 to 35.

 

[5] Gershon Legman. The Horn Book: Studies in Erotic Folklore and Bibliography. New Hyde Park, New York: University Books, 1964.

 

[6] Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990. 237 pages. Pages 20 to 23 and 40.

 

[7] Wardell Pomeroy, in his book Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research, Harper & Row, 1972.

 

[8] P.H. Gebhard, J.H. Gagnon, W.B. Pomeroy, and C.V. Christenson. Sex Offenders: An Analysis of Types. New York: Harper & Row, 1965.

 

[9] “Americans More Traditional On Sex Than Portrayed.” Focus On the Family Citizen, April 1990, page 5.

 

[10] Science Magazine, January 20, 1989, page 13.

 

[11] Charles Socarides, M.D. “The Sexual Deviations and the Diagnostic Manual.” American Journal of Psychotherapy, July 1978. Also see Arno Karlen. “Homosexuality: The Scene and Its Students.” The Sociology of Sex. James Henson and Edward Sagarin (editors). New York: Schocken Publishers, 1978.

 

[12] John M. Livergood, M.D. (Editor). National Institute of Mental Health Task Force on Homosexuality: Final Report and Background Papers. United States Government Printing Office, 1972, page 2 (Introduction).

 

[13] Ronald Bayer. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. New York: Basic Books, 1981. Page 146.

 

[14] Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, November 1977.

 

[15] Simon LaVey. “A Difference in Hypothalamic Structure Between Heterosexual and Homosexual Men.” Science Magazine, 258, 1991, pages 1,034 to 1,037.

 

[16] J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard. “A Genetic Study of Male Sexual Orientation.” Archives of General Psychiatry, 48:1991, pages 1,089 to 1,096.

 

[17] David Gelman, et.al. “Born or Bred?” Newsweek Magazine, February 24, 1992, page 46.

 

[18] A.P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg, and S.K. Hammersmith. Sexual Preference. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1981.

 

[19] As described in Peter Aldhous. “Sexual Behavior: French Venture Where U.S. Fears to Tread.” Science Magazine, July 3, 1992, page 25.

 

[20] As described in a letter by Father Anthony Zimmerman, SVD, of Tokyo, Japan entitled “Therapy for Homosexuals.” Fidelity Magazine, December 1987, page 5.

 

[21] Many studies and texts support this conclusion. For instance, see I. Bieber, Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study. (Basic Books, 1962); C. Socarides, “Homosexuality Concepts and Psychodynamics,” International Journal of Psychiatry, October 1972, page 118; W.H. Masters and V.E. Johnson, Homosexuality in Perspective (Little, Brown, 1979); D.J. West, Homosexuality Re-Examined (Duckworth, 1977); E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, “Ex-Gays: Religiously Mediated Change in 11 Homosexuals,” American Journal of Psychiatry, 1980, 137:1553-1562.

 

[22] “What Causes Homosexuality and Can it Be Cured?” Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sex, 1984.

 

[23] Essay by Michael Swift in the Gay Community News. Reprinted in the February 15-21, 1987 Congressional Record.

 

[24] David A. Noebel, Wayne C. Lutton, and Paul Cameron. AIDS: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. Summit Ministries Research Center, Manitou Springs, Colorado, 80829. 1985, 149 pages, $3.95. Reviewed by Chilton Williamson, Jr. on page 58 of the April 11, 1986 issue of National Review. A review of the literature that has been written about AIDS, and an examination of the tactics used by homosexuals to take advantage of the plague to further their own goals.

 

[25] Gerard Van den Aardweg. Homosexuality and Hope. Servant Books, 134 pages. 1986, $2.50.

 

[26] The Institute for Media Education. A Content Analysis of Two Decades of The Advocate (July 5, 1972 -July 2, 1991) and The 1991 Gayellow Pages. June 1991.

 

[27] A.P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg, and S.K. Hammersmith. Sexual Preference: Statistical Appendix. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1981.

 

[28] A. Damien Martin, Institute for the Protection of Lesbian and Gay Youth, quoted in Warren Bird. “New York Tax Dollars Fund a High School for Homosexuals.” Christianity Today, August 9, 1985, page 37.

 

[29] C.J. Williams and M.S. Weinberg. Homosexuals and the Military. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.

 

[30] Mark F. Schwartz and William H. Masters. “The Masters and Johnson Treatment Program for Dissatisfied Homosexual Men.” American Journal of Psychiatry, February 1984, pages 173 to 181.

 

[31] A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.

 

[32] P.H Gebhard and A.B. Johnson. The Kinsey Data: Marginal Tabulation of the 1938-1963 Interviews Conducted By the Institute for Sex Research. New York: Saunders Publishing, 1979.

 

[33] Philip Arcidi, president of Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians, or PLAGAL, quoted in “The Heckler’s Veto.” Washington Post, July 19, 1995, page A21.

 

[34] “The Deep Roots of Racism.” The Washington Post, February 9, 1997, page C5.

 

[35] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1866.

 

======================================

 

Further Reading: The Homosexual Orientation

 

Ronald Bayer. Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. New York: Basic Books, 1981. This author defies the strong politically correct wind from the American Psychiatric Association and tells, among other things, how homosexuals have used certain medical societies to defraud the public and further their own ends.

 

A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg. Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978.

 

A.P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg, and S.K. Hammersmith. Sexual Preference: Statistical Appendix. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1981. Some of the author’s results were tabulated from a 550-item questionnaire answered by 4,340 adults from Los Angeles, Denver, Omaha, Louisville, Dallas, and Washington, DC in 1983 and 1984. This survey was conducted by the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality.

 

Greenhaven Press. Human Sexuality: Opposing Viewpoints. Greenhaven Press Opposing Viewpoints Series, Post Office Box 289009, San Diego, California 92128-9009. 1989, 440 pages. This series consists of a basic volume followed by annual updates by the same name. The main arguments for and against each idea are written by the leading activists in each field. Topics covered include contraceptives (the birth control pill and condoms are emphasized), AIDS, homosexuality, and abortion. This topic is covered by a series of books, beginning with a basic set of essays entitled Sources (priced at $39.95) and continuing with an additional and updated annual series of essays. A catalog is available from the above address and can be obtained by calling 1-(800) 231-5163.

 

Dick Hafer. Homosexuality: Legitimate, Alternate Deathstyle. $7.95, 204 pages. The “comics commando” strikes again with a comic-book style book on the various aspects of homosexuality: Homosexual practices, including pedophilia; AIDS; the “gay agenda;” and facts about homosexual orientation. This book is not only easy to read because of its format, but also full of well-documented and footnoted information.

 

Father John F. Harvey. The Homosexual Person: New Thinking in Pastoral Care. This book shows Catholic priests how to counsel homosexuals from an orthodox position to lead chaste lives. Father Harvey is the founder of Courage, the Catholic group for those homosexuals trying to lead chaste and Christian lives. The author discusses the theories on the origin of homosexuality, the possibility of change in sexual orientation, and the pastoral perspectives and programs offered to them.

 

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Pastoral Letter “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.” 26 pages, 50 cents. Order from Ignatius Press, 15 Oakland Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528. This brief document outlines the Catholic Church’s position that homosexuality is an “intrinsically disordered condition,” and discusses the special pastoral concern that should be directed towards homosexuals.

 

Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990. 237 pages. An excellent and detailed examination of the background of the Alfred Kinsey sexual studies that “showed” that children are sexual from birth and that ten percent of the population is exclusively homosexual. This book examines in detail the flaws in Kinsey’s studies, and looks at the machinations of modern-day ‘sexologists’ who build their work on his studies. Reisman also details the impacts that Kinsey-style sex education has had on our country.

 

United States Government, National Institute of Mental Health Task Force on Homosexuality. Final Report and Background Papers. John M. Livergood, M.D. (editor). United States Government Printing Office, 1972.

 

Gerard Van den Aardweg. Homosexuality and Hope: A Psychologist Talks About Treatment and Change. Servant Books, Post Office Box 8617, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48107. 134 pages, 1986, $2.50. Reviewed by Joseph Sobran on pages 53 and 54 of the October 10, 1986 issue of National Review. Dr. Van den Aardweg holds that homosexuality is indeed a psychological disorder, and a curable one. He states that it is rooted in feelings of inferiority and is basically different from lesbianism in some respects but similar to various expressions of arrested heterosexual development. All in all, a fascinating book on relevant theory.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FIGURE 116-1 Results of Studies and surveys on the Percentage of the Public That Claims to Have a Homosexual Orientation

 

Percent Reporting a Homosexual Experience at Any Time in Their Lives

Location of Study

Year

Surveyed

Men

Women11

Norway1

1987

6,300

221/3150 (7.0%)

189/3,150 (6.0%)

Denmark2

1987

1,155

46/1,155 (4.0%)

--

Denmark3

1989

3,178

92/1,589 (5.8%)

86/1,589 (5.4%)

Great Britain4

1989

2,171

54/1,086 (5.0%)

52/1,085 (4.8%)

United States5

1987

36,741

700/18,370 (3.8%)

700/18,371 (3.8%)

United States6

1989

904

47/904 (5.2%)

--

United States7

1992

109,654

3,070/109,654 (2.8%)

--

France8

1992

20,000

410/10,000 (4.1%)

260/10,000 (2.6%)

United States9

1992

15,490

205/7,745 (2.6%)

167/7,745 (2.2%)

United States10

1993

3,321

76/3,321 (2.3%)

--

TOTALS

 

198,914

4,921/156,974 (3.0%)

1,454/41,940 (3.5%)

 

[1] J.M. Sundet, et.al. “Prevalence of Risk-Prone Sexual Behaviour in the General Population of Norway.” Described in Georg Liss, Global Impact of AIDS, 1988, pages 53 to 60.

[2] K.W. Schmidt, et.al. “Occurrence of Sexual Behaviour Related to the Risk of HIV-Infection.” Danish Medical Bulletin 1989:36; pages 84 to 88.

[3] M. Melbye and R.J. Biggar. American Journal of Epidemiology 1992, 135 pages 593 to 602.

[4] G.M. Breakwell and C. Fife-Shaw. “Sexual Activities and Preferences in a United Kingdom Sample of 16 to 20-Year Olds.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1992:21, pages 271 to 293. Also see D. Forman and C. Chilvers. “Sexual Behaviour of Young and Middle-Aged Men in England and Wales.” British Medical Journal, 298, 1989, pages 1,137 to 1,142.

[5] G. Ramafedi, et.al. “Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents.” Pediatrics, 1992:89, pp.714-721.

[6] S. Roberts and C. Turner. “Male-Male Sexual Contact in the USA: Findings From Five Sample Surveys, 1970-1990.” Journal of Sexual Research 1991:28, 491-519.

[7] Deborah Dawson. “AIDS Knowledge and Attitudes for January-March, 1990, Provisional Data From the National Health Interview Survey;” Joseph E. Fitti and Marcie Cynamon, op. cit. for April-June, 1990; Pamela F. Adams and Ann M. Hardy, op. cit. for July-September, 1990. All in Advance Data, numbers 193, 195, and 198, National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control, Public Health Service, United States Department of Health and Human Services. Page 11 in all three documents.

[8] Study ending in June of 1992, performed by Alfred Spira of the Bicetre Hospital of Paris. described in Peter Aldhous. “Sexual Behavior: French Venture Where U.S. Fears to Tread.” Science Magazine, July 3, 1992, p.25.

[9] Results of a November 1992 election exit poll, described in Murray Edelman. “The Gay Issues.” The New York Times, November 5, 1992, pages B8 and B9.

[10] Alan Guttmacher Institute. Family Planning Perspectives. April 15, 1993. Study quoted in Kim Painter. “Only 1% of Men Say They Are Gay.” USA Today, April 15, 1993, pages 1A and 8D.

[11] From those studies that included both men and women only. For all cases in which both men and women were studied, it is assumed that the studies and surveys concentrated on a population that was split evenly between men and women.

 

 

 

FIGURE 116-2 The Experts Speak on the Source of Homosexual Oreintation

“The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded today. Despite the interest in possible hormone mechanisms in the origin of homosexuality, no serious scientist today suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship applies.” -William Masters and Virginia Johnson. Human Sexuality. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1984, page 319.

“No one has ever found a single replicable genetic hormonal or chemical difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals.” -Dr. Judd Marmor, head of the American Psychological Association. Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Reappraisal. New York: Basic Books, 1982.

“There is little evidence of the existence of such a thing as innate perversity. There is an abundance of evidence that most human sexual activities would become comprehensible to most individuals if they could know the background of each individual’s behavior. I have myself come to the conclusion that homosexuality is largely a matter of conditioning.” -Alfred Kinsey, quoted in Wardell B. Pomeroy. Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research. New York: Harper & Row, 1972, pages 247 and 273.

“We’re born man, woman, and sexual beings. We learn our sexual preferences and orientations.” -William Masters and Virginia Johnson, interview with United Press International, April 23, 1979.

“The only thing most experts agree on is that homosexuality is not a result of any kinky genes.” -Time Magazine editorial, October 31, 1969, page 64.

“With rare exceptions, homosexuality is neither genetic nor the result of some glandular disturbance. Homosexuals are made, not “born that way.” From my 25 years’ experience as a clinical psychologist, I firmly believe that homosexuality is a learned response to early experiences and that it can be unlearned.” -Dr. R. Kronemeyer, in an interview with the New York Tribune, May 6, 1983.

“Homosexuality, the choice of a partner of the same sex for orgiastic satisfaction, is not innate. Such an object choice is learned, acquired behavior; there is no inevitable genetically inborn propensity toward the choice of a partner of either the same or opposite sex ... Establishing the psychosexual institution of homosexuality alongside the sexual institution of heterosexuality could well produce a massive social disruption without parallel in medical and social history.” -Dr. C.W. Socarides, professor of psychiatry, State University of New York, International Journal of Psychiatry, December 1972.

“We may tentatively conclude that the main source for gender and sexual behavior deviance is found in social learning and psychological development variables.” -Dr. G.A. Rekers, North American Social Science Network, Arlington, Virginia, February 27, 1987.

“Whatever may be the possible unlearned assistance from constitutional sources, the child’s psychosexual identity is not written, unlearned, in the genetic code, the hormonal system, or the nervous system at birth.” -Dr. John Money. Perspectives in Human Sexuality, New York, 1974, page 67.

“Neither present-day endocrinological tests nor microscopic or clinical examinations have revealed any physiological differences between a heterosexual and a homosexual individual.” -Dr. James McCary, Sexual Myths and Fallacies. Also quoted in Fidelity Magazine, March 1987, page 7.

 

 

FIGURE 116-3 Characteristics of the Homosexual Addiction

(1) Reoriented Priorities. The homosexual addict’s life centers around his ‘habit.’ His job, his wife and family (if any), and his possessions mean nothing. All that matters is that he be guaranteed a steady supply of mostly-anonymous ‘partners’ in sodomy. For information on the incredible degree of homosexual sexual promiscuity, see Chapter 119, “Homosexual Practices.”

(2) Obsessiveness. The homosexual addict is obsessive. He constantly craves sodomy and other perverted sex acts. In fact, these thoughts occupy most of his thoughts; all that matters is the next sexual encounter.

(3) Compulsiveness. The homosexual addict is compulsive. He is completely out of control in many instances. He may make occasional half-hearted attempts at limiting or controlling his behavior, but such attempts generally fail.

(4) Reclusiveness. The homosexual addict withdraws from his former (normal) activities and friends. The homosexual lifestyle is so extraordinarily perverse that it is incomprehensible to the mainstream public. So he ‘hangs out’ with his new ‘friends,’ because they ‘understand’ him and help him get more and more deeply into the homosexual deathstyle.

(5) Personality Changes. The homosexual addict undergoes severe personality changes. He becomes secretive, furtive, obsessive and compulsive. These changes are brought on by feelings of persecution, victimization, isolation, and, above all, acute guilt.

(6) Withdrawal. The homosexual addict experiences withdrawal symptoms to varying degrees if he is placed in an environment where sodomy and other perverted sexual acts are considered unacceptable or are unavailable.

(7) Escapism. The homosexual addict is an escapist. He avoids responsibility for his actions and blames everyone else for anything in his life that is not to his liking. This aspect of homosexual addiction has assumed extreme proportions in the so-called ‘gay rights’ movement.

(8) Privacy Obsession. The homosexual addict is extremely concerned about privacy. Hence names like “The Right to Privacy PAC” and “The Privacy Newsletter.” He knows that privacy is essential to continuing his socially unacceptable behavior.

(9) Cross-Addiction. Finally, the homosexual addict is usually cross-addicted. This means that he does not limit himself to the “standard” perversions, but becomes involved in pedophilia, transvestitism, sado-masochism (S&M), bestiality, hard-core pornography, and other horrors. He is very frequently alcoholic and/or addicted to various illegal drugs, as well. For example, studies show that 25% to 35% of homosexual men and women are alcoholics [Robert J. Kus. “Alcoholics Anonymous and Gay American Men.” Journal of Homosexuality, Volume 14, Number 2 (1987), page 254].

 

 

 

==============================

 

CHAPTER 117.  THE TRUE OBJECTIVE OF ‘GAY RIGHTS’ -TOTAL DOMINATION!

 

“Queer politics is no longer content to carve out a buffer zone for a minoritized and protected subculture. Our goal is to challenge the pervasive and often invisible heteronormativity of modern societies ... Our task is to confront modern culture with its worst nightmare -a queer planet.” -Academic manifesto by a group of “queer theorists.”1

 

What the Anti-Lifers Say

 

“Fairness. That’s all we’re asking for. Protection from unfair discrimination in jobs and housing. An end to anti-gay violence. Immigration reform. Defeat of bigoted laws denying human dignity and equal justice to lesbians and gay men.” -Human Rights Campaign Fund.2

 

Gays want no more than any other group of United States citizens; all we want is equal rights, freedom from unfair discrimination and hate crimes, and the right to live our lives as we please.

 

We do not have these rights now. Gays must remain rigidly closeted, because anyone who comes “out” is mercilessly hounded and attacked by self-righteous bigots and fanatics. We are denied decent housing. We are denied job and welfare benefits. We essentially occupy the same place in society that Blacks did 30 years ago.

 

The Real “Homosexual Agenda”

 

“I want to go to my job. I want to have a home. I want to save my money. And I want to go on vacation. What kind of hidden agenda are they talking about?” -Homosexual activist Frank Brown.3

 

The True Danger Lies Deeper.

 

Many anti-”gay rights” activists speak glibly of the “radical homosexual agenda” that they oppose for the good of the family and the nation. Most of the Christians who are actively fighting “gay rights” are motivated primarily by the rather lengthy list of homosexual demands, which includes the right to housing and jobs, the right to marry, the right to adopt and raise children, and the right to bear arms in the military.

 

It is true that many or perhaps even most homosexual activists would be satisfied with these and other gains in society. However, these demands are just a front for the true “radical homosexual agenda” as outlined by the most powerful and influential thinkers behind the “gay rights” movement.

 

The true “homosexual agenda” cannot be described by a mere list of demands; it is far too general and wide in scope for that. It can only be stated in generalities and in moral directions.

 

Instead of tearing at society’s fabric, the true “homosexual agenda” cuts entirely through it, and it is time that Christians realized this fact. The true “homosexual agenda” is limitlessly more dangerous than any imaginable amount of relatively superficial social tinkering could ever be.

 

Queer Revolutionaries.

 

Christians activists must recognize that the “gay rights” movement is fundamentally revolutionary in nature -or they will decisively lose the real “gay rights” battle.

 

It is not enough to defend the family against redefinition and dilution. It is not enough to oppose “domestic partnership” laws and pro-homosexual sex education programs in the public schools. And it is not enough to fight against “gays” in the military. The Christian activist must recognize the fundamental nature of the “queer revolution” and must attack it at its very roots.

 

The objective of the homosexual radicals is not equality but the total and (if necessary) violent overthrow of what they see as an “oppressive” social system. To homosexual radicals, anything that is normal is “oppressive,” therefore everything that is normal must be destroyed.

 

Even “tolerance,” which is a normal trait, must be obliterated, because tolerance implies that some people are putting up with activities that they find abnormal or distasteful. Since the model “queer” considers himself to be the purest and most unalloyed product of this “New Age,” he and he alone represents the purest essence of humanity and the pinnacle of true Humanist perfection. Therefore, he will not condone tolerance -only close imitation and admiration will suffice.

 

A Christian who understands the basic tenets of Communism will immediately grasp the fundamentals of revolutionary homosexuality. The “gay rights” movement is a close cousin of the revolutionary Communists, who desire nothing more or less than the destruction of the “old” system and its replacement with a New Utopia.

 

The Queer Objective.

 

“Queer theorists” have stated their ultimate objective in academic manifestos:

 

“Queer politics is no longer content to carve out a buffer zone for a minoritized and protected subculture. Our goal is to challenge the pervasive and often invisible heteronormativity of modern societies ... Our task is to confront modern culture with its worst nightmare -a queer planet.”1

 

And another homosexual activist wrote in a Guide Magazine editorial that “Our work will only be finished when we can say that the whole world is gay.”4

 

A third “queer theorist” wrote in Village Voice that “It isn’t enough to become parallel to straights. We want to obliterate such dichotomies altogether.”

 

As the Marxists dream of obliterating class distinctions, activist homosexuals wish to obliterate all sexual distinctions. In a “queer planet,” everyone would be omnisexual and gender-unconscious, with complete license to perform any sex act anywhere at any time. Those who do not conform (i.e., those in a monogamous marriage) would become the new “faggots,” the new outcasts, the new sexual perverts.

 

In other words, the homosexual strategists are not looking for equality with straights -they want straights to be identical to them. They do not want to be part of the current society -they want to remake society in their own image.

 

They want to eradicate racism, sexism, heterosexism, species-ism, age-ism, and every other “ism,” thereby reconstructing society from the ground up, on the ruins of the old system -just as the Communists attempted to do.

 

“Gay rights” spokesmen say to the media that they are the inheritors of the civil rights tradition.

 

This is bunk.

 

Martin Luther King wanted Blacks to have the right to participate fully in our society as equals.

 

The homosexuals want to force society to conform to their morality. As such, they bear more of a similarity to the American slavers than they do to Abolitionists.

 

Man and Woman They Uncreated Them.

 

In our “queer planet,” not only would God be dead, but Nature as well. There would be no identification by gender because there would be only one gender: Queer. The words “male” and “female” would disappear from the vocabulary.

 

Descriptive terms as applied to human beings would vanish, since they imply a standard of “normativity.” There would be no “unwed mothers,” because this would imply that the norm is wed mothers. There would be no non-religious or atheistic people, because these terms imply comparison with the norm, which is religious people. And, of course, there would be no adultery, fornication, or perverted sex acts, because these are considered abnormal now.1

 

The End of It All.

 

Just as Communism failed, so also will the dream of the “queer theorists,” and for precisely the same reasons.

 

The great danger posed by the “queer revolution” is that, in the process of failing, the homosexuals might very well damage society to the point where it simply cannot recover.

 

More Incrementalism

 

Hardly a “Gentle But Angry” People.

 

Despite the growing flood of media propaganda that stresses the Politically Correct view, homosexuals are anything but a harmless and peaceful minority.

 

Homosexuals (and even some properly indoctrinated Christians) laugh with derision when the words “homosexual agenda” are mentioned. But this ridicule is a mere coverup for the reality. What the homosexuals would have us believe is that 25 million people (their vastly inflated number), bound together strongly by their illicit and perverted sexual practices, have no common interests or goals that they would like to achieve.

 

This assertion is absurd on its face and should be exposed for what it is: Pure propaganda.

 

The homosexual strategists know that they will never be able to achieve their ultimate goal of a “queer planet” without a long series of small steps whose purpose is to “soften up” and prepare society for the coup de grace.

 

The Intermediate Steps.

 

Despite “gay” ridicule, the various intermediate points of the homosexual agenda in this country are very real. They have even been written down. The list of homosexual demands is very detailed, and the homosexuals pursue it relentlessly.

 

Believe it or not, the homosexuals, as documented in this chapter, aggressively demand;

 

·      the closing of all churches that oppose them;

 

·      the total destruction of the family through redefinition;

 

·      exile and actual murder of those who oppose them in any way;

 

·      the “conversion” by forced sodomy of all young men to homosexuality;

 

·      the official condemnation of normal love between men and women, and

 

·      the raising of private armies of thugs to enforce their agenda.

 

While keeping their eyes on the fact that the “gay rights” movement is revolutionary in nature, Christian activists should strive to deny the homosexuals victory in these intermediate goals. By successfully holding off “gay rights” gains, Christians will be doing a lot towards denying homosexuals their ultimate dream of a gender-free society.

 

Total Ruthlessness

 

“Today’s politicized lesbians gather in caucuses, swap childhood molestation stories, and lock themselves in the bathroom with a turkey baster full of somebody’s brother’s semen to take a shot at New Age parthenogenesis.” -Lesbian Florence King.5

 

Homosexual activists are utterly ruthless in the pursuit of their perverted goals. They are restrained by no morality or any standard of decency, and care nothing of anyone else, especially those who do not share their worldview. They have even recommended mass murder as a means of achieving their objectives.

 

For example, before a blood screening test for the HIV virus was developed, militant homosexual activist Robert Schwab wrote that;

 

“If research money is not forthcoming at a certain level by a certain date, all gay males should give blood. Whatever action is required to get national attention is valid. If that includes blood terrorism, so be it.”6

 

Numerous other examples of homosexual terrorism and violence are described in detail in Chapter 118, “Homosexual Tactics.”

 

Spelling It Out

 

“When the [gay rights] bill passes, there will be something else. There will always be something else.” -A homosexual activist on the eve of the New York City Council vote on a “gay rights” bill.7

 

The Total Agenda.

 

Perhaps no single work has summarized the actual, unobscured objectives of the homosexuals as well as an essay that was first printed in the February 15, 1987 issue of the homosexual newspaper Gay Community News by militant homosexual Michael Swift, and reprinted in the February 15-21 1987 Congressional Record. It quite adequately sums up the entire homosexual agenda. Observe how much of this agenda has already been accomplished.

 

Keep in mind that this essay was not printed by an enemy of homosexuality; it was distributed by the homosexuals themselves. It is reprinted verbatim in Figure 117-1, with no additions or deletions. Although homosexual strategists loudly insist that this essay is a joke or a dream, their actions demonstrate differently.

 

Swift’s short essay gives the lie to the already-strained myth of homosexual “tolerance.” While the homosexuals whine for understanding and tolerance towards themselves, in just one short page they label all normal people “feeble,” “vulgar,” “vicious,” “cowardly,” “puny,” “superficial,” “sentimental,” “cheap,” “insipid,” “juvenile,” “weaklings,” “liars,” “hypocrites,” “traitors,” “stupid,” “dumb,” and “swine.”

 

Rather strange language from such a tolerant, sympathetic, understanding group of open-minded freethinkers, don’t you think? But it is entirely in line with the Hitlerian mindset of the “gay Napoleons,” who believe that homosexuality is superior, and that all other ‘sexual orientations’ are perverse and inferior.

 

Make no mistake about it -homosexuals are not after mere “tolerance.” As Oxford University scholar John Gray points out, “When we tolerate a practice, a belief, or a character trait, we let something be that we judge to be undesirable, false, or at least inferior. Our toleration expresses the conviction that, despite its badness, the object of toleration should be left alone.”8

 

Toleration is definitely not enough for the promiscuous homosexual lobby -they are after nothing less than full equality, and if people like Michael Swift ever gain control, total and unquestioned superiority.

 

According to Luke Montgomery, once known as the militant homosexual activist “Luke Sissyfag,”

 

“You have to understand that the motivation of the gay community is validation. They want to be approved. They want people to say, ‘It’s okay that you’re gay’ ... and if you disagree with one tiny, insignificant little point of their wide, broad, sweeping agenda, you’re all of a sudden a homophobe and a hatemonger. You’re a villain. A bad guy. And this is ludicrous.”9

 

Figure 117-2 is a general list of demands released in 1984 by the National Committee for Gay Civil Rights, and entitled “This is Our Creed.” Read this list very carefully, and note that every single item is designed to destroy the bond between parents and children, undermine Christian values, and weaken the very fabric of society. Then, after reading the list of demands, try to imagine how loudly the homosexuals and the ACLU would howl if Christians made such demands!

 

Agenda for the Schools.

 

It is also revealing to read one of the many homosexual policy statements that are issued each year by groups all over the United States.

 

Very typical of these position statements is the New York State Gay and Lesbian Youth Caucus “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions,” released in 1987. Some of its seventeen resolutions are listed verbatim in Figure 117-3.

 

Remember that “all schools and universities, public and private,” includes the school that your children are attending!

 

Many school children are already being indoctrinated with “gay” propaganda, designed to inculcate the politically correct view that homosexuals are all helpless and innocent victims. A typical set of teacher directives for use during AIDS classes is shown below. Notice especially the second instruction, which states indirectly that homosexuals are just as blameless as newborn infants.

 

Manhattan Teacher Training: Do’s and Dont’s When Discussing AIDS

* “ Homosexuals should not be blamed for the spread of AIDS.

* Infants infected with AIDS should not be referred to as “innocent” children, as that implies someone is guilty.

* Teachers should not be squeamish about using explicit terms to describe gay sexual behavior.

* Stress safe-sex behaviors. Don’t make an issue about the number of sex partners.

* Teachers should stress to children that they should take a civic stand on issues to protect the civil rights of homosexuals.”

Reference: “High School AIDS Education Workshop.” Presented by Bruce Schutte and Rebecca Porper, New York City Department of Health.10

 

If these directives and demands sound dreamily far-fetched, consider that they are already being enforced by government agencies at many levels. A few examples are shown in Figure 117-4. This two-page spread, which documents just a very few of the outrageous ways in which homosexuals trample the rights of others, can be photocopied as a two-sided flyer for distribution at debates over “gay rights.”

 

By demanding that citizens support their deathstyle in various ways, homosexuals are demanding not only neutrality, but active approval of their perversions. New York City Schools Chancellor Nathan Quinones and New York City Mayor Ed Koch both insisted that their city was not condoning or supporting sexual perversions, although the Harvey Milk School -a school exclusively for homosexual teenagers -was entirely supported with tax dollars (Harvey Milk was an openly homosexual San Francisco City Supervisor).11

 

New York City gives us another excellent example of the kind of curriculum the homosexuals would like to force on every school district in the country -and what happens to those who do not cooperate.

 

The entire Queens School District 24 school board was simply dismissed by Chancellor Joseph Fernandez when it would not accept his idea of “multicultural indoctrination” by way of his Children of the Rainbow curriculum. Fernandez demanded that this brainwashing begin in nursery school, where two-and three-year olds would be required to use a “Gay and Lesbian Coloring Book.”

 

More ‘mature’ first graders would be required to discuss three books. The first, Daddy’s Roommate, asserts at its opening that “Being gay is just another kind of love.” The second, Heather Has Two Mommies, says that “Heather’s favorite number is two. She has two arms, two legs, two ears, two hands ... and two mommies: Momma Jane and Momma Kate.” The third, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, features a little girl with two lesbian ‘parents,’ and shows how easily she accepts the PC view as she explains her views on the Gay Pride Parade; “Some women love women, some men love men, and some women and men love each other. That’s why we march in the parade -so everyone can have a choice.”12

 

It is interesting (and frightening) to note that Daddy’s Roommate and Heather Has Two Mommies were published by Alyson Publications of Boston, which also is one of the world’s leading publishers and distributors of “kiddie porn” for pedophiles.13

 

Alyson Publisher’s books include;

 

·      Macho Sluts, which includes a short story where a veteran lesbian has sadomasochistic sex with her own 13-year old daughter, whipping her until she bleeds freely;

 

·      The Age Taboo, a series of essays that argue for the abolishment of all age of consent laws;

 

·      Gay Sex: A Manual for Men Who Love Men, which includes seven recommendations by the North American Man-Boy Love Association to help parents  deceive and avoid police and parents of the children they sexually molest; and

 

·      The 1,000+ page Spartacus International Gay Guide, which lists international pedophile support groups and shows exactly where child sexual molesters can find captive boy prostitutes in foreign countries.

 

This book is so detailed that it even names specific streets and parks where kids can be found.

 

Under Fernandez’ instructions, fourth-graders get detailed instructions on how to use condoms, and sixth-graders get explicit information on how to commit sodomy. By the time they are ten, each child will know this handy tidbit of homosexual advice: “Dental dam -a piece of latex that can be placed over the vulva during oral sex to protect against transmission of viruses that may be present in vaginal fluids, or over the anus during anilingus (oral sex involving the anus).”

 

For those who missed it, “anilingus” is referred to as “rimming” by homosexuals -where one person sticks his(her) tongue up another person’s rear end!

 

It is interesting to contrast these strange expressions of “neutrality” with the Neoliberal idea that the slightest particle of government aid to religious schools destroys Government neutrality with regards to religion.

 

Agenda For the Armed Forces

 

Overview.

 

The primary objective of the “gay rights’ movement, as stated above, is not to obtain tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle, because tolerance implies putting up with something that one considers distasteful. Homosexuals want full equality or special privilege, and this, of course, requires the abolition of any standards held by any group that places homosexuals in an inferior position.

 

The most visible example of such ‘discrimination’ is currently provided by the Armed Forces. Those people who confess to being homosexual are discharged from the service, because the presence of homosexuals in the ranks causes all kinds of predictable problems with unit morale, discipline, and privacy.

 

The Draft Dodger Steps In.

 

Homosexuals agitated for the elimination of such rules for more than two decades, until Bill Clinton took office in January of 1993. In the first week, this draft dodger attempted to eliminate all barriers to homosexuals in the military. So indebted to the homosexual special interest was Clinton that he ignored the wishes of Congress and all six members of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, who objected strenuously.

 

Additionally, Gallup polls found that veterans opposed the proposed change 61% to 28% (with 11% undecided), and the general public opposed the change 53% to 35% (with 12% undecided).14

 

Moral Officers Are Not Welcome.

 

The agitation for homosexuals in the military became so extreme in early 1993 that General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told those officers who objected to homosexuals in the military that “If it strikes at the heart of your moral beliefs, then you have to resign.”15

 

In other words, Powell was saying that moral officers will be forced to resign as immoral homosexuals are welcomed into the military. The homosexuals will cheer this development, because, in their warped worldview, anyone who has any morals by definition is ‘judgmental,’ and they should be punished by any means possible.

 

Powell and other high-ranking officers also stated that “indoctrination training” would be instituted for all normal soldiers should homosexuals be accepted into the military.

 

Notice that it is always the “straights” who must be indoctrinated [brainwashed], as if it were only normal people who are capable of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Naturally, anyone who suggests that homosexuals undergo such “sensitivity training” to lower their degree of anti-”straight” bigotry will be met with Neoliberal gasps of disbelief and indignant accusations of “homophobia.”

 

The reason that nobody has suggested indoctrinating homosexuals is that they consider themselves to be the new standard of humanity, and therefore do not need to be instructed in any way, shape or form.

 

Obituary for the Marine Corps.

 

The United States Marine Corps (USMC) has always justly prided itself on its professionalism and “can-do” attitude, and recruits heavily by relying on its ‘macho’ image, e.g., “A Few Good Men.”

 

The addition of homosexuals, with all of their accompanying perversions and effeminacy, would obviously be extremely damaging to the Corps.

 

When it appeared as if the Corps would be forced to admit sexual perverts to its ranks, Major Arthur J. Corbett wrote a poignant ‘obituary’ in the January 1993 issue of Marine Corps Quarterly that;

 

“Marines are an incredulous lot by nature, and brutally honest in their observations and decisions. The young officers who attempt to explain how homosexuality is an ‘alternate’ instead of a deviate lifestyle, will quickly lose the respect of their Marines and a bit of their own honor in the process.

 

“Sanitized terms like ‘sexual orientation’ may serve to obfuscate the gross realities of a perverse lifestyle to a jaded public, but Marines living in a barracks will rightfully question leadership that discredits by association the sacrifices they are willing to make. The party line will be that homosexuals are Marines, just like you. The cognitive dissonance that this simple, yet official, lie must engender will tug at the credibility and ultimately rend the integrity of our Corps.

 

“Critics claim that homosexuals already lurk in our ranks. The salient difference between the current reality and the proposed policy is that now homosexuals lie to the Marine Corps. Soon we will find that to accommodate homosexuals, the Marine Corps must lie to Marines, and they in turn to one another. Institutions like the Marine Corps are not built upon deceit ...

 

“It is time to ask Congress to disband our Marine Corps ... We should transfer our personnel to another service and don their uniform. It is better to wear proudly the uniform of another service than to see the Globe and Anchor progressively defamed.”16

 

======================================

 

[1] As described by David Horowitz. “The Queer Fellows.” The American Spectator, January 1993, pages 42 to 48.

 

[2] Human Rights Campaign Fund, Just Out Magazine, March 1989.

 

[3] Homosexual activist Frank Brown, quoted in Dirk Johnson, New York Times News Service. “Stunned Colorado Gays Ponder Election.” The Oregonian, November 8, 1992, page A22.

 

[4] Editorial in Guide Magazine, May 1991, page 6.

 

[5] Lesbian Florence King, quoted in Insight on the News, September 17, 1990, page 16.

 

[6] Homosexual activist Robert Schwab, quoted in Kirk Kidwell. “Homosexuals Flex Muscle in Washington.” American Family Association Journal, January 1988, pages 6 to 8.

 

[7] As described in “The Week.” National Review, April 11, 1986, page 16.

 

[8] John Gray, Oxford University scholar, quoted in David Reinhard. “The Nine Lives of Ballot Measure 9.” The Oregonian, November 12, 1992, page C12.

 

[9] Luke Montgomery, once known as “Luke Sissyfag,” quoted in Mark Olsen’s book Refuge and in “On Record.” American Family Association Journal, March 1997, page 11.

 

[10] “The New School Tie.” National Review, July 12, 1985, pages 20 and 21.

 

[11] Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990. 237 pages.

 

[12] George F. Will. “New York City Takes Sex Education Too Far.” The Oregonian, December 6, 1992, p.E4.

 

[13] Greg Mueller and Tom Kilgannon. “Publisher of Daddy’s Roommate and Pro-Gay Kid’s Books Also Caters to Child Molesters.” Lambda Report, March 24, 1993, page 1.

 

[14] Gallup Poll of January 21-22, 1993, for Newsweek Magazine. Eric Schmitt, New York Times News Service. “Military Objections Widespread.” The Oregonian, January 27, 1993, pages A1 and A8.

 

[15] “General Powell Tells Midshipmen Resignation Might Be Obligatory.” The Wanderer, January 21, 1993, pages 1 and 10.

 

[16] “USMC Officer to Congress: Abolish the Corps Rather Than Admit Homosexuals.” The Wanderer, January 28, 1993, pages 1 and 7.

 

======================================

 

Further Reading: Homosexual Objectives

 

American Civil Liberties Union. The Rights of Gay People. Avon Books Mail Order Department, 250 West 55th Street, New York, New York 10019. 1975, 263 pages. The rights of homosexuals, including the rights to speak and organize; the rights to have occupational licenses; immigration and naturalization; security clearances, the family, housing and accommodations, and the armed services. Includes a bibliography and list of homosexual organizations.

 

Congressman William Dannemeyer. Shadow in the Land. Order from Ignatius Press, 15 Oakland Avenue, Harrison, New York 10528. 1989, $9.95. A comprehensive overview of the homosexual movement -its origins, evolution, and social and political objectives.

 

Lambda Report. Published by the Citizen’s Rights Foundation, Post Office Box 45252, Washington, DC 20026-5252. Telephone: (703) 497-2702. This monthly periodical monitors the homosexual agenda in this culture and exposes its goals and tactics.

 

Roger J. Magnuson. Are Gay Rights Right? Straitgate Press, 2200 West 66th Street, Suite 190, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55423. 1986; $7.00. Reviewed by Chilton Williamson, Jr. on page 58 of the July 18, 1986 issue of National Review. The author examines the strategies and tactics used by the homosexual movement and carefully looks at the root of the problem to arrive at the conclusion that ‘gay rights’ are not a viable subject for legislation. He also takes a close look at the stated objectives of the ‘gay rights’ movement, i.e., a superior position in society.

 

Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990. 237 pages. An excellent and detailed examination of the background of the Alfred Kinsey sexual studies that “showed” that children are sexual from birth and that ten percent of the population is exclusively homosexual. This book examines in detail the flaws in Kinsey’s studies, and looks at the machinations of modern-day ‘sexologists’ who build their work on his studies. Reisman also details the baleful impacts that Kinsey-style sex education has had on our country.

 

Father Enrique T. Rueda. The Homosexual Network. $29.95, 1986, 700 pages. Order from the Devin Adair Company, 143 Sound Beach Avenue, Post Office Box A, Old Greenwich, Connecticut 06870. The author covers every aspect of the homosexual network; its acceptability, tactics, subculture, ideology, goals, everything; this is the most complete book on the subject ever written. The book addresses in detail the homosexual ideology, subcultures, religion, goals, funding, and intimate connections with Neoliberalism. It includes a 72-page section on the influence and role of homosexuality in the Catholic Church. Also covered are the “Gayellow Pages,” ties between the movement and the Neoliberals and Neofeminists. The book also deals with the connections between homosexuality and organized pedophile groups.

 

 

 

FIGURE 117-1 Essay on the Homosexual Revolution by Michael Swift

THIS ESSAY is outre, madness, a tragic, cruel fantasy, an eruption of inner rage, on how the oppressed desperately dream of being the oppressor.

We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of you shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.

Women, you cry for freedom. You say you are no longer satisfied with men; they make you unhappy. We, connoisseurs of the masculine face, the masculine physique, shall take your men from you then. We will amuse them; we will instruct them; we will embrace them when they weep. Women, you say you wish to live with each other instead of with men. Then go and be with each other. We shall give your men pleasures they have never known because we are foremost men too and only man knows how to truly please another man; only one man can understand with depth and feeling the mind and body of another man.

All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men.

All homosexuals must stand together as brothers; we must be united artistically, philosophically, socially, politically, and financially. We will triumph only when we present a common face to the vicious heterosexual enemy.

If you dare to cry faggot, fairy, queer, at us, we will stab you in your cowardly hearts and defile your dead, puny bodies.

We shall write poems of the love between men; we shall stage plays in which man openly caresses man; we shall make films about the love between heroic men which will replace the cheap, superficial, sentimental, insipid, juvenile, heterosexual infatuations presently dominating your cinema screens. We shall sculpt statues of beautiful young men, of bold athletes which will be placed in your parks, your squares, your plazas. The museums of the world will be filled only with paintings of graceful, naked lads.

Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable and de rigueur, and we will succeed because we are adept at setting styles. We will eliminate heterosexual liaisons through the devices of wit and ridicule, devices which we are skilled in employing.

We will unmask the powerful homosexuals who masquerade as heterosexuals. You will be shocked and frightened when you find that your presidents and their sons, your industrialists, your senators, your mayors, your generals, your athletes, your film stars, your television personalities, your civic leaders, your priests are not the safe, familiar, bourgeois, heterosexual figures you assumed them to be. We are everywhere; we have infiltrated your ranks. Be careful when you speak of homosexuals because we are always among you; we may be sleeping in the same bed with you.

There will be no compromises. We are not middle-class weaklings. Highly intelligent, we are the natural aristocrats of the human race, and steely-minded aristocrats never settle for less. Those who oppose us will be exiled.

We shall raise vast, private armies, as Mishima did, to defeat you. We shall conquer the world because warriors inspired by and banded together by homosexual love and honor are as invincible as were the ancient Greek soldiers. The family unit -spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy, and violence -will be abolished. The family unit, which only dampens imagination and curbs free will, must be eliminated. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory. They will be bonded together in a communal setting, under the control and instruction of homosexual savants.

All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. We adhere to a cult of beauty, moral and aesthetic. All that is ugly and vulgar and banal will be annihilated. Since we are alienated from middle-class heterosexual conventions, we are free to live our lives according to the dictates of the pure imagination. For us too much is not enough.

The exquisite society to emerge will be governed by an elite comprised of gay poets. One of the major requirements for a position of power in the new society of homoeroticism will be indulgence in the Greek passion. Any man contaminated with heterosexual lust will be automatically barred from a position of influence. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men.

We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world. We will demonstrate that homosexuality and intelligence and imagination are inextricably linked, and that homosexuality is a requirement for true nobility, true beauty in a man.

We shall be victorious because we are fueled with the ferocious bitterness of the oppressed who have been forced to play seemingly bit parts in your dumb, heterosexual shows throughout the ages. We too are capable of firing guns and manning the barricades of the ultimate revolution.

Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks!

Reference. This essay was printed in the February 15, 1987 issue of the homosexual newspaper Gay Community News by Michael Swift, and was reprinted in the February 15-21 1987 Congressional Record.

 

 

 

FIGURE 117-2 Demands of the National Committee for Gay Civil Rights

“This Is Our Creed”

(1) “We believe every adult and child has the right to decide for themselves their own sexual orientation.

(2) We believe every individual or group which condemns homosexuality as wrong or sinful is guilty of bigotry.

(3) We believe every child is entitled to non-discriminatory sex educational courses without parental interference ... and to fulfill their destinies according to their sexual orientations.

(4) We define sexual orientation as any and every inclination or impulse which nature bestows upon a person.

(5) We reject the notion that any private act or behavior between consenting adults or children is unnatural or disordered.

(6) We demand the recognition of homosexuality as a legitimate alternative lifestyle equal in all respects to traditional lifestyles.

(7) We demand judicial, legislative, and executive action to protect our sexual orientations and preferences.

(8) We condemn all groups --religious or otherwise --who preach sexual bigotry and discrimination.

(9) We condemn those misguided parents who impose their homophobic prejudices upon their children.

(10) We assert there is nothing higher than man himself to decide moral and ethical values and that god made man supreme.

(11) We defend the rights of atheists, anarchists, and agnostics to live by their values and beliefs according to their consciences. In this we are united.

(12) We condemn all those who presume to pass judgement on others.

(13) We believe in equal rights for all and equal pay for equal work and assert that no corporation, government agency, or religious or educational group has the right to restrict or discourage private homosexual activity.

(14) We believe our human rights will be realized in a social and political order where truth and justice prevail.

(15) This we believe. This is our creed.”

Notes. Homosexual strategists have correctly recognized that the family is the greatest obstacle to achievement of all of their goals. This is demonstrated in Michael Swift’s essay, shown earlier in this chapter. Therefore, this list of demands heavily emphasizes actions that would undermine the family and put obstacles between parents and their children. See particularly items 1, 3, and 9.

Item 4 obviously represents a demand for ‘straight’ recognition of bestiality, among other things.

Item 5 is an obvious demand for legalized child sexual abuse, or, as homosexual activists call it, “intergenerational love.”

Notice that most of these items begin with the words “We condemn” or “We demand.” This is typical of the homosexual mentality; there is no compromise, just a selfish expectation that everyone must yield completely to them. Note that items 2, 8, and 9 specifically condemn all those groups and people who may believe differently from homosexual activists, who demand that their beliefs be acknowledged. This hypocritical double standard is also typical of the homosexual mindset.

In their mad and almost illiterate rush to draw up their list of demands, this homosexual group has made numerous logical mistakes in their “creed.” For instance, note that item 10 acknowledges the existence of a god, but that man instead is supreme. Also note that item 12 is comically self-contradictory.

Reference. 1984 Draft III internal review copy entitled “This is Our Creed,” by the National Committee for Gay Civil Rights, Church Annex Building, Washington, D.C.

 

 

 

FIGURE 117-3 Typical Demands of Homosexuals Regarding School Indoctrination Programs

The 1987 New York State Gay and Leasbian Youth Caucus “Declaration of Sentiments and Resolutions”

RESOLVED, that all legislation restricting access to and availability of family planning, birth control, reproductive health information, services andtreatment be repealed [note the close ties between the homosexuals and the pro-abortion movement].

RESOLVED, that all federal, state, and local funding for public and private schools and universities be cut off until all discrimination on the basisof sexual orientation be eradicated [note the willingness to force their beliefs down everyone else’s throats].

RESOLVED, that all schools and universities, public and private, cover all sexualities in the curricula [this is Newspeak for enforced and mandatory’sensitivity classes,’ whose purpose is to propagandize and force students into accepting that sodomy is ‘just another lifestyle].

RESOLVED, that all schools and universities, public and private, discuss the accomplishments of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals in literature,history/herstory, mathematics, science, art, music and other courses.

RESOLVED, that all schools and universities, public and private, develop a gay and lesbian studies program.

RESOLVED, that all schools and universities, public and private, mandate sensitization workshops on gay and lesbian issues, beginning at theelementary level [this objective has already been largely met in our public school system].

RESOLVED, that all schools and universities, public and private, punish those members who harass gays, lesbians, and bisexuals [remember thatthe homosexual and liberal definition of “harassment” is infinitely expandable, including debating them in a public forum, writing any material that they do not approve of, refusing to meet any of their demands, and opposing them in any way whatever].

RESOLVED, that all schools and universities, public and private, immediately recognize and found student organizations for gays, lesbians, andbisexuals [the homosexuals do not even want to be bothered to do the work themselves. They demand that the school do all the research and organizing, while they lay back and enjoy the result].

RESOLVED, that all youth groups and student organizations admit gays, lesbians, and bisexuals [even if they are forced upon groups that view their lifestyles as abhorrent].

 

 

National Organization for Women: “Lesbians in the Schools.”

“School counselors should be required to take courses in human sexuality in which a comprehensive and positive view of lesbianism is presented. Lesbians as well as heterosexual counselors should be represented on the guidance staff. The names and phone numbers of gay counseling services should be made available to all students and school psychologists.

Courses in sex education should be taught by persons who have taken the [pro-homosexual] human sexuality courses already mentioned. Students will thus be encouraged to explore alternate life styles, including lesbianism. Textbooks which do not mention lesbianism or which refer to it as a mental disorder should not be used in sex education courses.

Lesbian Studies: Schools should set up lesbian studies programs in connection with women’s studies programs to foster pride in the adolescent lesbian and to show heterosexual students that lesbians have made significant contributions to society. Learning about these contributions would foster positive feelings on the part of all students.

Libraries: School libraries should be supplied with bibliographies of lesbian literature and urged to purchase novels, stories, poetry, and nonfiction books that portray the joy of women loving women. The use of these books should be encouraged in literature and history classes.

Lesbian Clubs: Lesbian clubs should be established in the schools. Such organizations would help lesbians to develop pride in their life styles, and to help overcome the prejudice of heterosexual students and faculty.”

Reference for NOW Program. Jean O’Leary and Ginny Vida. “Lesbians and the Schools.” This article appeared in the New York National Organization for Women (NOW) Newsletter under the title “Struggle to End Sex Bias --Report on Sex Bias in the Public Schools.”

 

 

 

FIGURE 117-4 Examples of the Malevolent Effects of “Gay Rights” Laws: What Happens When the Homosexuals Get Their Way

* “Gay rights” laws have condemned thousands of innocent women to death. In most states, a physician faces a lawsuit and/or criminal prosecution if he notifies the wife of an HIV-positive man that he has the disease. And most states cannot compel the HIV testing of rapists. This means that rape victims are prohibited from knowing their rapist’s HIV status --unless the rapist agrees to testing, a rare event indeed.A

* “Gay rights” laws endanger the lives of health professionals and their patients. The United States Department of Health and Human Services ordered a Valhalla, New York hospital to hire an AIDS-infected worker, without placing any restrictions on his duties, or lose millions in Federal financing.B

Dr. Lorraine Day, chief of orthopedic surgery at the San Francisco General Hospital, said that “[Doctors] don’t have the right to automatically test for AIDS, even though we have the right to test every patient for any other disease known to man, without a special consent. Why do I have to take care of a patient with a concealed weapon --AIDS --and not be allowed to know that the patient has a disease that can kill me, my nurses, and my staff?” Although it has been documented that blood staining occurs in at least half of all major operations, physicians are prohibited from testing the HIV status of their patients.A

* “Gay rights” laws encourage the spread of AIDS. Even though AIDS is obviously a sexually-transmitted disease (STD), efforts to classify HIV infection as an STD have been defeated all over the country by homosexuals on the grounds that this would require the notification of sexual partners. Once again, the homosexual’s privacy right is supreme over the lives of others.

* “Gay rights” laws are blatant attempts to force homosexual immorality down the throats of the public. One glaring example was provided by New Jersey Governor James Florio, who signed a homosexual rights law on January 19, 1992. This law forced all churches to admit homosexuals to all of the sacraments (including the priesthood), and compelled them to perform homosexual marriages. The New Jersey ordinance even prohibited pastors from preaching against homosexuality and prohibited any citizens from participating in any kind of boycott against a business that supported homosexuality! Florio refused to allow any church exemptions for any part of the law whatever, saying that “Private entities should not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of affectional or sexual orientation.” Homosexual organizations betrayed their utter contempt for the beliefs of others by fanatically opposing attempts to gain church exemptions to the law. Eventually, after spending tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, courts agreed that churches only would be exempt from this type of foolishness --for now. But how long will it be before the courts uphold such coercive laws? Keep in mind that non-churchgoing citizens are still subject to the above strictures.C

The Minneapolis Civil Rights Commission fined the Catholic Archdiocese of Minneapolis-St. Paul $35,000 for violating a municipal “gay rights” ordinance when it expelled the dissident pro-sodomy allegedly “Catholic” group Dignity from its Campus Ministry Newman Center. $20,000 of this would go directly to Dignity and $15,000 to the city, a tidy little arrangement with not a little conflict of interest.D

* “Gay rights” laws are one-way only, and this leads to bizarre results where homosexuals may freely discriminate against normal people and be protected under the law. For example, Local 706, the Hair and Stylist Union of North Hollywood, California has a confirmed official policy of not admitting anyone to the union unless they are practicing homosexuals.D

Another example of the one-way nature of “gay rights” laws involves indoctrination programs. In all cases, it is invariably “straight” people who must be indoctrinated in how to be more “accepting” and “tolerant” --never homosexuals, because it is the homosexuals who write the programs and the homosexuals who arrogantly believe that they are flawless in this regard.

* “Gay rights” laws deliberately suppress and punish speech that homosexuals do not agree with. On March 21, 1991, Hawaii Governor John Waihee signed a statewide anti-discrimination law that homosexuals had strongly fought for. Under this law, no employer may print anything that any homosexual may find to be “discriminatory.” Additionally, churches are not allowed ask about a prospective employee’s sexual orientation, and once a homosexual is hired, the churches could not fire him, even if he was predatory. Despite these strictures, the church would be the defendant in any litigation brought by parties whose children had been molested by homosexuals that the church had been compelled to hire or retain.E

David Hardesty, chaplain of Portland, Oregon’s Eastmoreland Hospital, was fired from his job for contributing $100 to an anti-gay rights ballot measure fund and for stating in public that homosexuality is unbiblical. He was presented with a “forced resignation” the day after making his statements.F Local homosexual newspapers and magazines were filled with letters supporting Hardesty’s firing and demanding the firing of all people who opposed homosexuality in any way.

The Canadian Radiotelevision and Telecommunications Commission has the power to fine any station a quarter of a million dollars and individuals $20,000 if they utter any statement that is deemed to be “anti-gay.” There is no appeal of this fine, and the definition of what is “anti-gay” is left to the homosexuals themselves! Naturally, there is no sanction whatever for a homosexual who rails against heterosexuals.G

And in Sweden, a pastor who preached a sermon on Sodom and Gomorrah was sentenced to a month in prison because he allegedly committed “verbal violence” against homosexuals.H

* “Gay rights” laws ruthlessly and indiscriminately punish even bystanders who are not involved in the battle over homosexual rights. A 100-year old private dental clinic for the poor in New York City had to finally close its doors after being forced to pay a $50,000 fine by the City’s Human Rights Commission, for the ‘crime’ of simply referring two AIDS carriers with bleeding oral lesions elsewhere. The clinic personnel simply did not believe they had the equipment or the expertise to help them. Now, the thousands of poor that the clinic sees on a regular basis have to pay for their care or go without.I

* “Gay rights” laws place helpless children at the mercy of homosexual pedophiles. In New London, Wisconsin, a private religious center for troubled boys (which takes not a dime of government assistance) was forced by the State to sign a binding pledge to hire avowed, practicing homosexuals or have the boys forcibly removed from the center within 48 hours, have the center closed down, and face multi-thousand dollar fines. A Roman Catholic priest in St. Paul, Minnesota was threatened by a judge with up to a year in jail for the ‘crime’ of refusing to hire as a teacher for young boys a homosexual with a long criminal record of child molestation. And Anglican Bishop Alexander Muge was barred from preaching in a church in his own denomination in Walnut Creek, California, because he preached against sodomy.D

* “Gay rights” laws encourage homosexual thuggery. An Oregon pharmacist was harassed and picketed by gangs of homosexuals after he announced that he would no longer sell condoms in his pharmacy because they conflicted with his Catholic beliefs. The homosexuals condemned him for not slavishly and mindlessly endorsing their version of “safe sex.”I This is only one example of the coercion favored by homosexuals when the law is on their side.

[A] Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990. 237 pages. Pages 109 and 110.

[B] The New York Times, April 23, 1992. Also described in “Hospital Ordered to Hire HIV Worker; New Precedent Set.” Intercessors for America Newsletter, June 1992, page 8.

[C] “Church Sues Over Homosexual Rights Law.” Rutherford [Rutherford Institute], July 1992, page 4. Also see the June 22, 1992 News Release from The Rutherford Institute entitled “Church Succeeds in Homosexual Rights Suit.”

[D] “Faith and Homosexuality” and “Discriminate Against Homosexuals?” Family Research Newsletter, January-March 1991, pages 6 and 7.

[E] Sally Page Browning. “What Next?” The Rutherford Institute Journal, February 1992, page 7.

[F] Bill MacKenzie. “Chaplain Out After Measure 9 Remarks.” The Oregonian, September 10, 1992.

[G] World Briefs. “Canada.” Just Out, February 1992, page 5.

[H] “Hate Literature Laws Sweep the U.S. and Other Western Democracies.” Christian World Report, April 1989, page 1.

[I] As described in “The New School Tie.” National Review, July 12, 1985, pages 20 and 21.

 

 

==============================

 

CHAPTER 121. HOMOSEXUALS: A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO OUR CHILDREN

 

“The love between man and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality. For the gay community to imply that boy-love is not homosexual love is ridiculous.” - Point of View. “No Place for Homo-Homophobia.” San Francisco Sentinel [homosexual newspaper], March 26, 1992.

 

What the Anti-Lifers Say

 

“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 ... Amazing as it may seem in this child-hating and homophobic society, boy lovers [pederasts] find boys attractive and like their spontaneity and openness.” -- The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).1

 

Introduction

 

The Allegation.

 

There can be no doubt that homosexuals are addicted to their perversions, as described in Chapter 116, “Homosexual Orientation.”

 

The almost unspeakable activities routinely practiced by homosexuals are so hideously unnatural, and have such an incredibly wide range, that most normal people simply cannot deal with the reality that they represent.

 

And so, the words “alternative lifestyle” conjure up nothing more than a vaguely sinister but very fuzzy picture for most Christians.

 

Though the general term “lifestyle” is very difficult to quantify or measure, there is one specific area in which most normal people have defined a large percentage of promiscuous homosexuals perfectly: In their wretched longing for sex with young children - the younger the better.

 

The homosexual strategists are acutely aware of widespread public revulsion towards pederasty and pedophilia, and know that they must somehow ‘defuse’ the immense potential for damage to the “gay rights” movement that these perversions represent.

 

They do this primarily by alleging that 90 percent (95 percent, 97 percent, pick a number) of all child sexual molestation is committed by heterosexuals.

 

The purpose of this lie, of course, is to make homosexuals look like “just plain folks,” with the same occasional weaknesses as heterosexuals.

 

Definitions.

 

People often equate the term “child molestation” with “pedophilia,” but, in order to understand the differences between homosexual and heterosexual child molestation, a distinction must be made between the sexual abuse of boys and girls.

 

In general, pederasty is the crime of sexually molesting a young person of the same sex, while pedophilia is the crime of sexually molesting a child of the opposite sex. Paraphilia refers to the general class of child molestation, and includes both pederasty and pedophilia.

 

Manipulating The Definition.

 

Another way in which homosexuals use words to deflect criticism is simply by defining homosexual pederasty out of existence.

 

According to most “gay rights” propagandists, a 50-year old man who sodomizes a 12-year old boy is not engaging in homosexual activity. Therefore, by default, such an event would be an incident of heterosexual child molestation.

 

This is the same type of statistical chicanery used by pro-abortion propagandists who claim that “88 percent of Americans are pro-choice.” What they don’t tell you, of course, is that even pro-lifers who would allow only an exception to save the life of the mother are lumped in with those who accept third-trimester sex selection abortions of healthy preborn babies.

 

The Bottom Line.

 

The sexual abuse of young children is a perversion, regardless of whether homosexuals or heterosexuals participate in it. The critical difference here is that child sexual molestation is a defining characteristic of the homosexual lifestyle. As the opening quote to this chapter (made by a homosexual) asserts, sex with kids is “at the foundation of homosexuality.”

 

Figure 121-1 shows just a very few of the quotes that have been made by homosexual activists who support the theory that pederasty is at the very heart of homosexual behavior.

 

By vivid contrast, child molestation is not an accepted or integral part of heterosexual behavior. Heterosexual men who molest underage girls are engaging in perverted and illegal acts, to be sure, but these people are the exception to the rule.

 

And it is important to note that those men who molest small boys and appear to be heterosexual are generally ‘closet bisexuals’ or ‘closet homosexuals’ who have married, fathered children, and set up the appearance of being normal as a cover for their secret perversions.

 

Why Do Homosexuals Molest Children?

 

Introduction.

 

Homosexuals molest young children for two primary purposes: To continue the ‘species’ and, of course, for sexual gratification.

 

Perpetrating the ‘Species.’

 

The first reason that homosexuals molest young boys is to carry on the perpetuation of their ‘species.’ Since homosexuals do not reproduce, they must recruit.

 

This sounds suspiciously like a slogan that “far-right homophobes” might use, but it is backed up with facts and figures.

 

Quite simply, the most effective method for homosexuals to recruit is to molest young boys. A truthful presentation at a school is obviously not going to do the trick: “How would you like to have people defecate on you, whip you, shove various large items up your rear end, have a 1,000% greater chance of contracting dangerous and often fatal venereal diseases, and chop thirty years off your life? If you’re interested, sign up here!”

 

No, the approach must be much more subtle and deceptive. Boys who are molested when they are young and still defining their sexual identities are much more likely to evolve into homosexuals. David Finkelhorn, in his book Child Sexual Abuse, notes that boys victimized by adult male homosexuals were four times more likely than non-victims to engage in adult homosexual behavior themselves.

 

And a major survey that asked homosexuals why they were oriented towards men found that 22% said that they had been molested by older homosexuals themselves when they were children.2

 

Finally, Alfred Kinsey (the originator of the notorious “ten percent” myth, found in his surveys of thousands of homosexuals that the leading cause of homosexual orientation was, as he phrased it, “Early homosexual experience with adults or peers.”3

 

Sexual Gratification.

 

Recruitment of children into homosexuality is an indirect objective of the “gay rights” movement. Homosexuals rarely say to themselves “I’m going to strike a blow for gays everywhere and do a little recruiting today!”

 

The most important reason that homosexuals molest young children is for sexual gratification.

 

Studies have shown repeatedly that many homosexuals relentlessly pursue young boys for sexual gratification. In the homosexual jargon, young boys are known as “chickens,” homosexuals with a taste for them are called “chicken hawks,” and sex with a young boy is referred to as a “chicken dinner.”

 

The general homosexual term for incest and pedophilia is “intergenerational love,” which may in many cases be taken to mean sodomy between father and natural or adopted son.

 

Prevalence of the Threat

 

Overview.

 

Most Christian parents have no idea whatever of the magnitude of the violent sexual threat that is arrayed against their children.

 

So-called “gay rights” groups know very well that their most damaging enemies are the pederasts who lurk within their own ranks. If homosexual pederasts were systematically exposed to the public, the entire homosexual movement would be discredited, and its carefully-cultured “victim” persona would be destroyed or heavily damaged.

 

Whenever he is confronted with evidence of homosexual child molestation, the homophile propagandist will take on his most indignant demeanor and will strenuously insist that he and all of his “gay” friends have absolutely nothing to do with the sexual seduction of young children. He will also allege that the “gay rights” movement is doing everything it can to dissociate itself from organized pedophiles.

 

He will be lying in his teeth, as the following paragraphs decisively demonstrate. Not only do mainline homosexual groups casually accept child molesters, they vigorously defend them as well.

 

Constructing the Desired Image.

 

In keeping with their media image as “gentle but angry people,” homosexuals have teamed up with “mainline” sex education organizations to present a propaganda picture that consists of both homosexual and heterosexual child molesters as gentle and kind people who just happen to express their love in a sexual way with small children. Some of the resulting statements are simultaneously comical and absurd.

 

For example, Wardell Pomeroy, who was one of Alfred Kinsey’s main researchers, claimed that “We find many beautiful and mutually satisfying [sexual] relationships between fathers and daughters. These may be transient or ongoing, but they have no harmful effects ... Incest between adults and younger children can also prove to be a satisfying and enriching experience ... When there is a mutual and unselfish concern for the other person, rather than a feeling of possessiveness and a selfish concern with one’s own sexual gratification, then incestuous relationships can - and do - work out well. Incest can be a satisfying, non-threatening, and even an enriching emotional experience, as I said earlier.”4

 

And SIECUS (the Sex Education and Information Council of the United States) alleges that “Most pedophiliacs (people who are sexually interested in minor children) are gentle and affectionate, and are not dangerous in the way child molesters are stereotypically considered to be.”5

 

This vague and unsupported statement is in direct contradiction to established research that shows that nearly two-thirds (58%) of child molesters are violent when they assault children, and that 42% of their child victims are physically injured during the sexual abuse.6

 

“Disavowing” the Child Molesters ...

 

Homosexual strategists Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill recognize the importance of “hiding” the presence of the organized child molesters, and simultaneously acknowledge their strong connection to the “gay rights” movement; “Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector ... jaunty mustachioed musclemen would keep a very low profile in gay commercials and other public presentations, while sympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured (it goes without saying that groups on the farthest margin of acceptability, such as NAMBLA, must play no part at all in such a campaign: Suspected child-molesters will never look like victims.”7

 

It would be a grave mistake to disassociate homosexual activity from pedophilic activity. The laws that the pedophiles want could only be formulated, enacted, and enforced after society had been sufficiently numbed to the heinous activities of adult homosexuals.

 

Individual homosexual activists will quickly and vehemently declare that NAMBLA is an outlaw group, and that they do not under any circumstances condone pederasty (defined in this instance as sex between grown men and young boys).

 

This assertion is purely a propaganda ploy, because the homosexual strategists recognize that NAMBLA and similar groups are their Achilles’ heel. NAMBLA is routinely welcomed into high-visibility Gay Pride parades in New York City, San Francisco, and other major cities, and the organization is a member in good standing of the worldwide umbrella group International Gay Association (IGA).

 

The obvious and inescapable conclusion is that homosexual organizations heartily and proudly approve of pedophilia - except when it does not serve their political purposes.8

 

... While Defending Them.

 

In 1982, convicted child molester David Thorstad, who is a self-professed Marxist-Leninist and spokesman for NAMBLA, defended some members of his group that had been arrested for pedophilia as he spoke at a press conference. These members had been convicted of kidnapping small boys and taking them to a Massachusetts cottage for molestation. Thorstad claimed that the young boys were not being molested - they were being “liberated!” He also said “I think that pederasty should be given the stamp of approval. I think it’s true that boy-lovers [pederasts] are much better for children than the parents are ...”9

 

Thorstad shows us what the future holds if we relax our vigilance for just an instant; “Man-boy love relationships are a happy feature of the rebellion of youth, and of its irrepressible search for self-discovery ... Most of us, given the opportunity and the assurance of safety, would no doubt choose to share our sexuality with someone under the age of consent.”10

 

“It’s Not Our Fault ...”

 

Homosexuals, in keeping with their policy of blaming everyone else for all of their problems, have been known to allege that pedophilia is the fault of normal people!

 

For example, two homosexual authors, in an article entitled “Homophobia and the Berean League Report,” stated that “If it were not for our society’s almost psychotic fear of sex, no one would get upset about a consensual sexual relationship between an adult and someone who is underage.”

 

A Mathematical Analysis of the Frequency of Molestation

 

Who Is Molesting?

 

Because they are well aware of the threat that NAMBLA and other organized pederasts present to their movement, homosexuals incessantly claim that they are not child molesters. They also commonly allege that “97 percent of all child sexual abuse occurs at the hands of heterosexuals.”

 

A simply mathematical analysis proves that this is a gross and blatant lie.

 

Background Studies.

 

A number of studies - all performed by homosexuals or their sympathizers - have shown that an extremely large percentage of homosexuals have participated in child molestation.

 

Homosexual activists Karla Jay and Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals have acted as “chicken hawks” - that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys.11

 

Alfred Kinsey, the greatest friend the homosexuals ever had, found even as far back as 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.12

 

The following paragraphs calculate the actual percentage of child sexual abuse that can be ‘credited’ to homosexuals.

 

Sexual Abuse.

 

According to the United States Census Bureau, an estimated total of 33,991,000 instances of child abuse and neglect were reported during the 17-year period 1980 to 1996 inclusive. It is estimated that 40 percent of all serious child abuse is not reported, so the actual number of instances of child abuse is closer to 56,652,000 for the 17-year period.13

 

Sexual maltreatment of children accounts for about 15% of all cases of child abuse, or about 8,500,000 of the total over the 17-year period.13

 

Abuse By Gender. Man-hating Neofeminists cling to their stereotype of brutal males abusing helpless women and children, but the plain fact is that women commit most of the serious cases of child abuse (58%). About 45 percent of the victims are boy children, and about 55 percent of the victims are girl children. Finally, about 45 percent of all abuse of children is committed by men, and about 55 percent of all abuse of children is committed by women.13

 

Therefore, the sexual abuse rates for the 17-year period by gender of both victim and abuser are shown below.

 

Sexual Abuse of Children by Gender of Victim and Abuser

Sexual abuse of boys by men:   (8,500,000) X (0.45) X (0.45) = 1,720,000

Sexual abuse of girls by men:  (8,500,000) X (0.55) X (0.45) = 2,105,000

Sexual abuse of boys by women: (8,500,000) X (0.45) X (0.55) = 2,105,000

Sexual abuse of girls bywomen:   (8,500,000) X (0.55) X (0.55) = 2,570,000

 

The most obvious result of these calculations is that (1,720,000 + 2,570,000)/(8,500,000) = 50.5 percent of all child sexual abuse is committed by male and female homosexuals. This figure agrees closely with the results of several studies that show that homosexuals consistently account for between one-third and one-half of all cases of child molestation.14

 

Finally, Figure 116-1 of Chapter 116, “Homosexual Orientation,” shows the results of nine recent studies on the percentage of homosexuals in society. The percentage of people ever reporting having had even one homosexual experience is 3.45 percent, and the vast majority of these cases involved one-time-only experimentation in the teenaged years. People who are exclusively homosexual make up about half of this figure, or about 1.7 percent.

 

If the 1.7 percent of the population that is homosexual accounts for 50.5 percent of all child sexual abuse, this means that the 98.3 percent of the population that is heterosexual accounts for 49.5 percent of all child sexual abuse.

 

Therefore, a homosexual is (50.5%/1.7%)/(49.5%/98.3%) = 59 times more likely to sexually abuse children than a heterosexual!

 

Frequency of Individual Molestation.

 

Studies confirm the above figures by showing that, even among the general class of male sexual deviants (both homosexual and heterosexual), pederasts (boy molesters) are much more prolific in their offenses than pedophiles (girl molesters).

 

The most extensive study performed on the relative degree of predatory behavior of these two classes of male sexual deviants found that 153 pederasts sexually molested 22,981 boys over an average period of 22 years, while 224 pedophiles molested 4,435 girls over an average period of 18 years.15 This means that each pederast molested an average of 150 boys, and each pedophile molested an average of 20 girls - a ratio of 7.5 to one.

 

In light of the fact that promiscuous homosexuals have an average of 100 times more adult sex ‘partners’ during their lifetimes than heterosexuals, this conclusion is not at all surprising.

 

Molestation By Teachers.

 

It is well-known (and logical) that homosexuals with a desire for young children purposefully seek employment that will bring them into proximity with the greatest number of children possible. The most ‘promising’ jobs of this nature include Boy Scout leaders and school teachers.

 

This is primarily why homosexual teachers have been involved in more than eighty percent of all recorded cases of teacher/pupil sex. And it also explains why homosexuals are trying so hard to force the Boy Scouts to accept practicing homosexuals as leaders.

 

A nationwide survey of school principals showed that they received 13 times as many complaints about homosexuals sexually molesting students than they did about heterosexuals molesting students.16

 

If we accept the inflated figure that ten percent of the population is homosexual, this means that a homosexual teacher is ((13/0.10)/(1/0.9)) = 117 times as likely to be involved in sex with a student than a ‘straight’ teacher is. If we use the more realistic figure of two percent of the population being homosexual, then homosexual teachers are ((13/0.02)/(1/0.98) = 637 times as likely to be involved in sex with a student than a ‘straight’ teacher is!

 

The former figure is almost precisely confirmed by studies showing that homosexual teachers are from 90 to 100 times more likely to molest students than normal teachers.17

 

A 1977 survey by the Boston Globe found that every national and local poll on the subject indicated that a wide majority of people vehemently opposed hiring homosexuals as school teachers.17 The above figures show that the public has a compelling logical basis for not wanting homosexuals in the schools.

 

The Child Molestation Industry

 

“We believe children should begin sex at birth. It causes a lot of problems not to practice incest.”-- Valida Davila of San Diego’s Childhood Sensuality Circle.18

 

The ‘Culture’ is Thriving.

 

Since child molestation is an integral part of the “gay” lifestyle, it is inevitable that it would spawn a devoted following, complete with its own literature, language, and clubs.

 

Homosexuals have published guides that give details on where to procure young boys inexpensively in Mexico and Thailand and where to find houses of prostitution in South and Central America and Europe that are staffed entirely by boy prostitutes, most or all of whom have been kidnapped and forced into the homosexual lifestyle against their wills.19

 

In 1984, a Philadelphia homosexual bookstore began selling a book entitled How to Have Sex With Kids, which included a long section on how to entice and kidnap small children, how to have sex with them, and how to intimidate and threaten them into silence. After this book had attracted a considerable amount of unfavorable attention, the homosexual press took the position that the production and sale of such a book was protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.20 The homosexual press did not disavow the contents of the book or criticize its writers, publishers, and distributors in any way.

 

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Bulletin, a guide entitled “Where the Young Ones Are” listed 378 homosexual establishments in 54 major cities where child sex is marketed.21

 

Lesbian “kiddie porn queen” Kathryn Wilson was arrested in Los Angeles in 1982, while in possession of a mailing list of 30,000 men who sodomize young children.21

 

Organized Homosexual Child Abuse Groups.

 

Believe it or not, even child molesters have unions! Organizations that openly promote pederasty operate freely and openly in this and other countries. The Rene Guyon Society operates out of California and “boasts” 10,000 members. Its motto is “Sex Before Eight or it’s Too Late!”

 

Its East Coast counterpart is the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), whose membership is concentrated in eleven major Northeastern and Midwestern cities. NAMBLA bills itself as a lobbying group with a “libertarian, humanistic outlook on sexuality.”14 David Thorstad, the group’s most outspoken leader, claims that he is fighting for “... the rights of children to control their own bodies.”22

 

Does this slogan sound familiar?

 

The largest British pervert group is the Paedophilic Information Exchange (PIE), which would like to lower the age of consent to four years.

 

Other pederast organizations include the Lewis Carroll Collector’s Guild, the Childhood Sensuality Circle, the Eulenspiegel Society, and PAN.

 

Pedophile Techniques.

 

Organized child molesters have taken advantage of the latest technology and information management techniques to establish a highly-organized network that poses a grave threat to our nation’s children.

 

Child molesters in these clubs run at least 135 computer “bulletin boards” which exchange the names and descriptions of children who have been brutalized into accepting the sadistic behavior of the predators, usually due to fear of extreme physical and psychological punishment if they do not comply. The information exchanged also includes new techniques for controlling children and destroying their inhibitions and values. One of these techniques includes raping the children with symbols of authority that they have grown used to, including flagpoles (complete with American flag), and Bibles with hard corners.23

 

According to Dr. Ann Burgess of the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, there are now 275 monthly “kiddie porn” magazines in circulation.23

 

The specialized, high-quality ‘molester mags’ such as the Netherlands’ PAIDIKA: The Journal of Paedophilia routinely include tips on luring children, such as using soap crayons in the bath to get young children to disrobe. Incidentally, the stated purpose of PAIDIKA is “to demonstrate that paedophilia has been, and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience.”

 

Incredibly, these groups also perform studies and publish scientific articles that ‘support’ pedophilia. Some of this propagandist “research” is as laughable as it is hideous. For example, The Rene Guyon Society’s proposed revisions to the California Penal Code included the conclusions reached in Figure 121-2.

 

Try to imagine forcing oral sex on a four-year old in the name of eliminating thumbsucking and providing vitamins! Whoever performed this “research” is either blinded due to his perverted addictions or has a very low opinion of the intelligence of the lawmakers who briefly considered (and promptly round-filed) this trash.

 

Objectives of the Pedophiles

 

The Primary Goal.

 

Homosexual pedophile groups such as NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association) and the Rene Guyon Society have as their primary objective the elimination of all laws that restrict in any manner sex between pedophiles and children of any age. This, of course, would give the perverts carte blanche to commit any act on innocent children, without any restriction whatever.

 

Of course, the child molesters cannot possibly attain this ultimate goal in one huge leap, so they must advance one step at a time, as all amoral social revolutionaries must. This is the principle of gradualism or incrementalism which succeeded so well for the abortionists and the homosexuals, and which is now being used by the euthanasiasts.

 

The Neoliberal strategy of incrementalism is described in Chapter 7 of Volume I.

 

No Fringe Elements Here.

 

Pedophile groups like NAMBLA must not be dismissed as a ‘fringe element’ of the “gay rights” movement, because they represent some of the most important core values of most homosexuals. In fact, most “mainstream” homosexual groups fully support the elimination of any laws restricting sexual activity between men and young boys.

 

For example, The National Gay Task Force (NGTF) has as one of its primary goals the removal of all age of consent laws.24 And as far back as February 1972, the National Coalition of Gay Organizations (NCGO) demanded the “... repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.”23 And the July 5, 1979 New York Post reported that New York homosexuals strongly support sex between teachers and students “as long as it occurs outside the classroom.”23

 

Perhaps in the boy’s room?

 

NAMBLA is not some far-Left nutcase group that has no clout. The organization boasts a national membership of more than 5,000, and publishes three major national periodicals, the NAMBLA Bulletin, the NAMBLA News, and the NAMBLA Journal.

 

In its literature, NAMBLA baldly states that “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.”2

 

Does this sound familiar? Even organized pedophiles are getting into the “victim” act, along with the Neofeminists and the homosexuals!

 

Figure 121-3 lists verbatim the philosophy and goals of the North American Man-Boy Love Association.

 

The phrase “children a plus,” which is common in the sexually oriented want ad section of homosexual magazines, means that the writer is seeking children (the younger the better) who have been brutalized into accepting any perverse sexual act as normal, usually to avoid severe and painful physical and/or psychological punishment.

 

It is curious and hypocritical that the same people who go after parents for spanking their children simply ignore the gross (and sometimes fatal) tortures inflicted upon young children by homosexuals.

 

An extract from the NAMBLA resolution calling for the repeal of all age of consent laws is shown below.

 

 

Extract From the NAMBLA Resolution Calling for the Repeal of All Age of Consent Laws

 

“Whereas it is impossible to say at what age a person is capable of consenting to sex because every individual and every case is different; and therefore any attempt to set an age is capricious, arbitrary, and unfair; and

“Whereas any attempt to set an age would weaken NAMBLA’s identity as a sexual freedom organization, and limit it to advocating the point of view of only a segment of its membership and youth; and

“Whereas the state has no business intervening in any mutually consensual relationship, and NAMBLA has correctly refrained from asking it to do so;

“Be it resolved that NAMBLA reaffirms its position of abolition of all age of consent laws and other laws that violate the freedom of young people to control their own lives.”

 

Reference. “Motion Approved By the 7th NAMBLA General Membership Conference, Boston, December 3-4, 1983.” Presented by David Thorstad. NAMBLA Bulletin, January-February 1984, page 8.

 

 

Access to organized pederast groups is ridiculously easy. NAMBLA publishes porn-line numbers in homosexual newspapers all over the country for the express purpose of making new ‘contacts.’

 

For example, Portland, Oregon’s periodical Willamette Week has, on its dial-a-porn pages, advertised a heading entitled “Your Secret Meeting Place,” under which the number for NAMBLA is listed as 1-976-MATE, extension 955. This porn line operates 24 hours per day.25

 

Results of the Surveys.

 

Of course, homosexual men often attempt to adopt young boys, as demonstrated in the sexually-oriented want ads in national homosexual publications. And lesbians are now organizing sperm banks so that they may employ the “turkey-baster” method of self-insemination in order to avoid involving themselves with men.

 

The general public seems to be at least vaguely aware of homosexual child-abusing activities. A June 1992 Gallup poll and an August 1992 Yankelovich Clancy Shulman survey showed that nearly two-thirds of all those questioned (63%) responded negatively to the inquiry “Should homosexual couples be legally permitted to adopt children?”26

 

Figure 121-4 shows a few very typical ads in homosexual magazines that deal with pederasty.

 

A Wide Constituency.

 

The drive for ‘pedophile rights’ is not restricted to the well-known pedophile groups, or even to the “gay rights” movement as a whole. Many other far-Left organizations push agendas that include calls for recruiting children in the public schools. These groups proclaim loudly that “homosexuals don’t recruit,” but a quick glance at a typical list of their demands puts the lie to this claim.

 

The following list of “guidelines” (demands) was written up by a pro-sodomy group that insists that it is “mainstream.” The National Organization for Women (NOW) advertises in the Combined Federal Campaign and other major fundraisers that it merely works for “job equity for women” and other fuzzy, feel-good objectives.

 

NOW obviously doesn’t have the courage to reveal its real agenda, because its public relations strategists know that it wouldn’t collect ten percent of what it would otherwise. This is just another indication that NOW really doesn’t believe its own rhetoric.

 

 

National Organization for Women (NOW) Guidelines for Schools Sanction of Homosexuality and Lesbianism

 

“School counselors should be required to take courses in human sexuality in which a comprehensive and positive view of lesbianism is presented. Lesbians as well as heterosexual counselors should be represented on the guidance staff.

The names and phone numbers of gay counseling services should be made available to all students and school psychologists.

Courses in sex education should be taught by persons who have taken the [pro-homosexual] human sexuality courses already mentioned. Students will thus be encouraged to explore alternate life styles, including lesbianism.

Textbooks which do not mention lesbianism or which refer to it as a mental disorder should not be used in sex education courses.

Lesbian Studies: Schools should set up lesbian studies programs in connection with women’s studies programs to foster pride in the adolescent lesbian and to show heterosexual students that lesbians have made significant contributions to society. Learning about these contributions would foster positive feelings on the part of all students.

Libraries: School libraries should be supplied with bibliographies of lesbian literature and urged to purchase novels, stories, poetry, and nonfiction books that portray the joy of women loving women. The use of these books should be encouraged in literature and history classes.

Lesbian Clubs: Lesbian clubs should be established in the schools. Such organizations would help lesbians to develop pride in their life styles, and to help overcome the prejudice of heterosexual students and faculty.”

 

Reference. Jean O’Leary and Ginny Vida. “Lesbians and the Schools.” This article appeared in the New York National Organization for Women (NOW) Newsletter under the title “Struggle to End Sex Bias -- Report on Sex Bias in the Public Schools.”

 

Defending the Child Molesters

 

Perverts to the Rescue.

 

If the “gay rights” movement was really serious about dissociating itself from child molesters, perhaps it would not rush to their defense so quickly when they were caught having sex with underage children.

 

The pederast groups themselves, of course, take care of their own. Members of the North American Man-Boy Love Association contribute one percent of their annual incomes to the NAMBLA Emergency Defense Fund, which defrays the legal expenses of members who have been charged with child molestation.27

 

Perhaps the most revealing incident regarding the endorsement by “mainstream gay rights” groups of pederasty occurred when Congressman Gerry Studds [D.-olt] was caught operating a sodomy ring out of his Washington, D.C. apartment. One major newspaper described Studds as “The avowed homosexual who was censured by the House of Representatives for having had sex with a teen-age male Congressional page. In fact, Studds had seduced the page, after giving him dinner and drinks at his apartment, and tried to seduce two others. Studds showed no remorse over his behavior.”28

 

After this disgusting episode, one homosexual political action committee (PAC) poured $10,000 into Studds’ reelection fund and urged voters to “reward his courage” and “help make Gerry Studds a symbol of hope for all gay men and lesbians.”28

 

Hitting the Mainstream.

 

Our society seems to have hit the bottom of the ‘slippery slope’ in certain very critical moral and ethical areas. The United States, defender of foreign governments, can’t even protect its own children from sexual predators.

 

Pedophilia is becoming truly mainstream.

 

The University of Massachusetts at Amherst now has an “Affirmative Action and Non-Discrimination Policy” that prohibits, among other things, discrimination against “persons whose sexual orientation includes minor children as the sex object.”29

 

A nationally-recognized ‘sexologist’ has predicted that NAMBLA and its fellow perverts may soon be demanding special civil rights, just as “mainline” homosexuals are doing today; “Pedophilia may be a sexual orientation rather than a sexual deviation. This raised the question as to whether pedophiles may have rights.”30

 

Probably the most powerful homosexual recruiting tool of all is the plethora of comprehensive sex education courses that are being shoved down our children’s throats in public schools all over the country.

 

Just as these programs indoctrinate our children to accept homosexual perversions, they will inevitably ‘progress’ to asserting that “intergenerational love” is perfectly fine.

 

Convicted child molester Dr. Edward Brongersma organized a foundation named after him whose purpose is “... to advance scientific research into the development of the sexual lives of children, with special emphasis upon the phenomenon of erotic and sexual relationships between children and adults.”31

 

Lester Kirkendall, a co-founder of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), predicts that “Sex education programs of the future will probe sexual expression with same-sex [partners] and even across generational lines. With a diminished sense of guilt, these patterns will become legitimate. The emphasis on normality and abnormality will be much diminished with these future trends.”32

 

Homosexual Child Pornography

 

“Historically, radical feminism portrayed pornography as exploitative. Now we’re saying it can be beautiful.”-- San Francisco lesbian Laura Thomas.33

 

Chester the Molester.

 

Homosexuals like to point out that heterosexuals publish a greater variety of porn magazines than homosexuals do.

 

This is debatable, but the argument misses the point.

 

It is true that both homosexuals and heterosexuals produce and read hard-core pornography. However, the primary point to remember is this: As with child sexual molestation, pornography is an integral part of the homosexual lifestyle. It is a defining aspect of the way homosexuals live. The consumption of hard-core porn is not typical of the average heterosexual, and any heterosexual who is obsessed with hard-core porn is a disturbed individual.

 

Many homosexual perversions overlap others, and pedophilia is certainly no exception. There is a large market for homosexual pornography depicting sex acts between children and adults, and this market extends into ‘heterosexual’ hard-core porn magazines such as Hustler, which commonly features cartoons under the byline “Chester the Molester,” drawn by homosexual Dwayne Tinsley. These cartoons depict the torture, degradation, and murder of small children.

 

A typical “Chester” cartoon (Hustler, October 1977) showed a leering Chester sitting naked in an easy chair, with three frightened and bound girls of about 8-10 years old firmly in his grasp. Meanwhile, a television voice asks, “It is eleven o’clock ... do you know where your children are?”

 

It is amusing to note that the publishers of Hustler vehemently denied any connection between their depictions of child abuse and the commission of actual sexual crimes against children. They continued to play the victim even after 44-year old Tinsley was arrested in May of 1989 for allegedly molesting a teenage girl for several years.

 

Tinsley was employed by LSP Inc., the parent company of Hustler magazine.34

 

Tinsley was charged with felony incest, sodomy, child molestation, rape and oral copulation. His own 18-year old daughter testified during his trial that he molested her up to three times a day for five years.35

 

The cartoonist was convicted by a Southern California jury of five counts of child molestation. He was also convicted of three counts of “having substantial sexual contact” with the 13-year old girl whose accusations led to his arrest. According to evidence presented at his trial, Tinsley explained that “You can’t write about this stuff all the time if you don’t experience it.”35

 

The Attorney General’s Findings.

 

A sampling of the titles of the films, books, and magazines dealing with the theme of child sex unearthed by the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography are listed below.

 

These materials are available in most homosexual and ‘straight’ pornographic bookstores. It takes little effort to imagine how many small children have been ruined by the heavy demand for such materials. The number is, by now, certainly in the hundreds of thousands.

 

 

Titles of Motion Pictures Focusing on Child Sexual Molestation

“Baby Dolls”

“Baby Games”

“Barely Legal”

“High School Bunnies”

“Hot Fun Schoolgirl”

“Juvenile Sluts”

“Little Girls Talking Dirty”

“Love Under Sixteen”

“Milky Squirts”

“Naked Teen On a Leash”

“Older Men With Young Girls”

“Older Women With Young Boys”

“Pretty Young Girls”

“Schoolgirl By Day”

“Teenage Anal Climax”

“Ten Little Maids”

“Tender Young Things”

“Too Young to Know”

“Torrid Tots”

“Young Prey”

“Youthful Lust”

 

Reference. The Attorney General’s Report on Pornography. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1986. 711 pages. This report lists 5,420 titles of hard-core pornographic books, magazines and movies found in a sampling of porn shops across the United States.

 

 

General Conclusions.

 

The information presented in the above paragraphs shows that the constant depiction of children in soft-core pornography magazines blurs the line between adults having sexual activity with other adults and adults having sexual activity with children.

 

The ultimate effect is inevitable and devastating: children are portrayed as desirable sex partners and early sexual activity is depicted as harmless to them.

 

References: Homosexuality and Child Molestation

 

[1] North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) flyer, quoted in Shirley J. O’Brien. “The Child Molester: Porn Plays a Major Role in Life.” National Federation for Decency Journal, May/June 1987, pages 9 to 11. Also see a flyer distributed by NAMBLA described in “NAMBLA Cancels Meeting Following NFD Protest.”

 

[2] Gene Abel, et.al. “Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated Paraphiliacs.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence. March 1987, pages 5 to 25.

 

[3] (1) A.P. Bell. “Homosexualities: Their Range and Character.” Paper in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. J.K. Cole and R. Dienstbier (editors). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1973.

 

(2) Paul Cameron. What Causes Homosexuality? Lincoln, Nebraska: Institute for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (ISIS), 1984.

 

[4] Wardell Pomeroy. “A New Look at Incest.” Variations, 1977, pages 86 to 88.

 

[5] Robert O. Hawkins. “The Uppsala Connection: The Development of Principles Basic to Education for Sexuality.” SIECUS Report, January 1980.

 

[6] M. Christie, W. Marshall, and R. Lanthier. “A Descriptive Study of Incarcerated Rapists and Pedophiles.” Report to the Solicitor General of Canada, Ottawa, 1979. As described in Sheldon Travin, Harvey Bluestone, Emily Coleman, Ken Cullen, and John Melella. “Pedophilia: An Update on Theory and Practice.” Psychiatric Quarterly, February 1985, pages 89 to 103.

 

[7] Marshall K. Kirk and Erastes Pill. “The Overhauling of Straight America.” Guide Magazine, October and November 1987.

 

[8] James Hitchcock. “No Dignity in This Agenda.” Catholic Twin Circle, June 3, 1984, page 4.

 

[9] As described in Joseph Sobran. “The Moderate Radical.” Human Life Review, Summer 1983, pages 59 and 60.

 

[10] David Thorstad. Quoted in Richard Goldstein, “The Future of Gay Liberation: Sex on Parole.” The Village Voice, August 20-26, 1980.

 

[11] Karla Jay and Allen Young (both homosexual activists). The Gay Report. Page 275. This and the other noted incidents are described in the Bruce W. Frazer. “Homosexuals, AIDS, and Christian Responsibility.” American Family Association Journal, February 1988, page 10.

 

[12] Alfred Kinsey data described in P.H. Gebhard and A.B. Johnson. The Kinsey Data. Saunders Publishing, 1979.

 

[13] United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Reference Data Book and Guide to Sources, Statistical Abstract of the United States [Annual Series]. Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office. 1990 Edition, Table 296, “Reported Child Neglect and Abuse Cases, By Division: 1980 to 1987,” shows a total of 10,010,400 reported child abuse and neglect cases for the years 1980-1987 inclusive. 1995 Edition, Table 347, “Child Abuse and Neglect Cases Reported and Investigated, by State: 1992 and 1993,” shows 5,701,778 reported child abuse and neglect cases for those years. Since these tables (and the 1991 through 1994 Editions of the Statistical Abstract) do not show reported abuse and neglect figures for the years 1988 to 1991, the figures for these years are arithmetically interpolated between the 2,025,200 cases shown for the year 1987 and the 2,876,184 cases shown for the year 1992. This results in an estimate of 9,802,768 reported abuse and neglect cases for the years 1988 to 1991. If the figure of 2,825,594 reported abuse and neglect cases for the year 1993 is taken as the average of the years 1994 to 1996, a total of 8,476,782 cases would have been reported during this period, and a total of 33,991,000 cases of abuse and neglect would have been reported during the years 1980 to 1996 inclusive, a 17-year period. During the time period 1990 to 1993, about 15 percent of all abuse and neglect cases were sexual in nature (1995 Edition, Table 346, “Child Abuse and Neglect Cases Substantiated and Indicated - Victim Characteristics: 1990 to 1993”). Neglect and abuse by gender of victim is contained in the 1995 Edition, Table 346. Neglect and abuse by gender of abuser is contained in the 1990 Edition, Table 297, “Child Maltreatment Cases Reported - Summary: 1976 to 1988.”

 

[14] John Leo. “A New Furor Over Pedophilia.” Time Magazine, January 17, 1983, page 47. Also see Institute for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. “Child Molestation and Homosexuality.” Lincoln, Nebraska, 1984.

 

[15] Paul Cameron. “Homosexual Molestation of Children/Sexual Interaction of Teacher and Pupil.” Psychological Reports, 1985, 57, pages 1,227 to 1,236.

 

[16] Institute for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. “Homosexuality: Everybody’s Problem.” Lincoln, Nebraska, 1984. Also see the results of the survey in G. Hechinger and F.M. Hechinger. “Should Homosexuals Be Allowed to Teach?” McCall’s Magazine, June 1978, page 100. As far as the frequency of molestation is concerned, if ten percent of the population of teachers commits 13 molestations, and 90 percent commits one molestation, the comparative ratio is therefore ((1.3)/(1/90)) = 117 to one.

 

[17] J. Dressler. “Gay Teachers: A Disesteemed Minority in an Overly Esteemed Profession.” Rutgers/Camden Law Journal, 1978, 9(3), pages 399 to 445.

 

[18] Valida Davila of San Diego’s Childhood Sensuality Circle, quoted in John Leo. “Cradle-to-Grave Intimacy.” Time Magazine, September 7, 1981, page 69.

 

[19] “Traveling in Mexico,” in Bob Damron’s Address Book. San Francisco: The Damron Company, 1992, page 585.

 

[20] John P. Hale. “Gay Rights: Where it Stands and What’s to Come.” Fidelity Magazine, November 1987, page 15.

 

[21] Gary Bullert. “Homosexuals and the Homosexual Rights Movement.” American Family Association Journal, April 1990, page 14. See also the related article in the February 1990 Conservative Review.

 

[22] David Thorstad of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), quoted in John Leo. “Cradle-to- Grave Intimacy.” Time Magazine, September 7, 1981, page 69.

 

[23] National Federation for Decency Journal, November/December 1987, page 5. Also see Gary Bullert. “Homosexuals and the Homosexual Rights Movement.” American Family Association Journal, April 1990, pages 13 to 15.

 

[24] “Child Sexual Abuse Fueled By Adult Pornography.” National Federation for Decency Journal, May/June 1985, page 3.

 

[25] Willamette Week [Portland, Oregon], May 10-16, 1990, page 42.

 

[26] Yankelovich Clancy Shulman survey of August 19-20, 1992, of 1,250 adults and Gallup survey of June 4-7, 1992 of 1,002 adults. As reported in “Realpolitics: A Weekly Report on Campaign “92.” The Oregonian, August 30, 1992, page A18.

 

[27] Father Enrique T. Rueda. The Homosexual Network: Private Lives & Public Policy. 1982: Old Greenwich, Connecticut; Devin Adair Publishers. Page 177.

 

[28] “Gays Step Up Efforts.” Human Events, November 3, 1984, page 8.

 

[29] “Heterodoxy.” The Washington Times, May 27, 1992. Also cited in “Child Molesters OK at U Mass.” Family Research Report, May-June 1992, page 7.

 

[30] Nationally-recognized sexologist, quoted in Behavior Today, December 5, 1988, page 5.

 

[31] The Edward Brongersma Foundation, “Statement of Objectives.” Tetterodeweg I, 2051 EE Overveen, The Netherlands. Described in Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990. 237 pages. Pages 20 to 23 and 40.

 

[32] Lester Kirkendall, co-founder of the Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). “Sex Education in the Future.” Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, Spring/Summer 1985.

 

[33] San Francisco lesbian Laura Thomas, quoted in Eloise Salholz. “The Future of Gay America.” Newsweek Magazine, March 12, 1990, page 23.

 

[34] “Cartoonist in Custody in Sex Case.” Associated Press report in The Oregonian, May 21, 1989, page A24.

 

[35] “Hustler Artist Convicted of Molesting Child.” Focus on the Family Citizen, April 1990, page 5. Also see: Shirley J. O’Brien. “The Child Molester: Porn Plays a Major Role in Life.” National Federation for Decency Journal, May/June 1987, pages 9 to 11.

 

Further Reading: Homosexuality and Child Molestation

 

Shirley J. O’Brien. Why They Did It: Stories of Eight Convicted Child Molesters. $24.00. Order from Charles C. Thomas, 2600 South First Street, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9265. The detailed stories of the origins of child abuse in eight molesters, how the perversion evolved in them, how they entrapped children, and how they were caught. These men give extremely valuable advice on how children can avoid being molested or being trapped in dangerous situations with molesters.

 

Dr. Judith Reisman, president of the Institute for Media Education. “The Role of Pornography and Media Violence in Family Violence, Sexual Abuse and Exploitation, and Juvenile Delinquency.” Study sponsored by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention at American University in Washington, D.C. The 24-page executive summary of this 2,000 page report and a packet of material on the exploitation of children in Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler magazines may be obtained by sending a large, self-addressed stamped envelope and $6.95 to Dr. Judith Reisman, Institute for Media Education, Post Office Box 7404, Arlington, Virginia 22207, telephone: (703) 237-5455. The Executive Summary, which is ideal for giving to store managers who might be carrying this soft-core porn is available by itself (without the additional materials) from the American Family Association, Post Office Drawer 2440, Tupelo, Mississippi 38803. Price ranges from $2 for one copy to 50 cents each for 50 or more copies.

 

Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People. Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers, 1990. 237 pages. An excellent and detailed examination of the background of the Alfred Kinsey sexual studies that “showed” that children are sexual from birth and that ten percent of the population is exclusively homosexual. This book examines in detail the flaws in Kinsey’s studies, and looks at the machinations of modern-day ‘sexologists’ who build their work on his studies. Reisman also details the impacts that Kinsey-style sex education has had on our country.

 

Father Enrique T. Rueda. The Homosexual Network. $29.95, 1986, 700 pages. Order from the Devin Adair Company, 143 Sound Beach Avenue, Post Office Box A, Old Greenwich, Connecticut 06870. The author covers every aspect of the homosexual network; its acceptability, tactics, subculture, ideology, goals, everything; this is the most complete book on the subject ever written. The book addresses in detail the homosexual ideology, subcultures, religion, goals, funding, and intimate connections with Neoliberalism. It includes a 72-page section on the influence and role of homosexuality in the Catholic Church. Also covered are the “Gayellow Pages,” ties between the movement and the Neoliberals and Neofeminists. The book also deals with the connections between homosexuality and organized pedophile groups.

 

United States Department of Justice, The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Project No. 84-JN-AX-K007. Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler Magazines. This is an extract from the original three-volume, 2,000 page research performed by Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D. Order from the Institute for Media Education, Post Office Box 7404, Arlington, Virginia 22207, telephone: (703) 237-5455.

 

Dr. Kenneth Wooden. “The Undeclared War on Children.” National Federation for Decency Journal, July 1986, pages 6 and 7. Dr. Wooden is a contributing editor for ABC News, and has written a booklet that allows parents to prepare their children for defense against child predators. The booklet, entitled “Child Lures,” can be ordered for $3.00 from Child Lures, 4345 Shelburne Road, Shelburne, Vermont 05482.

 

 

FIGURE 121-1. Examples of Homosexuals Expressing Their Sexual Desires for Young Boys

 

“The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality. For the gay community to imply that boy-love is not homosexual love is ridiculous. We must not be seduced into believing misinformation from the press and the government. Child molesting does occur, but there are also positive sexual relations. And we need to support the men and the boys in those relationships.”- Point of View. “No Place for Homo-Homophobia.” San Francisco Sentinel, March 26, 1992.

“We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of you shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us.”- Michael Swift. Gay Community News, February 15, 1987. Reprinted in the Congressional Record, February 15-21, 1987.

“If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 11 who’s intensely attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way ... When the gay rights activists began being politically active, there wasn’t a sufficient body of scientific information for them to base their gay rights activism on. You don’t have to have a basic body of scientific information in order to decide to work actively for a particular ideology, as long as you’re prepared to be put in jail. Isn’t that how social change has always taken place, really?”- John Money, Ph.D., retired professor of medical psychology and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University and Hospital. Quoted in “Interview: John Money.” Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, The Netherlands, 2(7), pages 5 to 9.

“One thing is certain, in any cases of sexual contact between a child and an adult where there has been no force or violence, the greater the fuss and uproar the greater the possible damage to the minor.”

“The major effects of such incidents are caused not by the event itself but by the outraged, angry, fearful, and shocked reactions of the adults who learn of it, whether they be parents, relatives, or police. It is these immoderate reactions which may cause whatever psychological damage occurs.”-- Mary S. Calderone, M.D., and Eric Johnson. The Family Book About Sexuality (New York: Harper and Row, 1981), page 178.

 

“I guess it shows how far we’ve traveled from reality that people don’t realize that an intergenerational sexual relationship could be and should be character building. [I am] not sure that a 7-year-old can give informed consent. That doesn’t mean that one should necessarily exclude sexual relations with them.”-- Wayne Dynes, Ph.D., quoted in Michael Ebert. “Pedophilia Steps Into the Daylight.” Focus on the Family Citizen, November 16, 1992, pages 6 to 8.

“People seem to think that any [sexual] contact between children and adults has a bad effect on the child. I say that this can be a loving and thoughtful, responsible sexual activity.”-- Wardell Pomeroy, quoted in Michael Ebert. “Pedophilia Steps Into the Daylight.” Focus on the Family Citizen, November 16, 1992, pages 6 to 8.

“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.”-- The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Quoted in Shirley J. O’Brien. “The Child Molester: Porn Plays a Major Role in Life.” National Federation for Decency Journal, May/June 1987, pages 9 to 11.

“I think that pederasty should be given the stamp of approval. I think it’s true that boy-lovers [pederasts] are much better for children than the parents are ... “-- Convicted pedophile and NAMBLA member David Thorstad. Quoted in Joseph Sobran. “The Moderate Radical.” Human Life Review, Summer 1983, pages 59 and 60.

“Amazing as it may seem in this child-hating and homophobic society, boy lovers [pederasts] find boys attractive and like their spontaneity and openness.”-- Flyer distributed by NAMBLA, described in “NAMBLA Cancels Meeting Following NFD Protest.” National Federation for Decency Journal, November/December 1987, page 5.

“You look like a cherub, but you’re worldly-wise. You’d love to have me think you’re newly-born, but I can spot the twinkle in your eyes; you know damned well how much you turn me on. Between us, you’re the satyr - I’m the saint, so shed your sacred robe and bare your skin, surrender to my touch without restraint, and later, put your halo on again.”-- Pedophile Philip Hutchinson’s poem entitled “Choirboy.” NAMBLA Bulletin, January-February 1984, page 14.

 

 

FIGURE 121-2. California Penal Code Revision Sought by the Rene Guyon Society

 

HOMOSEXUALITY (Anal Copulation, PC 286).

We Suggest: At age 4, and sometimes sooner, both male and female children want, can easily hold after massage, and will be allowed to have a teenager or older male’s condom-covered penis in their anus. Tiny children will be required to wear a small “finger stall” or “finger cot” (obtainable from a drug store) condom from age 4 or any earlier age that they start penetrating male and female anuses. 99% of the day there is no fecal matter in the anus. No enema is required.

Reasons: Makes child aware of anal venereal disease and its prevention. [Anal copulation is] part of the natural progress of development to heterosexuality.

ORAL COPULATION (PC 288a).

We Suggest: At age 4, and sometimes sooner, both male and female children want, can easily hold, and will be allowed to have a tiny child, teenager, or older male’s penis in their mouth. This will bring an end to thumbsucking. The child will at last get valuable hormones that appear in the mature male’s ejaculate that have been denied children in the past. Very young, teenage and adult females will be allowed to provide sexual satisfaction with their mouths and tongues to the penis and clitoris of young children.

Reasons: Trains for heterosexuality. No data exists showing that any harm is done. [Oral copulation is] part of the natural progress of development to heterosexuality.

HETEROSEXUALITY (Penis-Vagina Copulation (PC 261.1)).

We Suggest: At age 10, 11, or 12, females want, can easily hold, and will be allowed to have a teenager or older male’s condom-covered penis in their vagina. From the earliest age of desire, a very young female will be allowed to have a tiny male’s penis in her vagina if the penis is covered with a “finger stall” or “finger cot” (obtainable from a drug store). At all ages prior to age 18 for the female, the female is required to have vaginal foam inserted before penetration of the covered penis.

Reasons: Prevents venereal disease and pregnancy. Older person passes on tender, loving mannerisms. Lack of premarital sex leads to divorce, crime, and suicide.

MASTURBATION OF CHILD (PC 288 & PC 288.1).

We Suggest: No restrictions will be on the masturbation of a child so that such enjoyment will be provided by family, friends, or neighbors so that the child will no longer seek out strangers for this satisfaction. Self-masturbation, from crib age on, not to be discouraged.

Reasons: Parents and nonparents help a child toward good mental health by masturbating it or encouraging it to masturbate. Lack of premarital sex leads to divorce, crime, and suicide.

NUDITY ALONE WITH NO SEXUAL ACTIONS.

We Suggest: No restrictions; thus freeing Law Enforcement to tackle disease-spreading and unwanted- pregnancy activity and photos. Almost all American children have seen an erect male penis and an adult spread-eagle vagina or pictures thereof” [emphasis in original].

 

Reference: Rene Guyon Society promotional/information package distributed in Beverly Hills, California, on March 20, 1981. Also reprinted in Father Enrique T. Rueda. The Homosexual Network: Private Lives & Public Policy. 1982: Old Greenwich, Connecticut; Devin Adair Publishers. Pages 178 and 179.

 

 

FIGURE 121-3. Official Philosophy and Goals of the North American Man-Boy Love AssociationA

 

“The North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is an organization founded in response to the extreme oppression of men and boys involved in consensual sexual and other relationships with each other. Its membership is open to all individuals sympathetic to man/boy love in particular and sexual freedom in general. NAMBLA is strongly opposed to age of consent laws and other restrictions which deny adults and youth the full enjoyment of their bodies and control over their lives. NAMBLA’s goal is to end the long-standing oppression of men and boys involved in any mutually consensual relationship by;

1. building a support network for such men and boys;

2. educating the public on the benevolent nature of man/boy love;

3. aligning [sic] with the lesbian, gay, and other movements for sexual liberation; and,

4. supporting the liberation of persons of all ages from sexual prejudice and oppression.”

 

Social Action Agenda of NAMBLA’s “Task Force on Child-Adult Relationships”B

General Objective: “To improve the social status and public image of pedophiles, to eliminate the legal sanctions against pedophile behavior, and to increase public awareness of children’s emotional and sexual needs by;

1. Seeking to improve the public image of pedophiles through;

A. Oversight of sex-education and psychology curricula in public schools, colleges and universities, seeking to eliminate old stereotypes and falsehoods regarding pedophilia and children’s sexuality.

B. Consultation with authorities on mental health and human sexual behavior to encourage a humane attitude toward pedophilia.

C. Legislative lobbying to reduce legal sanctions against pedophile behavior in particular and all consensual sexual behavior in general, and to increase children’s rights to self-determination.

D. Liaison with feminist and other groups to establish the principle that the goals of all liberation groups are essentially the same: the elimination of sexist, authoritarian regimentation of human lives; and that the liberation of children is the sine qua non [essential essence] of all human liberation.

2. Publication and dissemination of literature supporting the goals of pedophile liberation.

3. Publication and dissemination of literature to increase public awareness of children’s sexual and emotional needs, especially in the light of research on cognitive development.

 

References.

[A] “Introducing the North American Man-Boy Love Association.” Undated basic promotional brochure of NAMBLA National Headquarters in New York City. Reproduced in Father Enrique T. Rueda’s The Homosexual Network: Private Lives & Public Policy. 1982: Old Greenwich, Connecticut; Devin Adair Publishers. Page 177.

[B] Richard C. Bishop. “A Proposal for Pedophile Groups.” NAMBLA Journal, New York, New York, July 1, 1979, page 5. Reproduced in Rueda, pages 214 and 215.

 

 

FIGURE 121-4. Typical Examples of Pederast Advertisements in the ‘Mainline’ Homosexual Magazine The Advocate

Penetrable Boy Doll Available in 3 Provocative Positions. Choose the Model That Will Fill Your Needs.

* Realistic penis -- $39.95

* Realistic penis that vibrates -- $44.95

* Realistic penis that vibrates and ejaculates -- $49.95

Always Up and Ready!

Every doll Features: Durable, flesh-like, soft vinyl body to yield pleasure galore!

* Penetrable open mouth (Deep Throat) that works on the principle of air suction

* Penetrable rectal area (Deep Ass)

He Can Ejaculate and Vibrate and He’s All Yours to Love!

Send money to BOSKO’s OSO ENTERPRISES, CULVER CITY CA, BOX 2988 90230

 “NEWSLETTER FOR PEDERASTS: Responsible persons, details, sample. Better Life. 256 S. Robertson, Beverly Hills, CA. 90211.”

“S&M EQUIPMENT: Dungeon equipment and small toys, racks, pillories, whipping horses, small restraining devices and novelties ... thoroughly field tested & guaranteed. Polaroid pictures $10.”

“CHICKEN BONDAGE: Photo set of prime quality. Kids are inventive, WOW! Young Gay Loves Spanking.”

“CHICKEN! Choice Tenderlings of great beauty! Golden peach fuzz on tan cheeks, long eyelashes, that warm sun tan smell ... We offer you the largest selection of Chicken in the world.”[A]

“BOYS OF HOLLAND: HAWK PRODUCTIONS. Over 30 beautiful young men to bring you loads of pleasure” [film].[A]

“BOY FILMS: The Quality Magazine from Denmark ... Euromag ... Life Boy ... Beautiful Boys of all ages [includes 16 photos of boys 6, 8, and 10 years old].”

“BOYS AND THEIR TOYS: A Must for the Connoisseur of Male Youth and Beauty” 15 ... 15!!! ... With an emphasis on dildo play” [film].

“Dissatisfied at home? Tired of hassling with parents? Lonely traveling exec wants nice looking boy for perm. relationship and his heir. Offering fine new Fla. home, clothes, good time, no fin. cares or worries. Must be butch ... no fats, fems, hustlers ... send photo.”

“Looking for young guy -- 14-22 for fun times.” “Pre-teens -- Girls or boys, nude ... photos, $5.00.”

“Want guys -- the younger, the better.”

“Western Style Chicken: New sources -- fresh from 4 of the world’s great collectors.”[A]

“Seek white/chicano boy 13-16. Longhair orphan fine.”

“Seeking Teen Youth who is lonely, lost, runaway.”

“WANTED! Teen Boy to Bare Bottom Spank/Strap & Use [anally].”

 

Note. [A] The term “hawk” refers to a homosexual pederast and a “chicken” is a young boy who is sold as merchandise and “used” by homosexuals for sex. References. The July 5, 1972, August 16, 1972, August 13, 1975, July 16, 1991, and August 13, 1991 issues of The Advocate Magazine. As described in The Institute for Media Education. A Content Analysis of Two Decades of The Advocate (July 5, 1972 - July 2, 1991) and The 1991 Gayellow Pages. June 1991.

 

==============================