Report: Homosexuality
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
==============================
“When you lose the supernatural, the natural passes into the unnatural all too quickly.” --G.K. Chesterton.1
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.
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.
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.
A
Humanist determines whether or not a particular action or activity is moral by
asking himself the following three questions;
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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
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.’
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?
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.
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.
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
‘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
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.
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.”
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
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.
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.
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.
======================================
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.
==============================
|
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 |
==============================
“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
“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
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.
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.”
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
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;
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.
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
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
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
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’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.
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.”
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
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.’
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;
|
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
“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
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.
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
“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
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.
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
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 |
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?
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.
======================================
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
|
“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. |
|
(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]. |
==============================
“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
“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.
“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
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.
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.
“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.
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
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
“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
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!
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.
|
* “ 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
======================================
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.
|
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.
|
“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.
|
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.”
|
* “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.
==============================
“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.
“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
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.
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.
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 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.
Homosexuals molest young children for two
primary purposes: To continue the ‘species’ and, of course, for sexual
gratification.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.”
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.
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
“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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
|
“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
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.
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.
|
“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.”
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
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
“Historically,
radical feminism portrayed pornography as exploitative. Now we’re saying it can
be beautiful.”-- San Francisco lesbian Laura Thomas.33
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
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.
|
“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.
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.
[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.
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.
|
“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. |
|
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.
|
“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.
|
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.
==============================