My Hate Speech Conviction

Over the summer, I was convicted of anti-gay hate speech. The most incredible thing about it was that I never set foot in Canada. The conviction happened while I was in Colorado. But the offense took place almost 15 years ago.

In the 1990s, a friend of mine announced that he was divorcing his wife because he had decided (after a couple of unhappy marriages) to pursue the gay lifestyle. My decision to support him was born out of ignorance. Not only was I harboring the illusion that there actually was such a thing as a gay gene. I was also ignorant of the fact that gays could be successfully cured through therapeutic efforts.

My decision to label my own verbal support of his lifestyle choice as “hate speech” makes sense only after one becomes educated about that lifestyle. According to the Centers for Disease Control, over 82% of all known sexually-transmitted HIV cases in 2006 were the result of male-to-male sexual contact. Moreover, gay and bisexual men account for over 60% of all syphilis cases.

Some will say that homophobia is the indirect cause of such numbers. They claim that fear of stigmatization keeps gays from seeking information before they become ill and from seeking medical help afterwards. But, clearly, that is not the case. In cultures where homosexuality is more accepted the numbers are worse. That is why I steadfastly maintain that supporting my friend’s decision to turn to the homosexual lifestyle was indeed an example of hate speech.

Most gays become angry when someone tells the truth about the health consequences of their lifestyle choice. The reason they get angry over the facts is because their conscience convicts them. When I came to realize that I helped make it easier for my friend to pursue his unhealthy lifestyle my conscience was convicted. I have regretted my verbal support of his decision ever since.

No sane person could ever posit that the act of rectal sodomy is safe, normal, or healthy. The rectum is a one-way street. It is a sewer meant for the expulsion of poison. Treating the rectum as a sex organ is damaging to the health – especially for the recipient of such abuse. That is why it is an act of hate, regardless of whether some choose to call it “love.”

But the gay lifestyle has never been about love. The average number of lifetime sex partners is four for a heterosexual, fifty for a homosexual. Monogamy is the norm (82%) among heterosexuals, and an aberration (2%) among homosexuals. This promiscuity is routed in the pairing of similar traits, which is an inevitable result in homosexual relationships.

It should go without saying that women have greater emotional needs than men, while men have greater physical needs than women. They need each other to balance one another out. And that is why when two men are together the physical aspects of the relationship spiral out of control to the point of compulsion. That is why estimates show that anywhere from 21-43% of homosexual males have had several hundred sex partners.

One study of white male homosexuals, published in the 1970s, showed that 43% of white males had sex with over 500 partners. Over one-quarter (28%) had sex with over 1000 partners. When these drives are unchecked they often go in dangerous directions. Although homosexual men are only about three percent of the population, they commit about one-third of all acts of child molestation.

Even pseudo-conservative Andrew Sullivan knows that homosexuality is about unbridled sexual pursuit rather than love. He openly claims that homosexuals need more than one sex partner and that heterosexual relationships are too restrictive. But he refuses to see succumbing to sexual temptation as a weakness. Instead, he calls it a sign of “honesty” and “flexibility.”

Andrew Sullivan thinks we should all become more like gays. In his calls for the majority to conform to the minority he reveals the fundamental narcissism that is at the core of the gay lifestyle. From Andrew Sullivan’s perspective, homosexuality is all about self-gratification.

But love, by definition, seeks the ultimate good of the loved one by forsaking all others. That is why we must steer our loved ones away from the homosexual lifestyle and suffer the slings and arrows of the true perpetrators of hate speech.

I guess you don’t mind the infringement or destruction of freedom of speech, association and religion that the homosexual agenda mandates. And you must not have any children or be planning to have any, since Kevin Jennings, 0thugga’s “Safe Schools Czar” has been very active in creating homosexual indoctrination clubs in public schools for quite a few years, and thinks that young adolescent boys being used by adult homosexual men is just fine.

If you have any interest in learning, here’s a excerpt from an article I pinged out a few years ago, with a quick summary of the plans of homosexual activists to implement the radical “gay” agenda - which has worked pretty well, up to now.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1147428/posts

After the Ball—Why the Homosexual Movement Has Won
Crosswalk.com ^ | June 3, 2004 | Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Posted on 06/04/2004 6:38:28 AM PDT by sauerkraut

The spectacular success of the homosexual movement stands as one of the most fascinating phenomena of our time. In less than two decades, homosexuality has moved from “the love that dares not speak its name,” to the center of America’s public life. The homosexual agenda has advanced even more quickly than its most ardent proponents had expected, and social change of this magnitude demands some explanation.

A partial explanation of the homosexual movement’s success can be traced to the 1989 publication of After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. Published with little fanfare, this book became the authoritative public relations manual for the homosexual agenda, and its authors presented the book as a distillation of public relations advice for the homosexual community. A look back at its pages is an occasion for understanding just how successful their plan was.

< snip >

The Homosexual Propaganda and Media Manipulation Game...

Although homosexual propaganda has been around for 50 years, the current campaign started in 1989 with a very popular book within the homosexual community called: “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990s” by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. This very popular book within the homosexual community makes a passionate argument that homosexual activists should implement an organized propaganda campaign to change public opinion to gain public acceptance to their behavior and obtain special rights, benefits, and privileges. Their rationalization for launching such a campaign is that people who do not agree with them are “bigots, haters, or ignorants”, and therefore activists can and should justifiably employ any tactic possible, including mass deceit, lying, slander, maliciousness, intimidation, violence, etc. Although many activists initially condemned this approach at first in public, remaining hold outs have jumped on board after benefitting from the success of the propaganda campaign. The following are exerpts taken from “After The Ball.” These strategies, tactics, and techniques have been and are currently employed by most homosexual activist groups, as verified by their well documented trail.

1) The homosexual agenda can succeed by conversion of the average Americans emotions, mind, and will, through, a planned psychological attack in the form of propaganda to the nation via media (page 153);

2) “Propaganda relies more upon emotional manipulation that upon logic, since its goal is to bring about public change” (page 162);

3) Propaganda can be unabashedly subjective and one-sided, there is nothing wrong with this (page 163);

4) Homosexual agenda can succeed by “desensitization” achieved by lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level of sheer indifference (page 153);

5) Homosexual agenda can succeed by “jamming” and “confusing” adversaries, so as to block or counteract the “rewarding of prejudice” (page 153);

6) “Heterosexuals dislike homosexuals on fundamentally emotional, not intellectual grounds” (page 166)

7) “Desensitizing” is “our recipe” for converting “ambivalent skeptics”;

8) Make victimizers look bad by linking to Nazi horror while helping straights to see gays as victims and feel protective towards them (page 221);

9) The Nazi story of “pink triangle as a symbol of victimization” should be a sufficient opening wedge into the vilification of our enemies (page 190);

10) Show grisly victimization of gays and demand that readers identify themselves with either social tolerance or gruesome cruelty;

11) Discourage anti-gay harassment by linking and calling all those that have opposing opinions to latent homosexuality (i.e., call people homophobic) (page 227)

12) Jam people by pointing out that it’s inconsistent with the reader’s belief in the value of love between individuals (page 233);

13) AIDS epidemic should be exploited “to increase attention and sympathy” as “victimized minority.”(page xxv)
14) “We argue that for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay, even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence” (page 184);

15) “Muddy the moral waters”, that is, to undercut the rationalization that justify religious opposition… this entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections” (page 179);

16) Portray opposing churches “as antiquated backwaters”, badly out of step with the time and with the latest findings of psychology (page 179);

17) Jam the self-righteous pride by linking to a disreputable hate group (page 235);

18) The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome (page 178);

19) All opposing disagreements to homosexual behavior is rooted in “Homophobia, Homohatred, and Prejudice” (page 112)

20) It is acceptible to call people “Homophobic” or “Homohaters” if they do not agree 100% with homosexual views, opinions, or behavior. (page xxiii)

21) A media campaign should portray only the most favorable side of gays (page 170);

22) Show others accepting gays and homosexuals (page 241);

23) Heterosexuals are like Aryans and people who are against homosexual behavior are “Nazis” and “Clansman”.

24) Homosexual persecution is identical to Jewish persecution (page 57, 62, );

25) Homosexual persecution is identical racial prejudice to Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics (inferring inborn) (page 62, 73);

26) All scientific/medical arguments to prevent 1973 APA/AMA removal from disorder list were rooted in cultural prejudice, medieval knowledge of science/medicine, and misinformation.

27) “Two-thirds of all boys” have rudimentary homosexual experiences (inferring most teenagers want to have homosexual sex) (page 44)

28) “Vast majority” of homosexuals do not engage in compulsive high-risk sex (page 49)

29) American opposition is based solely on prejudiced, outdated, and hypocritical Victorian morals (page 51)

30) All homosexually suicides are based entirely on societal rejection (page xv)

31) All sexual morality should be abolished (pages 64 to 67);

32) Homosexual civil rights are “explicitly set forth in the Bill of Rights”;

33) Health concerns for AIDS prevention are unwarranted (page 91)

34) Opposition to homosexual marriages is based on “family nostalgia” and “sexual guilt” based on religious/Victorian values (page 92)

35) Adoption agencies have been “placing kids with gay people for a long time,” as long as “you do not bring up” the fact that your gay;

36) “Kids in gay households ultimately receive better-than-average parenting” (page 97)

37) All speech that is opposing homosexual behavior should be banned under “clear and present danger to public order” (page 101)

38) All and any news or media coverage that is presents homosexual in negative form is prejudiced and invalid (page 54);

39) Everyone comes out must be prepped by a media campaign carefully crafted, repeatedly displayed mass-media images of gays (page 169);

40) “Gay activists have tried to manipulate the American judicial system.” Sometimes the tactic works: many executive orders (which side step the democratic process) and ordinances passed by city councils now protect certain rights (page 171);

41) “Employ images that desensitize, jam, and/or convert on an emotional level” (page 173);

42) “Gain access to the kinds of public media that would automatically confer legitimacy upon these messages and sponsors” (page 173);

43) “Ambivalent skeptics” are our most promising targets (page 176)…

44) Associate gay cause with “talk about racism, sexism, militarism, poverty, and all the conditions that oppress the unempowered.” (page 181)

45) Project gays as victims of circumstance and oppression, not as aggressive challengers (page 183);

46) “Mustachioed leather men, drag queens, and bull dykes” should not appear in gay commercials and other public presentations (until later after wide acceptance) (page 183);

47) Groups on the farthest margins of acceptability, such as NAMBLA, must play no part at all in the medioa campaign (page 184);

48) Gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice…graphic pictures of brutalized gays, dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, public humiliation… (page 185);

49) In time we see no reason why more and more diversity should not be introduced into the projected image (i.e., drag queens, pedophiles, etc.) (page 186);

50) Infer and speculate that famous historical figures were gay for two reasons: first, they are dead as a door nail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel; (page 188)

51) In TV and print, images of victimizers can be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the “bracket technique” (page 190);

52) The media campaign will reach straights on an emotional level, casting gays as society’s victims and inviting straights to be their protectors (page 187);

53) We like television because it’s the most graphic and intrusive medium for our message (page 201)

54) Over the long-term, “television and magazines” are probably the media of choice (page 204);

55) Ads must manage to get the word gay into the headline or tagline (page 207);

56) Each message should tap public sentiment, patriotic, or otherwise, and drill an unimpeachable agreeable proposition into the mainstreams head (page 208);

57) Several years down the road, our tactics will have carved out, slice by slice, a large portion of access to mainstream media (page 213);

58) Associate and link gays to good causes and non-controversial activities (page 219);

59) The more people who appear to practice homosexuality, and the more innate it appears to be, the less abnormal and objectionable, and the more legitimate it will seem (which is why it is important to maintain claims to 10% of the population)(page 217)

60) Stage candid interviews with gays who appear as solid citizens. Subjects in commercials should be interviewed alone, not with their lovers (for now) (page 247);

61) Most people derive their impressions of the world through the national media (page 250);

62) It will be a sheer delight to besmirch our tormentors, we cannot waste our resources on revenge alone (page 189);

63) “Too many Americans share this mistrust of gay citizens” (page 55);

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.