Facing The Truth About Homosexual Behavior

Washington, DC – In 1987, a homosexual magazine called Guide published an article that laid out a detailed marketing plan for selling the normalization of homosexuality through the mass media. The article, "The Overhauling of Straight America,"* was eventually expanded into a full-length book called After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear & loathing of Gays in the 90’s.

Authors Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill, writing in the Guide article, note the following: "In the early stages of any campaign to reach straight America, the masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. First let the camel get his nose inside the tent—only later his unsightly derriere!" The objective has been to portray homosexuality as a fixed, unchangeable sexual identity—one that is determined at birth. This is untrue, but the propaganda campaign has largely succeeded.

The plan was—and still is—to present the controversy surrounding homosexuality as a civil rights issue—not about dangerous and unnatural homosexual behaviors. In addition, this marketing campaign includes an effort to portray homosexuals as victims of an intolerant society who need special legal protections. Kirk and Pill note: "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." Kirk and Pill also recommend smearing their enemies, comparing them to the KKK and Nazis. They write: "To be blunt, they must be vilified….we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types."

This marketing plan—designed to hide the facts about homosexual behavior, to portray homosexuals as victims, and to vilify their enemies—has been wildly successful. A compliant mainstream media has helped homosexuals accomplish many of these goals. One major newspaper syndicate, for example, has given homosexual activist Deb Price a weekly column to promote Kirk and Pill’s propaganda campaign.

Fortunately, there are still voices of sanity who are speaking out against the effort to portray homosexual behavior as normal and determined by birth. One such individual is Dr. A. Dean Byrd, vice president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). Dr. Byrd authored "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis In Science." In it, he quotes a number of homosexual researchers and activists who admit that they can find no genetic basis for homosexual behavior.

One of those is Dean Hamer who tried to find a genetic cause for homosexuality by examining the DNA code at the end of the X chromosome. According to Hamer: "There is not a single master gene that makes people gay . . . . I don’t think we will be able to predict who will be gay."

The words of homosexual activist Camille Paglia are equally telling: "Homosexuality is not ‘normal.’ On the contrary, it is a challenge to the norm . . . Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction . . . No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous . . . homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait."

Dr. Byrd’s article is must reading for anyone who wants to understand the true nature and origin of homosexual behaviors. It deserves to be widely distributed to educators, legislators, and to editors and reporters. It is available at: www.narth.com/docs/innate.html.

Traditional Values Coalition is an interdenominational public policy organization representing more than 43,000 churches across the United States. For more information, contact Sharone Carmona at 202-547-8570. TVC's Web site is: www.traditionalvalues.org.

In Canada, homosexuals are not yet one of the special classes of people designated as such by the government. It is just slimy oozing scummy political correctness and the fear of being targeted by the PC police that allows this stuff to go on. Interestingly, the Senate of Queen's University, several years ago, passed a resolution giving homosexuals preferential treatment, ostensibly to right past wrongs, at least according to an university official who discussed it with me.

Then you should be in favor of passing a law to make it illegal for everyone to display pictures of either their "partner" or their wife and kids on their desk at the workplace, for example. Both are a declaration of one's sexual "orientation".

And why would this follow? Are you saying that a marriage between a man and a woman is equivalent to a man and a man (one pretending to be a woman, I guess) or a woman to a woman (one pretending to be a man, I guess)? Oh please. What a stretch. What a reach. Homosexuals would not even exist if a he or she did not have PARENTS....one egg, one sperm and all that.

But so what if a guy puts a picture of another guy on his desk....it could be a friend. And if he doesn't want any questions because this is his 'sex' buddy, then he probably should not advertise that fact. Putting a marriage photo on a desk at work, putting pics of children on a desk at work is not a declaration of SEXUAL PROCLIVITY, it is a declaration of family. You know....man, woman and children.

This issue is not about "controlling the private behavior of consenting adults in their own bedrooms," OWK.

Perhaps not for you, and for that I'm thankful, but even a cursory read of the entire thread shows that for others, that is precisely what it is about.

And I am very happy to see you about.

’”some heterosexuals object to behavior in homosexuals that would be perfectly acceptable in heterosexuals”….You mean the whack jobs’.

I disagree with both of you on this point. Your statement is a canard. You assert that two homosexuals kissing with passion is the same as two heterosexuals kissing with passion. The simple fact is it is not. A man kissing another man or a woman kissing another woman passionately, as for example under the circumstances which I have alluded to in prior posts, IS NOT THE SAME AS A MAN KISSING A WOMAN. It is that fundamental difference, which you may choose to ignore, which justifies differential acceptance.

I would assert that “discrimination” against the aberration of displays of same sex sexuality, is not only warranted but desirable in the best interests of society. A good night to you all.

Civilization of a higher order requires that provision be made for the education of the future citizens. These costs are far too great to rely on the private citizen's abilities to pay or we return to those days when only the wealthy could be assured of a chance at an education.

Are you sure this isn't Karl Marx?

You must have saintly teachers in Illinios but I try to compare what you say to the controversy and problems surrounding teachers around here and it just doesn't wash.

The idea of the teacher as the caring, committed, grossly underpaid angel you describe is so hard to fathom...on that note, however, 70K is alot of money! A teacher "barely making it" on 70K needs to learn how to manage their money.

Homeschooling was a god-send for me. The attitude of teachers who walk around saying I'm only here for one more year then I start drawing a pension, is reflected in poor student performance.

In your last remark you seem to say that those who don't know shouldn't critisize...why then you and your anti-libertarian pals should take heed of your own advice! Sadly, I do not think you will!

Do as I say, not as I do...

...even a cursory read of the entire thread shows that for others, that is precisely what it is about. [e.g., proscribing/punishing private behavior between consenting adults in their own bedrooms]

Well if so, OWK, maybe such others "need to get a life." But all the same, please don't ignore my larger point. Good to see you old friend. best -- bb.

But all the same, please don't ignore my larger point.

I addressed your larger point at least a dozen times in the thread, with some pretty good prose.

Frankly I'm getting tired of typing, so I'd invite you to read it if you're interested.

Best to you my friend.

Why would you think that?

Because you chose to equate homosexuality, with pedophilia, promiscuity, and public sexuality, as if all homosexuals engaged in these behaviors.

Not all homosexuals are pedophiles, promiscuous, or engage in public sexuality.

I would assert that “discrimination” against the aberration of displays of same sex sexuality, is not only warranted but desirable in the best interests of society.

Discrimination as done by who, and how?

If you, as a private individual, upon seeing an open, public display of homosexual affection between two men, want to respond with a loud, vocal "EEWWWWWWWWWW! That's dis-GUST-ing!!!", be my guest. But if you insist that laws be passed that allow you to register your disgust by throwing the two of them into jail, I'd say you've gone too far.

That is, you've gone too far if you're going to continue to insist that your country is based on principles of liberty and equal rights. If you don't care about liberty and equal rights and equal protection under the law and all of that nonsense, then do whatever it is you want, but don't expect others who do believe in that claptrap about liberty to go along with you, pat you on the back and tell you what a fine, fine job you're doing of protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America.

And just to be clear as to what I'm referring when I say "If you, as a private individual, upon seeing an open, public display of homosexual affection between two men...", I'm talking about the type of public display of affection that, when it occurs between a man and a woman, you don't even give a second thought about.

It seemed an easy parallel to draw, and hand preference doesn't come with as much religious baggage as sex.

The nuns obviously haven't tied you to a chair for quiet some time! ;-) (I'm kidding of course)...Funny you should say that though about religious connotations with left and right...as an Irish Catholic (born, bred and reared!!) we call Protestants, left footers. Weird huh? Or ye know a Prod by the shape of their head! *L* What the hell is that old wives tale about???

My belief in geneticism with homosexuality comes with (my limited) knowledge of X and Y chromosomes (from biology lessons) in school.

If a man can be colour blind, or haemophiliac because of these X (female) and Y (male) chromosomes. What happens if a child has more XXX's or more YYYY's or a combination that makes them sexually different? (It's not a subject I've discussed with medical practioners or scientists. But it's something that struck me as a 16 year old biology science student).

My view is certainly not scientifically proven. But (to me) it's certainly something to be considered.

And as a girl who has a cousin who comes from a LONG LONG line of kill-em-and-ate-em Irish men, who turns out to be a non-practising-sexually gay man...I gotta wonder! :-)

"...ye know a Prod by the shape of their head."

Happy, do you suppose this has something to do with the Roundheads, i.e. Oliver Cromwell's followers?

XXX chromosome pattern (or Trisomy X) is a rare disorder. As far as I know, YYYY has not been found. I don't think homosexuality has been linked with any of the chromosome disorders. However, a genetic predisposition is a possibility, possibly due to multiple genes.

Sorry. That is what it says. See California Civil Code section 22. Law is Will. I cannot think of anything more authoritative on this earth than the statement of an authorized body declaring the basis of its acts. That is why it is so serious when one attempts to thwart the will of the law maker.Discussion, reasoning, debate, different points of view cease. Once the attempt is made to thwart the will it then becomes a mere method of proof e.g. did the person do or forbear from doing what has been declared forbidden or required. If violated the penalty is applied.

I put the word "discrimination" in quotation marks because I suspected that was the term that you would use to describe any prohibition against the homosexual behavior in question- and let me make it clear that I favor such prohibitions. I say this not so much because of any outrage or even discomfort that I might feel but because I believe strongly that such abnormal behavior should not be presented, sometimes quite unpredictably, to children. Also, if there were a failsafe method of protecting young children from the legitimization, or even glorification, of homosexual behavior, I would be much less strident in my opposition to portrayed or actual public displays of homosexuality. On the other hand, for truly private homosexual behavior, I have little in the way of objection.

Your desire to ensconce yourself in patriotism and the constitution is either misguided or a sophistic ploy, as you should realize and admit that not all activities are accorded freedom in America. Society has determined that certain activities should properly be restricted to protect others- as in the case of children leaving a downtown hotel in mid-afternoon, only to be confronted by men kissing each other as they walked down the street (actual event during a Gay pride march June 2001).

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.