"Let´s look at gay behavior as defined by two gays, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen Ph.D., authors of After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90´s (1989).
In Chapter Six, they outline “ten categories of misbehavior,” drawn from their own experiences, wide reading and thousands of hours of conversation with hundreds of other gays...
What follows are some highlights. As you read this, ask yourself if there is another human community, including the Mafia that could make these generalizations about itself. Ask yourself if we haven´t caught this disease, or at least the sniffles.
• The authors say “a surprisingly high percentage” of pathological liars and con men are gay. This results from a natural habit of self-concealment, and leads to a stubborn self-deception about one´s own gayness and its implications.
• They say gays suffer from a “narcissistic” personality disorder and they give this clinical description: “pathological self absorption, a need for constant attention and admiration, lack of empathy or concern for others, quickly bored, shallow, interested in fads, seductive, overemphasis on appearance, superficially charming, promiscuous, exploitative, preoccupied with remaining youthful, relationships alternate between over idealization and devaluation.”
• As an example of this narcissism, the authors say “a very sizable proportion of gay men” who have been diagnosed HIV positive continue to have unprotected sex.
• They say the majority of gays are extremely promiscuous and self-indulgent. They must continuously up the ante to achieve arousal. This begins with alcohol and drugs and includes such “forbidden” aspects of sex as wallowing in filth (fetishism and coprophilia) and sadomasochism, which involves violence.
• They say many gays indulge in sex in public bathrooms and think it is antigay harassment when it is stopped. Many think they have a right to importune straight males, including children.
• Many gays are “single minded sexual predators” fixated on youth and physical beauty alone. When it comes to the old or ugly, gays are “the real queerbashers.” Disillusioned themselves, they are cynical about love.
• “Relationships between gay men don´t usually last very long.” They quickly tire of their partners and fall victim to temptation. The “cheating ratio of ‘married´ gay males, given enough time, approaches 100%.”..."
Seven Steps to Recruit-Proof Your Child
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR CHILDREN FROM PRO-HOMOSEXUALITY PROPAGANDA IN SCHOOLS
Assemblyman MOUNTJOY opposes promotion of homosexuality in public schools
"Gay" by Choice or by Chance?
Who Gets the Benefit of the Doubt?
The title of this book is going to make some people unhappy. They will argue that you can't protect someone from homosexuality because homosexuals are "born that way" and have no choice in the matter. The fact is that science has not proved that homosexuality is biologically caused. A handful of scientific studies in the past few years have claimed to show a possible biological (genetic) cause of homosexuality, but these studies were conducted by "gay" activists themselves and have largely been rejected by non-"gay" scientists. The failure to demonstrate a genetic basis for homosexuality doesn't prove that homosexuals are not born that way, but then, it doesn't have to. The logical presumption of science must be that an unproved hypothesis is simply not true. Further, the burden of proof should always be with the proponent of a new idea, not the defender of the established view of things. As with so many "politically correct" issues, however, logic has been turned on its head as it relates to homosexuality and the "gay" political agenda. Advocates of homosexuality will, when forced, grudgingly acknowledge that science has not proved a biological cause for it, but they nevertheless insist their belief is true and that the burden of proof that homosexuality is not innate should be on those who believe it is a learned behavior.
Unfortunately, many people have accepted this faulty logic and taken the position that we should give homosexuals the benefit of the doubt; we should treat them as if homosexuality were already proved to be a normal variant of human sexuality. After all, the reasoning goes, if homosexuals truly are "born that way," it would be unfair to treat them as if homosexuality were a simple lifestyle choice that they could change. No one has adequately explained how the discovery of a biological cause for homosexuality would legitimize homosexual behavior, but that is part of the assumption we are asked to accept. However, many human behaviors are influenced by biological factors, and not all of them are good for the individual or society.
Meanwhile, serious questions have gone unasked in America's rush to be "fair" to homosexuals. What if homosexuality is not biologically determined? (Again, the weight of evidence indicates that it is not.) What if homosexuality is a learned behavior, or worse, a type of sexual addiction that, once started, is very hard to stop? Who stands to be harmed by unchecked homosexual advocacy in our society? Aren't our children at the greatest risk? Leaving aside the question of whether "gays" recruit, what if some children choose to experiment with homosexuality simply because they are taught by teachers or role models that it is a normal sexual alternative? Many opponents of the "gay" movement believe that this is true and offer compelling evidence to support their position.
This book suggests that our society is giving the wrong people the benefit of the doubt on the question of homosexuality. Rather than assuming that science will eventually vindicate the belief that homosexuality is both normal and innate, we should be asking what harm might come to our children if homosexuality is a harmful, learned behavior. In our opinion, if there is any question about whether children can be protected from becoming homosexual we should act in a manner which will protect the children. Any other response allows our children to be used as guinea pigs in a dubious social experiment. In short, it is our children, and not "gay" political activists, who deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Some will suggest that such a policy implies that society should discriminate against homosexuals. If discrimination is defined as irrational or arbitrary prejudice, then certainly we should not discriminate. However, if discrimination means choosing between competing rights based on a legitimate priority (the health of our children), we should discriminate. We should not be afraid to say no to the "gay" political movement when its goals conflict with our policy of putting children first. All rights are balanced with responsibilities. Freedom of speech does not allow shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Freedom of sexual preference should not allow teaching children that "gay" is good.