Fascism Revisited
(Exploding the
Gay Myth)
(ebook version, licensed exclusively to Bible Theology Ministries)
Time for truth
Dr Rob Martyn
2
Contents
Acknowledgements
About This Book
Foreword
Preamble
A Nut and a Bolt
The Desert Island
The Lion’s Dinner
Chapter
Content
PART A
1.
Gay Pride & Fascism
The Spitter
2.
Are Gays ‘born that way’?
3.
More on the ‘Natural’ Myth
Dick & Dora Think They Are Black
4.
Gay is Safe?
Safety First
5.
Causes of Behaviour
Bart’s Defence
6.
Homosexual Paedophilia
7.
Gay Puppets (Law, police, Employers, councils, et al)
PART B
8.
Gays Who Change
PART C
9.
What the Bible Says
10
Homosexual Evil In Marriage
11
The Blasphemy of ‘Gay Christians’, so-called
12
The Bible Case Against Sodom
13
Legalising Immorality
14
Final Word
15
Now What?
Appendix 1: Taboos
Appendix 2: The Homosexualization of Society
Appendix 3: The Gay ‘Rights’ Charter
Appendix 4: Big Girls’ Blouse Award
Appendix 5: Gay Equality – Just an Illusion
Appendix 6: Homosexuality: The Disgusting Reality
(We offer a warning if you have a weak stomach!)
References
Page
3
4
7
9
15
15
15
16
30
31
44
63
65
91
92
109
110
128
168
181
194
200
206
214
226
231
245
248
254
256
258
260
271
Note 1: Reference numbers are used instead of the usual Harvard system. Hopefully, this will
be useful for non-academic readers.
Note 2: Some references are not complete, but they are sufficient to enable a reader to find
them. They are included like this because that is how I found them, and I wanted this book to
be published soon. Better partial references than nothing at all!
3
Note 3: In the book, ‘gay’, ‘homosexual’ and ‘lesbian’ are sometimes used interchangeably.
Homosexuals tend to split the terms to their own advantage.
Acknowledgements
My acknowledgement is to the truth, which cannot be erased by myths
and their false counter-claims. The truth concerning homosexuality and AIDS
is two-pronged: it arises both from science and medicine, and from moral,
ethical and (much to the distaste of many) Biblical realities.
I thank all those brave souls who stand against wickedness in high
places and against those who foist their murky ideas onto the people. I also
thank those who proof-read the manuscript. I keep their identities secret
because gay activists are vicious.
Fascism is the oppression and repression of the majority by a minority, using
physical force, legal restraints and dictatorial social suppression.
This describes homosexual activism today.
Fascism is the imposing of one view over another by removing freedom of
speech, except for the views and speech of the one imposing.
Homosexuality is the new fascist regime. But it also includes all the
hallmarks of Marxism, a philosophy that used to be loathed by the West.
It is made possible by deceit, governmental folly, misuse of police, bad laws
and abuse of society. All approved by ignorant governments.
The ONLY contributors to legislative and other pro-gay enforcements are gays
and pro-gays! This is, without doubt, totally dictatorial! Without arguments
against, there can be no true conclusion or genuine results.
But, gays fear (and hate) truth. They are heterophobic.
That’s why they deny freedom of speech to opposing views. If there was
freedom of speech, gays would lose all momentum and credibility, because
the false basis for their claims would be exposed.
Gay claims are false and have no scientific proof in support of gay sexual
choices. Therefore all pro-gay laws must be repealed immediately.
If they are not, then those who maintain such laws are fools and enemies of
the people (what else can we call them if they oppose truth and foist bad laws
on the public, without genuine reason?). See final section!
Gays everywhere are screaming ‘hatred’ from the rooftops! But nobody is
bothering to check if what they say is actually true! In reality, if there is ‘hatred’
it is being deliberately manufactured by gays, by the way they are
manipulating and ordering-about everyone else. In this book the truth is
presented. It is not hatred, though, at times, there may be legitimate anger at
the way gays are using fascist techniques to oppress and silence people.
As the Bible says, they are brute beasts, hating people and governments.
In the coming pages you will find me saying of some people, that they are ‘fools’ or ‘stupid’,
etc. If this offends you, remember that I am using their true meanings. What else is someone
4
who continues on a road of destruction, but a fool? And what is he if he rejects every good
and moral thing, preferring what harms him and society, but stupid?
About this book
The book is in three parts. The first part is for anyone, whether you
have a religious view or not. The second part is short, but it shows that gays
and lesbians can change, permanently. In itself this shows homosexuality is
not inborn and that so-called ‘homosexuals’ are not a ‘minority’. The third part,
also short, is mainly (but not exclusively) for Christians.
For all those ‘homosexuals’ out there who will go over this book with a
toothcomb, let me summarise the findings for you…
The book presents the actual facts about homosexuality:
Homosexual activists are fascist.
Homosexuality is not natural.
Homosexuality is not safe.
Homosexuality is not normal.
Homosexuals are heterophobic.
Homosexuals loathe the truth.
There is no such thing as an ‘homosexual’.
There is no such thing as an homosexual ‘community’.
There is no such thing as a ‘hate crime’ against homosexuals.
Statistically, most paedophiles are homosexual.
Homosexuals want open access to children as sex objects.
No-one can ever prove the existence of an homosexual gene.
All pro-gay legislation is false and must be repealed.
Special police protection for gays is false and must be stopped.
Homosexuality is just a sexually distasteful habit.
Homosexuals can, and do, change back to normality.
Homosexuals are not victims, they are perpetrators.
Homosexuality is immoral. If not immoral, stupid.
The majority of people do not accept homosexuality as valid.
The homosexual agenda is out to destroy society as we now know it.
The homosexual agenda’s biggest aim is to destroy Christianity.
If you want to get angry with these points, then get angry with gays. All
of the above statements have been made by… gays themselves!
Let me predict what will happen
I know the tactics of homosexual activists, and they are not sociable or
nice. Gay activists will gather their storm-troopers, well-versed in the ‘gay
agenda’. They will send angry letters to everybody, from national governments
and international pro-gay quasi-governments to the local grocery store and
Uncle Jim in Ohio. And, probably, his cousin, who runs a used-cycle shop.
Oh, and The Simpsons.
They will spit out the usual sad epithets: tiresome yawn-inducing words
like ‘bigot’, ‘religious fanatic’, ‘ignorant’, the ridiculous word ‘homophobic’, and
much more (usually with added pornographic and colourfully-foul language).
Their aim will be to make me look stupid, uneducated, a hater of humanity, or
5
just nasty. They will do this because it is part of their agenda (read any
homosexual angry letter and you will see they all use the same worn phrases
and words! I think they must have a pro-forma, with standard foul language
and sexual imagery. Not very original, but that’s the limit of their intellect).
Has anyone noticed gays are reversing common-sense and facts?
(This occurred in the 1980’s when AIDS became a concern: they blamed
everyone else in society, even though only gays had the disease!).
But, there you go, eh? All citizens need to know the truth, to avoid
being steamrollered into accepting gay propaganda. Don’t think it has nothing
to do with you, because it has… you pay taxes, you have children or
grandchildren, you need medical care, you eat in restaurants (but maybe not
after reading the final section), you would like at least basic morality… well,
homosexuality affects all these things, and more.
There is enough contrary evidence in this book to cause everyone to
stop their insane rush to give homosexuality top place on the pedestal and the
acceptance it so crazily hungers for. In this book you will find nothing illegal or
hateful, only the facts, borne out by gays themselves.
And before you jump into the pages just to tear the book apart, let me
say that, for me, heterosexual sexual promiscuity and ‘bad’ sexual practices
are just as immoral. But, I am not talking about that part of man’s murky
activity, because heterosexual wrongdoers do not attempt to silence the
majority of mankind who disapprove of their actions.
The only reason this book is appearing, is that homosexuals insist
on dragging all of society downward, so that their activities seem
‘normal’; they are forcing people – the silent majority – to comply with
their wishes, and using law to do it. Above all else, they are stopping
free speech. This is reprehensible and cannot go unchallenged!
And a note for curious or non-gay readers: homosexuals are trying to
remove all and any kind of constraint on sexual activity, so that they can do
whatever they like. In the UK a teaching union is demanding to teach three
year olds how to do homosexual sex! Is this okay? No, because what they do
is leading to destruction.
AIDS and other diseases are on the increase, as is paedophilia.
Beware what you allow by sitting comfortably in your armchair. And, when you
need that vital medical treatment, remember millions are being spent on gay
causes and self-induced illnesses, making your share of the pot very much
smaller. Doesn’t matter where you live in the world - the same unholy
steamroller is running amok, crushing everyone in its path.
As for all those Christians who think acceptance of homosexuality is
the right thing to do; remember that here in America gays have vowed to rid
the country of Christianity, Biblical truth and its teachings. The UK will similarly
fall if it doesn’t oppose what is going on. You are therefore a part of your own
destruction! Not very clever is it?
Above all, oppose gay propaganda as often as you can! Constantly
demand that pro-gay laws are repealed, because they are not based on
facts. Gay propaganda is not the truth. It is based on lies and half-lies. It has
no scientific backing whatever. Keep attacking the arguments with truth and
watch the gay cause crumble!! The only reason gays are now uppermost is
simply that everyone else is too scared to speak out. Demand the truth!
Demand that those who are making laws should examine gay claims in depth.
6
Remember that appeasement of evil men never works, it only gives them
power! And then they come to get you, even if you offer support!
Governments must take heed of this book. So must doctors,
ministers, police… anyone who is presently helping gays to take control.
They are duped by lies and must reverse what they are doing. Gay
activists are working very fast and very viciously. Stop it. Now!
If it were not for gay propaganda, homosexuality would still mainly be
under wraps, indulged in only by those who are very determined to ruin their
souls with perverted sex. Societies have been fed wrong information and false
claims by gays, whose only aim is to ‘free up’ society so that they can do
whatever they like. For thousands of years homosexuality has been immoral.
Now gay is the new morality! Those of us who oppose homosexuality say it is
immoral and see its activities as disgusting. SO WHAT! It is our democratic
right to say so! Gays can silence mouths, but not minds!
Let homosexuals shout back and say that it is we who are
immoral. Fine! We can put up with that. But we cannot and will not
accept the fascism of gays that is trying to destroy freedom of speech!
The line has been crossed and it is time to push homosexuals back
behind it, even though they all but own and control the media.
This protest would not be necessary if gays had not begun to use
fascism, lies and legal impositions against the majority. God help us all
if they get their way!
I now ask those who make legislation, and all who side with the
gay agenda to explain yourselves. Explain what the reasoning is behind
this massive push to legalise everything gay and to criminalise everyone
who is not, when there is no rational, moral, or scientific reason to do
so. Go, on. I challenge you to explain yourselves!
I have been watching this movement for the past 30 years and none of
it makes rational sense! Homosexuality destroys families; it spreads diseases;
it causes young people to kill themselves; it procures small children as sex
fodder; it screams abuse at authority and at anyone who has religious belief; it
is sexually perverse and often foul-mouthed; it prevents freedom of speech; it
is criminalizing morality and anything that protects society.
Now, again I ask, what can you offer as an excuse for all this? THERE
IS NO REASON BEHIND IT WHATSOEVER! It is senseless to anyone with
half a brain! No man in his right mind will want to deliberately push the above
aims. So, why are you, our legal and political masters, doing it? Is it because
you are yourselves perverse? Is it because you are ignorant of the facts? Is it
because you have swallowed gay propaganda wholesale?
Go on, have the guts to put it in writing, so that all of history can judge
you to be insane. You are certainly being very wicked if you continue in your
support of society’s gay menace and enemy actions.
When you have read all this book, you will be left with no option but to
remove all gay support. If you don’t, it will prove many things about you.
And remember! Nothing in this book is ‘hate speech’. It is just the truth,
given to all the world, to save our children, sanity, health and economies. And,
we hope, freedom of speech and genuine research.
7
Foreword
The ancient battle between good and evil, produced without end by the
dual nature of man, has nowhere been more dreadfully exemplified than in the
twentieth century. The still unfolding story of this century speaks of small
groups of atheistic fanatics - barbaric totalitarians - who seized control of
entire countries and brutally sacrificed millions of human lives in pursuit of a
radical project, a dark fantasy wherein the fanatics imagined themselves
possessing awesome creative powers, powers that would enable them to
scientifically engineer a Utopian Order and a New Man.
In ‘Zionism versus Bolshevism’, Winston Churchill observed that the
fanatics were producing a “system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as
Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably
all that Christianity has rendered possible.” The diabolical conspiracy is for
“the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis
of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality.”
The conspirators, said Churchill, have “gripped the Russian people by the hair
of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that
enormous empire.” (The Illustrated Sunday Herald, Feb. 8, 1920)
With great determination, and at the cost of many lives, the West
fought back and eventually defeated the zealots. The Soviet Union however,
did not collapse until the early 1980s. It was then that President Ronald
Reagan, the “Iron Lady” Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II undertook
a, “clandestine campaign to hasten the dissolution of the communist empire.”
(“How Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul II Won the Cold War,” by John Fund)
Less than twenty-five years later however, the specter of a new radical
project, named the “Gay Rights” movement, had already begun spreading an
ominous shadow, this time over the West itself.
For gay totalitarians, the scientifically engineered “New Man” is
androgynous “Queer Being.” The enemy therefore, is the Genesis account of
creation which decrees that there are two distinct and separate sexes, male
and female, and further, that these two sexes are absolutely normal. As a
consequence, oppression, racism, bigotry, and hatred are aimed at the very
notions of “absolutes” and “norms.” Michael Warner, professor of English at
Rutgers University and one of the leaders of the radical project, is opposed to
not “just the normal behavior of the social, but the idea of normal behavior.”
(The Professors, David Horowitz, p 348)
Included within the “normal is oppression” paradigm is the ages-old
moral ethic that pedophilia and pederasty are social taboos. Fanatics seek
liberation of children from parents and the traditional family, and the scrapping
of ‘archaic’ Christian-Judeo moral ethics. Candidly revealed in the “Journal of
Homosexuality,” is the idea that parents should view pedophiles “as a partner
8
in the boy’s upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home.” (Edward
Brongersma, “Boy Lovers and Their Influence on Boys”, 1990)
The radical project of today is, in reality, the fulfilment of Ernst Roehm’s
dark fantasy. Roehm, Hitler’s right hand man and chief of the Brownshirts,
was a sadomasochistic homosexual who envisioned a hedonistic Utopian
Order in which sadomasochistic homosexuality, pedophilia and pederasty
would be regarded as behaviors of highest repute; in other words, the new
“queer norms.” Because sadism is often a deeper, more pathological level of
homosexuality, Roehm believed sadistic homosexuals were superior to
straight males because they were bullies who enjoyed beating up people and
wouldn’t flinch at carrying out orders, no matter how brutally inhumane. They
were ideal Brownshirt “fascistic bully-boys.”
The ‘Gay Rights’ project is not about gay marriage but about
destruction of the old order and its foundational institutions such as the
traditional family. Neither is ‘gay rights’ actually about gay rights but rather
about the acquisition of power, enough raw power to overthrow civilization and
reconstitute it on the, “basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence,
and impossible equality.”
Towards achievement of their goals, bully-boy gays, in collusion with
other international radicals, have pressured politicians into passing laws that
technically demonize Christianity, the Bible, and Orthodox Judaism. This has
resulted in the persecution and even arrests of some clergy. Due to their
subversive efforts, communistic hate-crime laws, speech codes, political
correctness, and sensitivity training are being forced upon citizens of the
West. Eventually, the Bible will be declared ‘hate speech.’ ‘Gay Rights’
fascists and their international cohorts are lowering an Iron Curtain upon the
Western civilized world. Unless this trend is arrested and reversed, the West
will be cast into the violent darkness of barbarianism.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who knows whereof he speaks with regards to
totalitarians and their radical projects cautioned, “Let us not forget that
violence does not and cannot flourish by itself; it is inevitably intertwined with
lying. Between them there is the closest, the most profound and natural bond:
nothing screens violence except lies, and the only way lies can hold out is by
violence. Whoever has once announced violence as his method must
inevitably choose lies as his principle… The simple act of an ordinary
courageous man is not to take part, not to support lies! Let the lie come into
the world, even dominate the world, but not through me.” (Nobel Address,
1970).
The book you are about to read is the act of an ordinary courageous
man who, in brotherhood with all ordinary courageous men, has determined to
fight back; to get the truth out, even though it means being persecuted by
liars. In unison with Solzhenitsyn he has bravely declared, “Let the lie come
into the world… but not through me.”
9
Linda Kimball
International Columnist
July 2006
See under ‘References’ for more information about Linda Kimball
Preamble
My interest in homosexuality as a study-subject began in 1973, at a
time when homosexuality was still considered to be a mental problem. This
psychiatric classification has now all but disappeared in most countries,
though not all psychologists or psychiatrists agree with it. (As you will see
later, the removal had more to do with gay attacks and threats than with actual
evidence). I argued many times with colleagues and consultant psychiatrists.
Even then, each consultant had a different view and could not answer my
counter-arguments and queries. (The existence of different views proved to
me that no-one had a final answer).
As I worked with homosexuals, every one of them, without exception,
told me that the real cause of their depression and neuroses was not rejection
by others, but their own inward realisation that what they did was “against
nature”. These are their own words, not mine. Many make the same assertion
today. (The above is taken from the report of a UK Christian in a professional
journal in 2005, so, obviously, the same truths still apply. See later section.)
All of them had come to the end of their tether and could no longer
maintain a superficial front to their lives. As with drug-addicts or alcoholics,
there comes a day when the pretence has to stop and the habit takes over
completely. So, what I was given as information is how they really felt.
Though a Christian for about 8 years by that time, I was unaware that
the Bible condemned homosexuality. But, nevertheless, like the majority of
people, I had a ‘gut’ reaction to it, a rejection of their lifestyle.
Where did this come from? It was not from my new beliefs, because
no-one told me anything about homosexuality, and I do not recollect anyone
talking about it, because it was still, at that time, kept behind closed doors.
I continued to observe homosexuals and to ‘treat’ them. Later, in 1985,
the same Christian writer mentioned above completed a three-year selfimposed research project on the then new phenomenon of AIDS and HIV,
even before these conditions had a final medical term attached to them. The
names had yet to be given (though even at that time, doctors and researchers
were referring to it as the ‘gay plague’ or the ‘gay cancer’, in recognition of its
source. Of course, not wanting the public to know the truth, using intimidation,
gays forced medics to change the names).
His worldwide research, which involved reading every known research
paper and account in the English language, produced astounding results.
They were astounding because they contradicted the official line taken by his
own government, and, from his account of events, it cost him dearly.
The writer had access to government and other data, and they simply
did not match what he found. It was easy to see why: governments, even
today, are spoon-fed false information by gay pressure groups and by those
gay researchers whose pseudo-researches are worthless. Put simply,
governments are lying by default.
10
As a result, millions owe their deaths to governmental negligence in
placing trust in gay activists, whose only interest is maintenance of a particular
sexual lifestyle. (In the 1980’s a professor said AIDS could be stopped dead in
its tracks if gays stopped their risky behaviour. But, gays didn’t want to stop.
So, they continue to die). Their reliance on homosexual activists for
information is as logical as police relying on thieves to give them accurate
information about criminal activity! Gays ensured that those who did have
accurate information were side-lined and marginalized.
In late 1985 the same writer’s main findings were summarised in a
professional magazine (at the request of the editor), in the form of a short
letter. As a lecturer in a college health department, the writer firstly and
properly obtained the permission of his superior. Within days the fury of gay
activists hit him hard. The result was loss of his job as a lecturer (because
some gays paid for their own courses!).
Gays bluntly told him they would get him removed from his job, and
they did. A senior college official (apparently, until that time, his ‘friend’) made
sure, behind his back, that his name was blacklisted for the next five years, so
his college career was finished. That was 20 years ago, but nothing has
changed – it happened again to him in 2005! The same kind of repulsive
intimidation happens here in the USA.
This was followed by a series of death-threats and abuse from gays.
The abuse continues to this day. So, in ordinary terms, that writer has nothing
to thank gays for! His only ‘crime’ was to speak the truth, a truth no
newspaper or magazine will acknowledge, and no employer will accept, for
fear of gay reprisals. I would accept the situation if both sides of the story
were allowed to be put side-by-side. But this does not happen. Instead, we
only get a continuous flow of pro-gay propaganda, to the shame of those who
call themselves professional journalists and governmental officers, the
supposed servants of the people. In reality, they are gay pawns and puppets.
(There are still a few admirable exceptions).
Today, the gay myth must be exploded, before ordinary men and
women are criminalized for opposing the gay lifestyle. Creating laws to protect
a perverse activity is itself a perverse activity. In principle, it is like protecting
thieves from prosecution! (Note: the word ‘perverse’ is used in its correct
sense and is not ‘homophobic’ in any way. See later information).
Gays now feel comfortable to ‘come out’, as though everyone has now
accepted their lifestyle. This is also a myth. Homosexuality might indeed be
legal, but it is not accepted! Whilst the gay lifestyle certainly exists, it is
illusory. The ‘condition’ known as ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’ does not exist! ‘Gay’ is
a myth invented to perpetuate a sexual choice. The proof is in this book.
I can argue against homosexuality without any reference to the Bible or
any Christian idea, such is the overwhelming evidence… though I do not see
why I should avoid it. Is it just a ‘value ‘judgement’ (like homosexuality)? If it
is, then it is an indication of sound values!
In this book you will find the hard facts of science and medicine which
show, beyond reasonable doubt, that homosexuality is not an alternative to
heterosexuality, nor is it natural or safe. Nor are homosexuals a genuine
‘minority’. (In this book I only use the word ‘homosexual’ because it is in
current use. Other than that it has no real meaning).
11
The ramifications of the conclusions in this book are vital, for if
homosexuality is just a personal choice, then all claim to need minorityprotection by law is obliterated, and all laws created for that purpose
must be repealed, here in the USA, as well as in all other countries that
have fallen for the great homosexual hoax.
Politicians who do not heed this fact are guilty of a pernicious lie that
serves to penalise those who are true citizens. They are also guilty of allowing
an interested party (whose number is never fixed or final, for gays shift from
gay to straight when they feel like it, so they are not a ‘minority’ at all) to
dictate policies that are against the public good, including the good of
homosexuals themselves.
Indeed, I repeat, pro-gay legislation is irrational, immoral and insane. If
gays wish to kill themselves and live immorally, then let them. But neither
they, or politicians and lawyers, can control thought. For myself, I find gay
sexual behaviour to be disgusting, perverse and without any merit at all.
Nothing in law or government will ever change my mind and I will never, ever
support pro-gay activities and demands.
How can society support within itself men and women who follow what
is immoral, unhealthy, and what harms society as a whole (a statement also
made by a leading gay!)? How can the whole population be legally
commanded not to talk about it honestly and openly? This weird situation led
the late pope John Paul II to “(have a) deep antipathy towards American-style
pluralism, which he associated with moral relativism.” (1) See a later chapter
dealing with the dialectics behind the gay movement.
Whenever society has no real spiritual or moral roots, immorality will
flourish. If unchecked, it will degenerate even further into amorality. But,
where does this penchant for societal self-destruction come from in the first
place? The answer will not be liked by homosexuals: it comes from personal
sin. That is, the ruinous leaning inside every person, including me, to do what
is wrong and repugnant before God and society.
If you are not a Christian, you might argue that this does not apply to
you; sin is an outmoded idea, a vestige of Christian fantasy. Okay, instead,
look at sin as a manufacturer of human destruction; homosexuality is the
home of HIV and AIDS. For proof see AIDS figures. This disease is ravaging
the world. If for no other reason, this aspect of sin and stupidity should prompt
the whole of society to reject the homosexual ethos and its practices, as being
inimical to society’s well-being (this, too, has been said by a leading gay).
The same applies, of course, to all sexual promiscuity and sin. Read
this book and you will see what I mean. Read how even a gay leader is
demanding the same strict response!
The book is written by me as a Christian, but its application is universal.
This is why most of it is based on the findings of science, medicine, and nonBiblical sources. The Biblical arguments are left until last, simply because
good science is also good theology. If you wish, then, you can skip the whole
last part, but I recommend you read the whole book, because otherwise you
will lose the wider perspective. Even if you do decide to skip the last part, the
truth remains the same.
However, gays have a special hatred for, and interest in, Christians,
who they see as their arch-enemies. They are confident to openly state this
and even to say they want to destroy the Church. Their literature and
12
speeches are filled with poison against Christians. Of course, no-one bothers
to call this a ‘hate crime’! Most of their attacks are against Christian or
Christian-type values and morals, and this forms a big part of their agenda. In
the USA in particular, the agenda is to target anything Christian. This should
make anyone, Christian or not, wary and suspicious of the aims of gay
activism. Today they attack Christians. Tomorrow it will be YOU, or anyone
else who objects to what they say and do.
My attitude is what might loosely be called ‘Christian realism’, which, in
this book, means acceptance that people will make bad, stupid, or even
wicked choices, whilst also claiming the Christian ethos to be the only valid
one, for nothing in Christian beliefs can harm anyone. However, in this matter,
Christians are joined by Muslims and others, who also recognise
homosexuality to be immoral (which is probably why Muslims are also being
targeted by homosexual activists).
But, particular believers are not the only ones to kick against the lies of
gays. In December 2005, Sky News in the UK conducted a poll amongst its
general viewers. Of over 55,000 respondents, a massive 75% did not support
gay ‘weddings’. A similar result came from a radio poll held in Northern
Ireland, where the first gay ‘marriage’ took place; a result that shook the radio
presenters. Yet, this parody of marriage, like every other homosexual ‘law’,
has been foisted onto the population without consent! Does this not tell us
something?
Also in December 2005 came the disclosure that some policemen in
Norwich, UK, quit their jobs because their role was becoming “too politically
correct”… that is, they have to put up with (amongst other things) pro-gay
legislation whether or not they think it is ridiculous. Many USA police officers
think the same way, too. Later, you will see that the ‘PC’ brigade even make
an impromptu remark to a gay into a ‘hate crime’, and send police scurrying
around to warn the ‘criminal’!
As a Christian I accept people as they are (though in strictest
theological terms, this is self-limiting) because there is no other option. I will
not deliberately seek to harm them, even if they make choices dangerous to
themselves or myself. I can accept the person as a human being, but I can
never accept any bad or sin they (or I) do. I humanly trust everyone, until and
if they give me a reason not to. None of the gays I have known can be trusted,
because each one attacked without warning. (Yet, as people, I liked them!).
Nothing in this book can be taken to mean hatred for gays. It merely
wishes to bring the truth to light. Huge numbers of homosexuals are genuinely
struggling to escape the drudgery of being a slave to homosexual lusts,
though they try their best never to admit it to their fellow gays, because they’ll
be attacked. These I have time for and will help. Others enjoin homosexuality
with tasteless flamboyance and a devastating intent to be sexually
promiscuous, hating and attacking non-gays if they are opposed.
Yet others try to understand the dynamics of their situation, and a
growing number of the public question the absurd and sometimes disgusting
habits of certain homosexuals who can only be labelled ‘out of their minds’
(see later section: gays who attend orgies with the purpose of getting HIV!). Of
13
course, it is true that those who indulge in heterosexual sins are equally
wrong, but they are not the focus of this book.
You must now make up your own mind, because the evidence is very
compelling. Gays who insist their behaviour is somehow fixed by their genes
or other bodily element should be prepared for caveats, because they are
saying they are unable to control what they do. “Anti-social behaviour may be
linked in some cases to brain damage suffered as a child, researchers have
found” (2)
Although the quote is taken from a study specifically looking at
aggression, the principle remains the same for any anti-social behaviour. In
this case, proof will be found by scanning the ventral region of the frontal lobe.
Are gays telling us they are brain damaged? They must reflect
seriously on the implications of saying they cannot help their behaviour!
(However… even this research is based on assumptions, not final laws.
The actual wording is “The ventral part of the frontal lobe is thought to
dampen-down the desire to act on impulse, allowing people to learn how to
behave appropriately…” The word ‘thought’ is vital, for it immediately places
the research findings in the category of ‘hypothesis’ and not full theory.
In these kinds of results, there is conjecture, not fixed fact. And that’s
the whole point of my argument. No-one can say that a gene or other part of
the brain actually causes behaviour of any kind, at least not on its own).
As for gays who are outraged because I call what they do ‘bad
behaviour’ and ‘anti-social’, well, they must learn to put up with it, because
that is how I view their activities. It is also how the majority see them, too.
The online edition of The Independent (3) reported on the legal case for
libel brought by rock singer, Robbie Williams, against two newspapers and a
magazine, who reported that he was gay. Williams won his case and received
substantial damages. Why do this unless he thinks gay is acceptable!
A part of the ‘liberated’ rock scene, Williams readily used gayness in
his songs and ‘camps it up’ for the sake of what he thinks is entertainment…
but, in the end, he rejected the title ‘gay’ and thought it was enough to take
people to court over! He emphasised that he was not gay. Why is this, if
being gay is ‘natural’ and ‘good’? Williams thought the slur bad enough to fight
against. And so did the law, otherwise, how could he win his case? So, even
when a famed person uses ‘gay’ to sell his songs, the actual ‘condition’ of
homosexuality is not acceptable to him.
A media law expert said, “Most right-thinking people don’t think the
suggestion that people are gay is defamatory”, yet in the next sentence he
refers to ‘allegations’ of being gay, showing that even he, as accepting of
homosexuality, thinks that gay is wrong… otherwise he would not have said
‘allegations’. Probably a Freudian slip, eh?
Even so, just who are these ‘right-thinking people’? Gays? Pro-gays? I
consider myself to be ‘right-thinking’, and not just because I am a Christian. I
have studied homosexuality and AIDS for a very long time. I know the
research, so my conclusions are not just God-based, they are founded on
solid science and medicine! If that isn’t ‘right-thinking’ then what makes the
half-baked lies and bad research of certain gay pseudo-scientists ‘rightthinking’? And what makes the sheep-like bleeting of ignorant men and
women, duped by gay propaganda, ‘right thinking’?
14
UK police are now monitoring statements they think are ‘homophobic’.
Some officers (usually young and brought up with gay propaganda) are
extremely pompous and officious. They are warning citizens even though the
citizens have done nothing illegal! In this they are being encouraged and
ordered by the Labour government, whose pro-gay stance can best be
described as inordinate and out of control (though. historically, genuinely
socialist). Like bullies in a playground they are bashing-up anybody near their
flaying arms! Free speech? Yes, but only for gays! And this kind of audacious,
fascist dictatorship is starting to flourish here in the USA, too.
Do not underestimate the importance of this book. It describes how
science and law are being misused in favour of the gay lifestyle. It only takes
one failure in a scientific theory to render it useless and without validity. The
homosexual claim to being natural has been debunked not just once, but time
and again. How many falsifications are needed? And, why don’t lawmakers
and politicians know these facts? Or, if they do know the facts, why are they
ignoring them, penalising innocent people, and rewarding homosexuals for
being liars and deceivers, with special laws and protections?
Why do all governments insist on making laws to protect a
mythical ‘minority community’, when the very basis of their decisions is
debunked evidence? If such decisions were made by an individual, they
would be labelled mentally ill or incompetent!
Governments everywhere must now reverse their decisions and
repeal all laws that are in favour of homosexuality.
Then, homosexuals can sink or swim according to their arguments (like
the rest of us), and, if this democratic rule is allowed to operate,
homosexuality as an argument will, I assure you, sink without trace.
Sadly, homosexuality will always exist, because it is human nature for
some to follow illicit, sinful, or unwise choices. Let ‘homosexualists’ (a term
used by Roman Catholic cardinals, but quite apt) do as they wish, so long as
they don’t harm society, try to force others to accept their lifestyle, or expect
society to pay for illnesses contracted through their promiscuity. Then, the
majority who oppose or dislike their lifestyle can, equally, voice their
opposition. Let’s get back to reality and reject the fascist-Stalinist methods of
homosexuality!
Rob Martyn
May 2006
THIS BOOK CONTAINS ACTUAL FACTS. ITS CONTENTS ARE
EXPLOSIVE. SEND A COPY TO EVERYONE YOU CAN THINK OF, BUT
ESPECIALLY POLITICIANS, LAW-MAKERS, LAWYERS, DOCTORS,
PSYCHIATRISTS, SCHOOL PRINCIPALS, UNIVERSITY DIRECTORS,
HEADS OF HUMAN RESOURCES, POLICY MAKERS, BUSINESS
OWNERS, POLICE CHIEFS, LOCAL COUNCILS AND STATE OFFICES,
AND
CHURCH
LEADERS.
IF
THEY
CONTINUE
TO
ACT
UNREASONABLY, THEN IT IS AGAINST ALL REASON AND THE FACTS!
15
WHAT DOES THAT MAKE THEM? YES, YOU’VE GUESSED IT… BUT
WILL THEY?
Also send copies to those leaders whose countries still have not fallen to gay
lies and pressure, TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO REMAIN FIRMLY AGAINST
HOMOSEXUAL LIES AND DECEPTION. Get the truth out there!
A Nut and a Bolt
Someone once had a great idea. He designed a nut and a bolt and
placed the prototypes side by side on a table. There they sat for a while,
useless.
The inventor then put the bolt into the nut and they had a reason for
existing! But when the nut and bolt were separated, they had no use or
reason. Even when lots of nuts were put in one big pile, and lots of bolts in
another, when separated they had no genuine reason to exist. They were just
useless bits of metal. It was only when they did what they were designed for
that they had a function and a reason.
The inventor’s wife saw men collecting piles of bolts and taking them
away as prizes. Then she saw women come and take away piles of nuts.
“What’s the point of that?” she cried, “It’s stupid to collect one without the
other!” They shot her.
The Desert Island
A tribe lived on a desert-island. After centuries, only two young males
and two young females were left. The two males thought it would be exciting
to join together, so they ignored the females.
But the two females wanted to be with each other anyway, so they
ignored the males.
The two couples grew older. They couldn’t have children because the
two males didn’t have all the right complementary elements. Neither did the
two females.
Within a generation the four died and there were no descendants,
because their basic premise was erroneous. Now there’s just the desert-island
and whitened bones in the sand.
The Lion’s Dinner
On Monday, Mr Lion went and got a gazelle for lunch. On Tuesday, he
decided to have a boar. Then, on Wednesday, he roamed too far and saw a
fallow deer in someone’s back garden, tethered to a ring in the wall. The
garden belonged to a local man, but the lion skulked around until the coast
was clear. Then, over the fence, a moment of panic from the deer, and it was
over. All the owner found was blood on the floor and a break in the fence.
Mr Lion took his catch back to the pride and they all enjoyed his daring.
But, the man he took the deer from was concerned. Next day, Thursday, Mr
Lion again roamed near the village, looking for easy meat, and this time found
a pair of large dogs in a backyard. No matter – in he went and brought down
both dogs. Again, he took them back to the pride for a late lunch. The whole
village were now concerned, because what should have been out there in the
wild was now dooming their village. But it didn’t matter to Mr Lion, because he
was now quite a hero for going where he ought not to have gone! So much
so, that the entire pride held a ‘Lion Pride’ parade, in their arrogance.
16
On Friday, two pals went with Mr Lion, and between them they
devoured more pets. On Saturday, some of the villagers realised the problem
was getting worse, so they hid at one end with guns. But all the Lions came
and roared defiantly. By Sunday, all the villagers were dead. The Lions took
over and the village quickly disintegrated, the homes all falling down. Village
caution came too late.
PART A
Chapter 1
Gay Pride & Fascism
Gay Pride? In What?
‘Gay Pride’, typified by those very bizarre marches, is a weird thing! In
pre-1960’s USA, there was little tolerance from police and others for
homosexuality, who saw it as an insult to society as a whole. On June 27th,
1969, gays drinking at the Stonewall Inn, Greenwich Village, New York city,
were suddenly besieged by police. Not wishing to put up with what they say
was continual harassment (which, in reality, was upholding the law amongst
people who deliberately provoked police action by acting illegally), the gays
fought, shouting ‘Gay power!’
This went on for several days, drawing great attention. Known as the
‘Stonewall Riots’ or the ‘Stonewall Rebellion’, it heralded increasing
stubbornness and outrageous attitudes by gays. The ‘Gay Pride’ marches
grew from this initial riot. It must be said that the public actions of a large
number of participants leaves a great deal to be desired in terms of what is
socially acceptable! Sadly, only growing tolerance (in the so-called 60’s
revolution) for sexually inappropriate activities made these riots possible. Note
the rapid and now uncontrollable increase is sexual diseases that began at
this time. Wow! That is certainly progress and freedom!
Now, many cities around the world host Gay Pride marches (often
using public taxes) and, for the life of me, I don’t understand why! I do not
accept that countries should harass gays or treat them badly (or that gays
should do the same against ordinary folk), but neither do I accept that gays
should be given inalienable rights that are over and above the rest of society!
The only reason gays have these mythical ‘rights’ is because they have
persuaded the world, by intimidation and lies, they are a ‘minority’ who are
‘born that way’…something I will totally refute later. Without this claim, gays
have no rights apart from those that apply generally to all of humanity!
In the Catholic Jubilee Year, gays held a Gay Pride Week, and
marchers paraded themselves quite close to St Peter’s Square, to the disgust
of the late pope. The response of the Vatican was interesting.
“There was consternation at the highest levels of national and local
government, not to mention the Vatican.” (4). Anyway, the ‘festival’ went
ahead, with some 200,000 gays from around the world, “for the most
extravagant strut and flaunt ever witnessed in this city of extravagant parades.
17
In temperatures over 90 degrees, the participants, mostly highly painted,
posed in various degrees of undress and outrageous transvestite
costumes…the demonstrators paraded around the pagan environs of the
Circus Maximus.” (Most apt!).
“The bizarre procession went off without violence.” But, the pope was
reported to have been quite bitter about the parade, saying it was “an affront
to the great Jubilee” and “an offence to the Christian values of a city so dear
to the hearts of Catholics worldwide.” Sadly and ignorantly, he made the
mistake of saying that gays could not help their condition (but he was
seriously ill at the time). As usual in ‘pride’ marches, there was public display
of sexually pornographic actions.
What is ‘Gay Pride’? Pride in what, exactly? It can only be pride in
sexual perversion, given the sights and activities that are involved. The pride
is in immorality, not in any idea of equivalent ‘love’.
When people mass together and cavort with abandonment it is a very
good indication of one thing: lack of confidence in one’s own position and
claims, a symbol of one’s failure to recognise a bad choice, and an arrogance
that transcends reality and good taste. The louder gays shout about their
rights, the more they prove to everyone they know they are wrong!
Gay Pride is one of the most bizarre events on this earth. It is a time
when gays flaunt their immorality before the world. Not because they are right,
but because they know they can twist and manipulate governments and laws.
This is just one strand in what being gay is all about: immersion in a lifestyle
entirely rooted in deviant sexual choices, against what is decent, good and
true. (In this book, remember, ‘gay’ can sometimes also mean ‘lesbian’).
The marches are simply a juvenile attempt to pretend to be sure of
what one has done and what one chooses. It is defiance of God and
arrogance within and against society. They are even held in countries that ban
gay marches, such is the impudence of gays! (Gays do this to deliberately
taunt police, hoping they will be rough with them. Then they scream to the
world about how hard-done-by they have been, creating the impression they
are ‘victims’! If anyone else deliberately broke the law they would be arrested,
but this is all part of gay intimidation).
Gays know very well that their lifestyle is deviant. The more they shout
against it, the more they prove it! But, they carry on anyway, trying to blot out
the caveat of nature itself, that what they do is not part of the natural order of
things, whether we appeal to Christian or scientific laws. But gays don’t care
if what they do is natural or good; they simply want to indulge in deviant sex.
Like anyone hooked on a bad habit they will go to any lengths to practice the
habit, even if it harms everyone else.
When a group of people ride rough-shod over the sensibilities and
thoughts of the vast majority, forcing them to consent by law, it can be called
only one thing, fascism. And this is found in abundance within gay circles.
Christians only teach what scripture says, but homosexuals use violence and
force and law. Big difference, eh?
However, what is a gay circle? Is there such a thing as the ‘gay
community’? We all know that if we say something for long enough and hard
enough, slowly others will think it must be true! Gays insist on speaking about
their ‘community’ as if they formed a ‘minority’, but it does not exist; it is yet
18
another gay myth. You will read later that almost all gays, at least those who
admit to it, change back to heterosexuality many times, if not permanently.
So, the ‘community’ is as illusory as the pretend title, ‘homosexual’. It is
a figment of the imagination. In reality, ‘homosexuals’ (or, more correctly,
those who indulge in same-sex activities), at any one time, form an extremely
small number of people who deliberately dismember themselves from normal
society by their actions, coming together for sexual reasons, and plotting to
change society so that they can enjoy their lusts without opposition.
(Strangely, in late 2005, the UK government issued a very odd statement –
that one in sixteen people are gay! As critics have replied, this flies in the face
of all other findings, of between 1% to 2%. It is therefore discredited as
another piece of official pro-gay bunkum. Indeed, after its initial presentation,
this statement has sunk without trace!).
Gays hit on a great way to convince people they are a ‘minority’: they
tell everyone that they are being discriminated against “just like blacks and
other ethnic minorities”!! What garbage! A black person is black because of
birth and genetics. A gay is gay because he has chosen to indulge in a sexual
aberration! A black man stays black. A gay can change, often, back to
normality. There is, then, no comparison and no link whatever!
I challenge readers – does any of this make sense? If you think not,
then this book will leave you unaffected anyway. Deep in the heart and mind
of society at large there is the common knowledge that homosexuality is
wrong, unnatural and unsafe. And, as one journalist said (see later quote), it
simply gives most people “the creeps”. To force society to think otherwise is,
as has been said, just one aspect of fascism. Think ‘fascism’ is too strong a
word? Then read on, because what gays are doing affects every person on
this planet.
Homosexuality as Fascism
Gay pressure and pro-gay acceptance of gay propaganda has led to a
peculiar but stark fact: those who reject gay propaganda (Christians in
particular) attract brutal and violent ‘solutions’ viciously aimed at them by
gays. Without doubt, this is fascism in action.
If you think this is a dramatic way to describe gay and pro-gay
activities, let us briefly look at what Fascism in pre-war Germany was like.
Then, I will relate what gays themselves say about their fascist leanings. You
will conclude, along with me, that the current situation is a mirror image of
what happened in those dark days that led to the extermination of millions…
where gays in concentration camps fell victim not to ‘straights’ but to
fellow gay Nazis!
It is an interesting fact that those who are abused tend to become
abusers. Gays were put into the gas chambers alongside Jews and others, by
fellow gays. Yet, with the horrors of past experiences recorded in history
books, modern gays repeat the same fascist attitude and actions, becoming
the very tyrants Hitler’s henchmen were! (This is because many of Hitler’s
henchmen were themselves gay).
Let me repeat the fact: gays and pro-gays are today’s Fascists.
Their very actions and words prove it to be true.
19
Gay ‘Heroes’ in Pre-War Germany
We all know what happened in Germany during the war. But, Fascism
did not just suddenly appear out of nowhere. Nor did it arise out of a popular
movement based on popular thought. It arose out of the mind of one man,
Adolph Hitler, who ‘persuaded’ others to join him (often with force). This led to
an inner caucus devoted to his ideals and ready to do murder.
That devoted group became henchmen, and then thugs, who brutalised
anyone who dared to stand in their way. Basic to the progress of this
thuggery, and characteristic of it, was the denunciation of all who opposed the
new regime, the burning of books that did not agree with it, and the
criminalisation of people who did not accept what Hitler was saying. And,
stupid employers complied with Hitler, getting rid of Jews and others, rather
than keeping to the truth and to decency, so removing the ability to eat and
earn a living.
This is exactly what is happening in the world today, notably in
countries at least nominally ‘Christian’! Islamic countries have no problem
denying gays ‘rights’ as gays, and gays are currently too afraid to challenge it
outright. And, to make it far worse, laws are constructed to deny people the
right to speak out and hold divergent opinions.
Christians, however, are divided. Some believe what the Bible says,
some believe the gay interpretation of it (thus denying Biblical teaching), some
have no real thoughts at all, just like me all those years ago. In other words,
many are fooled and many are just ignorant of the facts.
But none of this is relevant. What is relevant is the truth, and it is truth
that gays and pro-gays fear and lack in abundance. They have been allowed
to run away with their own imaginings. But, far worse, they now impose their
desires upon the whole of society, with legal blessings. This is why I now
speak out. If a man or woman wishes to choose homosexuality, that is up to
them; the problem arises when they try to force acceptance of their choice
onto everyone else… including our children.
Remember, fascism is the opposite of democracy and the father of
political correctness. It imposes the strict demands of a very small number
upon everyone, the majority, even if they oppose the legitimacy of the
demands with genuine reasons; whereas democracy allows people to choose,
or not to choose, for themselves.
“According to fascists, the decisions (of men) are dangerous for the
survival of the species. Their range of choices therefore needs to be
controlled, restricted, destroyed. They must be manipulated and
dominated…you’ll note that through some strange psychotic transfer, fascists
do not (think of themselves as bad), but that ‘others are bad’. Fascism starts
with self-hatred, but a self-hatred that is always (projected onto) others.” (5).
This is exactly how homosexuals think today.
The same writer continues: “…demagogy, as a denial of free choice, is
fascism. Culture and pedagogy are democratic. Capitalism, when perceived
as a way for people to blossom, is democratic. When it’s seen as a way to
squash and dominate others, or when advertising uses manipulation and
repetition…it’s fascism.”
As the saying goes, if it sings like a bird, flies like a bird and lives like a
bird, then it’s a bird! There is no need to hunt tortuously for clues. By actions
and words, gay activities today strongly display the traits of fascism. “By some
20
strange psychotic transfer” they make all who object to their lifestyle ‘bad’, and
so they manipulate the media, trade unions, governments and even churches,
to obey their every whim and command. The ‘bad guys’ must be removed and
destroyed! Thus, by manipulation and lies, they crush and dominate others.
Open your eyes! Look at what is happening! As the writer above says,
“that’s fascism.” Not affecting you? That’s what people thought at first in
Germany and a lot of other countries! By then it was too late.
10 Characteristics of Fascism
After examining the fascist regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco,
Suharto and Pinochet, political scientist Dr Lawrence Britt concluded (in an
humanist publication) there are 14 characteristics of fascism. (6)
Here, we will look at just ten of those characteristics. Dr Britt did not
intend for them to be used in this particular way, but his observations are
useful, because they are illustrative of the fascist foundation for gay power.
If a government, or union, or employer, etc., adheres to the
characteristics of fascism, what does that make them? Yes, that’s right –
fascists! This is not a trite assumption, for gay ‘rights’ are being used to
trample all over society as a whole, and gays use governments and others to
bring it into effect.
Below, in bold type, are the characteristics identified by Britt as ‘fascism’,
followed by my own response:
1. “Constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs and
other paraphernalia.”
Response: Look at how gays behave socially: constant use of
the word ‘homophobic’, even though it is a nonsense word, owing more
to Alice in Wonderland phraseology than to reality. This badly formed
word (invented by gays) was initially used by gays to refer to a ‘fear of
homosexuality’. But, it has been evolved by gays, at whim and
arbitrarily, to now mean ‘hatred of gays’. In other words, to be called
‘homophobic’ is sufficient to label non-gays as vile and violent, even
when there are no proofs at all to support the view.
Gays extensively use symbols: rainbows, the colour pink, and so
on. This is to reinforce the ‘brand’ known as ‘homosexuality’. (Indeed,
it is a stated aim of the ‘gay agenda’ to ‘rebrand’ homosexuality, by
hiding its nasty murky side, so that it can be made socially acceptable).
They even claim certain songs as their own, to suggest that
homosexuality is now embedded in the national conscience as an
acceptable fact. More lately, gays claim the Bible is ‘crammed’ with
examples of gay couples! (A direct lie based on deliberate distortion of
contents). Thus, though Christians are berated and hated, the Bible is
used, when convenient, as a symbol of gay acceptance!
By constantly identifying non-homosexuals (I do not refer to
them as ‘anti-homosexuals’, because this is not usually the case) as
‘bad’, gays are preparing the public for even greater controls. This is
exactly how Nazi’s portrayed Jews. In the West, this control is almost
complete over the entire media, ensuring that anything rejecting
homosexuality on solid grounds is automatically suppressed or
demonised. That’s fascism!
21
2. “Disdain for the recognition of human rights…(fearing) ‘enemies’
and the need for security…fascist regimes…(ignore human
rights)…because of ‘need’. They approve of…(imprisonment,
torture, etc).”
Response: The ‘whole world’ (according to gays) has come to
believe the ‘human rights’ of gays have been trampled on. But where is
the proof of this? There is none. What do they mean by ‘human rights’?
The crux of ‘gay rights’ has nothing to do with ‘human rights’ at all: gay
‘rights’ mainly mean the right to act out deviant sexual behaviour and to
receive equal moral standing in society with heterosexuals. This can
never occur.
Society can give gays the right to live just like anyone else, and
to express their beliefs, but there is no automatic right for any member
of society to insist on others accepting their lifestyle! Nor can society be
forced to accept activities that cause harm to itself or to its children.
Once the whole of society is forced by law (or by violence of any kind)
to outwardly ‘accept’ the lifestyle of a very small oppressive few, that is,
by definition, fascism. This is especially so when such a lifestyle is
perverse.
Note that gays are pressing governments to imprison and
harshly-treat anyone who persists in denigrating (or even not
accepting) their position and activities. The latest move in the USA is
for gays to demand that opposition to homosexuality should be labelled
a mental illness! They are denying freedom of speech to all who reject
their propaganda. They press employers to dismiss anyone who
expresses any legitimate view that is against their own. According to Dr
Britt, this, too, is a characteristic of fascism.
In the UK, for example, there is a law giving equal employment
rights to those of any sexual background, but there is also a law giving
equal rights to those of any religion. Conveniently, the latter is ignored
and the former is raised in the public eye. (In a recent case, a stupid
employer wrongly used the law against an employee - though it will not
actually be law until October 2006! - and, at the same time, ignored
another law in the process! That is, he acted illegally, but got away with
it. He did it because he feared gays would otherwise create problems
for him. He was, then, afraid of gays. His success against his employee
was down to his superior income, used to impose his power, not to the
authority of his argument. He is an intelligent man without a valid
intellect).
Thus it is alright for gays to pummel Christians, for example, but
it is not alright for Christians to even question gays! I invite you to look
carefully at what gays are doing. They can be seen to openly denigrate
Christians and others, in the most objectionable terms, but all a
Christian has to do is say “I don’t accept homosexuality” in the most
polite terms, and gays insist on legal restraints…cursing the Christian
as they do it! Why are gays allowed to churn out filth and curses, when
Christians are not even allowed to object? Remember – today it is
Christians, tomorrow it will be YOU.
22
It is an observable fact that gays demand ‘human rights’ to
perniciously spread their lifestyle, even to schoolchildren. But
Christians and others are refused the same human rights to object!
Reader – that’s fascism!
3. “Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause – the
people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to
eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or
religious minorities…etc”
Response: Anyone who rejects gay propaganda (including other
gays), and raises questions against gay laws and gay rights, etc., is
considered to be an ‘enemy’ and will quickly become a scapegoat.
Gays act as one frenzied mob when they think their position is being
assailed. The proof of their weak state and very weak arguments is
seen in the way they will resort to violence and law to get their own way
– if left to argument alone, they would fail miserably.
One poor soul was forced out of his job by an idiotic employer
who obeyed his gay employees. But they were not satisfied with that.
They hounded him for months, and tried, on five separate occasions, to
destroy him, though he was already unemployed and without any
income whatever! That is fascism!
At this juncture I ask governments and police why they allow
gays to deliberately disobey laws and march in defiance of those laws,
without censure or prosecution? Why do they allow gays to openly defy
government and law with taunts and publicly-expressed defiance,
without bringing them to book? Yet, a lone, non-vocal, quiet, Christian
with a placard, is taken to court?
With extreme cunning and insidious indoctrination spanning
decades (in fact, about 150 years, but more active in the past 20), gays
have persuaded gullible politicians to be on their side (that is, against
others). And so laws have been constructed just for gays, even though
there is no actual, or factual, basis on which to build such laws. That’s
fascism.
The TUC (Trade Union Congress) of the UK is typical of this
gullibility. A Christian asked the TUC the following question concerning
a conference to be held in 2006 (the wording of the conference title is
highly illuminating in itself!):
“Re the ‘Stamping out Homophobia’ conference, 2006… May I
ask if your conference actually knows the difference between a ‘phobia’
and ‘hatred’? I ask because most do not, and think ‘homophobia’
equals ‘hatred for gays’, which it does not.
I also ask if the conference knows the full scientific and medical
facts concerning homosexuality and AIDS? Again, most ministers,
employers, and others do not. Current legislation, for example, is
predicated on a false theory of homosexuality, etc. Or, is this just… gay
propaganda without any reference to all the facts?”
The reply is indicative of both brainwashing and an obedient
adherence to being ‘PC’. A Policy Officer for ‘Disability, Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, Transgender Rights’ (!!) replied:
23
“Thank you for your message. Speaking on behalf of the TUC,
and representing our own (numerous) experts in this field, I reject what
you say. There is no point in any further correspondence.” Oh dear!
What a sad reflection of this person’s brainwashed intolerance for truth.
Now, that’s certainly fascism! The TUC covers all unions in
the UK, and this amazingly ‘PC’ statement therefore applies to them all.
The point is very clear: (a) Their ‘experts’ know better (b) any other
views are rejected (even without examination), and, more importantly,
(c) shut up – we don’t want to hear you!
So, the writer of the email might have the truth, but the TUC will
not even listen to what he had to say. More than that, he was told to
remain silent. After all, the aim is to ‘smash’ all opposing views. Very
mature, eh? That’s fascism.
4. “Supremacy of the Military…Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate
amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is
neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorised.”
Response: Not relevant? Look again… just replace ‘the military’
with ‘homosexuality’ and you’ll get the picture!
The rights of gays are currently supreme. Despite the economic
problems experienced by both the USA and the UK, inordinate financial
sums are spent by governments on promoting and maintaining gay
lifestyles. This is obscene and immoral! Gays are glamorised, in the
persons of pop-stars, politicians, and others. Indeed, gays are even
made to appear good heroes as gays!
Much of this is attained by constant gay propaganda pressure,
strange, unreal stories of the ‘morality’ of homosexuality, and disproved
or debunked ‘scientific’ research. In the USA in particular, the media
are virtually wrapped-up by gays, who control output and reject any
kind of TV program or film that will decry or even question
homosexuality. That is how, in 2006, a gay film (Brokeback Mountain)
was released universally, under the banner of a ‘love story’. It is just the
forerunner of many more similar films that will glamorise
homosexuality.
In the UK a Christian nurse had a long-running dispute with a
nursing union. Like all unions, it does not just protect gays in the
workplace if they are treated badly; it goes much further, by producing
pro-gay policies, using the finances supplied by the general
membership to fund it! That is, they actively promote the lifestyle, which
is why some nurses resign from membership.
When the nurse objected, they saw her as a troublemaker who
was out of step with modern thought: ‘homophobic’. (Is that the only
pretend word they know?). In reality, she thinks as millions of others do
throughout the world! Also, her thoughts are both scientifically true and
in-line with orthodox Christian theology and, horror of horrors, morality.
When she wrote a letter to one of the union’s publications,
challenging pro-gay statements with the most up-to-date research
nullifying their statements, they deliberately published whole pages of
vicious libel against her. Of course, they would not publish her retorts.
24
Many of the abusive letters they published demanded that the journal
should not ever print such views (like hers) again…that’s fascism!
On many occasions the nurse has attempted to get nursing
unions and others (including the media) to open up the debate, but has
been continually ignored or slapped down. There is plenty of room to
vilify critics and to spread the word of happy gay-dom, but no room at
all for those with valid objections to what is a growing darkness within
society, which is affecting the ability of unions and the media to present
a proper and reasoned argument. Certainly, many journalists are just
as prejudiced against the truth as any gay. They have lost their ‘edge’!
In the UK, even though pensions for legitimate people (ordinary
couples, singles, etc) are being squeezed hard, gay couples are being
given ‘equal rights’ with heterosexual couples! (Even though
homosexual liaisons are notoriously loose and liable to many splits!).
And the list of what is ‘equal’ is increasing rapidly, paid for by the public
purse, whether or not the public agree to it! Thus, a very small number
of immoral people are being paid to be immoral. The rest of us must
suffer and shut up. That’s fascism!
5. “Rampant
Sexism.
Governments…tend
to
be
maledominated…traditional gender roles are made more rigid…”
Response: I have left out the rest of this statement, because the
writer is pro-gay. Now, reverse the statement; today governments are
intent, to the point of being insane (because what they are forcing on
the public has no rhyme or reason to it and has not been open to
discussion), on promoting homosexuality and gay life as ‘normal’.
In many ways, ‘gay is the new normality’ (the aim of the gay
agenda) and the new model of gender, despite the fact that
homosexuality is a sterile and patently unnatural activity. Governments
are hardening in their stance against anyone who does not wish to
accept the homosexual lifestyle, and so the idea that gay is good is
being foisted upon all in society, against prevalent mass opinion,
morality and scientific facts (that gay is not good, but is a sign of
perversion). That’s fascism. In the UK, it has been suggested by some
observers, this might be due to the ruling Party, Labour, having at least
19 gay MP’s. (Do you think their views will represent the majority?
Hardly!).
6. “Controlled mass media. Sometimes the media are directly
controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media are
controlled indirectly by government regulation, or sympathetic
spokespeople or executives. Censorship…is common.”
Response: This glaring fact certainly applies to the media! Just
try to get over an anti-gay message (or, just the truth about
homosexuality, no matter how politely) in the media and you stand no
chance! As has already been noted, the media in the West is almost
sewn-up by pro-gay and gay leaders. They censor all output and will
not tolerate anything that does not push the gay agenda. Why won’t the
media do some serious research and present the arguments against
homosexuality and pseudo-scientific research? WHY WON’T THEY???
25
And I don’t just mean half-heartedly. I mean consistently and in the
same volume as given by gays!
In the USA and UK, even schools are about to be forced to give
‘lessons’ in homosexuality, including gay sex! And parents who object
risk prison! The only way some media (there are still rare exceptions,
thankfully) publishes anything against homosexuality is if they want to
set-up a person for intense attacks by gays… but proper argument is
never allowed. That’s fascism.
7. “Religion and government are intertwined…fascist governments
tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to
manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is
common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of
the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s actions
and policies.”
Response: In the UK, the prevailing ‘religion’ is Anglicanism, and
though the Bible clearly rejects homosexuality, its head, Rowan
Williams, is strongly pro-gay. As a result, government policies are
tolerated if not promoted by Williams-style Anglicanism. The fact that
Anglicanism threatens to split over the issue does not seem to unduly
concern its leaders. Conveniently tagging the dissenters as
troublemakers, government and ‘church’ maintain a pro-gay stance,
whether or not it splits the entire membership in two!
Government will pick-out what is pro-gay from Anglican beliefs,
even though they are ‘diametrically opposed’ to the ‘major tenets of the
religion’. In this way, government scapegoats and criminalizes those
who hold to a Biblical viewpoint, in an attempt to force everyone to toe
the gay line. That’s fascism.
8. “Corporate power is protected. The industrial and business
aristocracy…often put government leaders into power,
creating…a…power elite.”
Response: Homosexuals, in order to maintain and promote their
lifestyle, place their people in positions of power. And where they are
not leaders, they are agitators, who insist on bringing non-PC
employees and employers to the notice of their network of thugs.
Within minutes of a gay coming across a non-gay stance, he or she will
contact the network and it will grind into top gear, to obliterate the
opposition. It happened to one writer as early as 1985 and as late as
2006. That’s fascism.
Recently, when the Tory Party in the UK wanted to find a new
leader, a Christian wrote to him to get his view and to complain that
gays prevented freedom of speech. He did not even respond, though
he publicly declared himself to be for ‘freedom of speech’. Then, on the
Tory website, the same Christian noted a bit of news… that the
candidate, David Cameron, was to get the ‘pink vote’. Obviously, he did
not want to lose the votes of (1% or less) homosexuals. Is this why he
effectively jettisoned freedom of speech (for the remaining 99%)?
In this way, the gay machine ‘encouraged’ David Cameron to toe
the line, putting him in danger of becoming a voice of the gay agenda,
26
to the detriment of the huge majority who are not gay! This may not be
his express intention, but it is how things are working out. Despite his
good intentions, then, that’s fascism.
9. Though the intention of the original author was to write about the
arts, one phrase holds true generally…”Free expression is openly
attacked”.
Response: It is now impossible to openly discuss opposition to
homosexuality, even with actual facts. This is because the media are
hemmed in tight by gays, and governments are trying their best to
outlaw anti-gay sentiments. This is in the face of serious opposing
arguments based on academic, philosophical, religious and scientific
facts! When anti-gay ideas are allowed to be expressed, it is for the
sole purpose of using the critics as scapegoats, to be attacked
mercilessly as ‘bad’. That’s fascism.
10. “Obsession with crime and punishment…police are given almost
limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to
overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties…”
Response: Today, anyone who expresses legitimate opposition
to gay laws and to homosexuality, will be castigated, if not taken to a
court of law. The police are now a part of this draconian mindlessness.
Look at the ‘Hate Crime’ handbook issued by the UK’s Chief
Constables! There are similar draconian powers here in the USA.
In the UK, the Gay Police Association has immense power, and
guides police authorities into accepting its demands. It also has been
known to intimidate members of the public, notably if they are Christian,
if they dare to express even the most innocuous views against
homosexuality. One lady was threatened by the GPA with a ‘file’ in
Scotland Yard and ‘investigation’, simply because she said it was a
shame that gays held positions in the police force!
A Christian who helped the lady contacted Scotland Yard, and a
senior police officer told him, in essence, that they did not do that kind
of thing and were not taking orders or files from the GPA. Basically, the
GPA was trying to intimidate! (But, a short while later, police are acting
against the public, on behalf of gays).
Nevertheless, it got its message across and managed to frighten
the lady into submission! The public, seeing gay police, are now too
afraid to express any views that might bring the police against them.
After all, the fear is that a gay officer will be sent to ‘investigate’ a gay
complaint. Can he possibly be balanced in his view? No.
It is not that these people are ‘willing’ to overlook such police
abuse (which is what pro-gay investigations really are); it is just that
they are trying to protect themselves from possible police attention.
This is now becoming the philosophical stance of the police. That’s
fascism.
Fascists – All Gay
27
“Many of the leading European fascists of the past 30 years have
been gay. Progressive gay people like me shouldn’t ignore this.” (7).
Read that again, because it was written by an homosexual.
Referring to the gassing of 10,000 homosexuals in Hitler’s death
camps, the writer admits that many who committed the atrocities were
themselves gay! “…the idea of a gay fascist seems ridiculous. Yet, when the
British National Party…(fielded) an openly gay candidate in the European
elections… dedicated followers of fascism didn’t blink an eyelid. The twisted
truth is that gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement
that ever was – including the gay-gassing, homo-cidal Third Reich.”
Hari continues: “With the exception of Jean-Marie Le Pen, all the most
high-profile fascists in Europe in the past 30 years have been gay. It is… a
‘gay thing’… and it’s time for non-fascist gay people to wake up and face
the… music.”
This telling of the truth by a gay goes on: “Martin Lee, author of a study
of European fascism, explains: ‘…there was something supermacho about
being a Nazi, as well as being an homosexual, both of which enforced his
sense of living on the edge, of belonging to an elite that was destined to make
an impact. He (Michael Kuhnen, Germany’s leading neo-Nazi before he died
of AIDS in 1991) told a West German journalist that homosexuals were
‘especially well-suited for our task, because they do not want ties to wife,
children and family’.” That is, he is saying gays make great fascists!
The image of Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, publicly
berating gays after a pub’ they used was bombed, was well recorded by the
media. But, as the above writer explains: “Scratch the homophobic surface
and there’s a spandex swastika underneath.” He continues with a report that
Martin Webster, a ‘head honcho’ in the BNP movement, claimed that Griffin
“sought out intimate relations with me.”
Ray Hill, a writer who infiltrated the BNP, reports that “Homosexuality is
‘extremely prevalent’ in the upper eschalons of the British far right… in the
1980’s nearly half of the movement’s organisers were gay.”
Gerry Gable, who edits the anti-Fascist magazine, ‘Searchlight’, said, “I
have looked at Britain’s Nazi groups for decades, and this homophobic
hypocrisy has been there all the time. I cannot think of any organisation on the
extreme right that hasn’t attacked people on grounds of their sexual
preference and, at the same time, contained many gay officers and activists.”
The leader of the thuggish skinhead movement in the 1970’s, Nicky
Crane, had many followers, all shaven-headed and looking every inch like
Nazi’s, with similar streaks of violence. Yet, despite his macho image and evil
tendencies, and his later involvement with the BNP… he was, yes,
homosexual. He died of (guess what?) AIDS in 1986, after ‘starring’ in many
gay pornography movies. There is even a ‘Gay Skinhead Movement’.
If men and women wish to choose to be gay, that is up to them. I do not
want to physically attack them or in any way harm them. But, I do insist on
freedom of speech to state opposition to what they do.
My demand is not fascist. It is not vitriolic. It is not hatred. It is just a
demand for free speech. When gays try to stop free speech about their beliefs
or lifestyle, they set up a dam of resentment throughout society, which, one
day, will burst. The deluge will drown them.
28
Ernst Rohm
Ernst Rohm recognised the early ‘talent’ of Hitler and promoted his
‘cause’, becoming his right hand man. It was Rohm who introduced Hitler to
the ruling stratum in society, and Hitler soon became known as “Rohm’s
boy”…Rohm being an avowed, overt homosexual. He believed homosexuals
were superior to ‘straights’, and “saw homosexuality as a key principle of his
proposed Brave New Fascist Order.”
Historian Louis Snyder wrote that Rohm “projected a social order in
which homosexuality would be regarded as a human behaviour pattern of high
repute…He flaunted his homosexuality in public and insisted his cronies do
the same. He believed straight people weren’t as adept at bullying and
aggression as homosexuals, so homosexuality was given a high premium in
the SA.” (They promoted an aggressive, hypermasculine form of
homosexuality. It is certainly true that many gay armies, such as were in
ancient Greece, were amongst the most vicious).
Rohm was suddenly arrested at night by Hitler, who had him shot.
Rohm was the most high-profile victim of the famed ‘night of the long knives’.
After that, Hitler ravaged the gays in Germany, though some tried to maintain
that Hitler himself was gay. (There is very ‘fuzzy’, inconclusive, evidence for
this. One book claims to have irrefutable historical proof Hitler was gay, and
killed high-ranking gays to cover it up. See ‘Hitler’s Secret: The Double Life of
a Dictator’, by historian Lothar Machtan. However, read this book with caution,
because it, too, is inconclusive and hypothetical, despite its claim).
The fate of Rohm should be remembered by all gays who try to
manipulate society and laws to suit their own agenda. There will come a day
when society will have had enough of gay propaganda and enforced
conformity. Johann Hari admits: “Won’t a culture that turns viciously on
one minority (e.g. black people) get around to gay people in the end?
This seems to be the lesson of Ernst Rohm’s pitiful, squalid, little life.”
Currently, gays are repressing and suppressing non-gays and
demanding obedience to their false claims. That is a big mistake.
Rudolph Diels, founder of the Gestapo, recorded Hitler’s thoughts on
homosexuality: “It had destroyed ancient Greece… Once rife, it extended its
contagious effects… to the best and most manly of characters, eliminating
from the breeding pool the very men the Volk most needs.” In essence, Hitler
was right in this assessment: homosexuality is a sterile form of relationship,
with no come-backs, no loyalty, and no possibility of procreation. I do not side
with Hitler in any way, but sometimes even a butcher can have clear thought.
Gay Leaders Say Homosexuality is Fascist
The Johann Hari site questions why gays, who were themselves
victims of Hitler’s wrath, should become fascists in their turn. He asks “Is it just
an extreme form of self-harm (like) gay kids who slash their own arms to
ribbons out of self-hate?” (When I say that homosexuals hate themselves and
what they do, I am usually shouted-down! But, here a gay is saying it).
Even a gay film pornographer, Bruce LaBruce, said, “All gay porn today
is implicitly fascist. Fascism is in our bones.”
Wyatt Powers, leader of a gay group called the ARC said “I always
knew in my heart racist and gay were both morally right.” The fact that, in
2005, over 58,000 had HIV in the UK alone, seems to defy this idea!
29
One gay website, The Conjecturer, begins an article with “I cannot
understand how harassing political opponents in the name of ‘equality’
accomplishes anything.” Hear, hear!
Well, there is sufficient evidence to show that, at its root, homosexuality
is fascist in mind and style. It tries to command respect whilst oppressing and
repressing those of us who have genuine arguments against homosexuality.
On the other hand, there are also many homosexuals who do not
subscribe to this vicious and self-destroying mentality. Yet, in their attempts to
force the rest of society to ‘accept’ them, activists overstep the mark and bring
in laws and societal sledge-hammers to crush anyone who stands in their
way. So, even those gays without a fascist agenda eventually use fascist-style
methods to get their own way, no matter how slight is the influence.
We see this today in increasing strength. Opponents of the gay lifestyle
are being hounded by gay pressure groups and even by individual gays, who
are more than willing to crush them, to remove their means of income and
peace. Gays only need to bleat ‘discrimination’ and doors open or close
obediently. No matter which way you view history, this is outright fascism in
action. You have read, from the pens of influential gays themselves, the
admission that homosexuality is fascist. And this is what I see in everyday life
from gays. Though I have attempted friendship, it has been returned void,
behind the kick of a jackboot!
Note 1: Ken Livingstone, Labour mayor of London, UK, was in court,
December, 2005, for abusing a Jew by saying he was like a
‘concentration camp guard’. Livingstone is the man responsible for forcing all
London local councils to obey the pro-gay civil-partnership rule, and
everybody else to toe the gay line, even if they protest and do not wish to.
Guess what he said to the judge? He complained that he had ‘freedom
of speech’ to say what he said! Where is my freedom of speech to say what I
say about gays? What about the freedom of speech of everyone in London,
including councils? Why should council tax-payers pay for deviant ideas?
Livingstone, then, is a dictator, denying freedom of speech to everyone
else whilst demanding it for himself! What did we call it earlier? What is it? Oh
yes – that’s fascism!
Note 2: Muslim extremists issued posters in an English town in June
2006, referring to the unacceptability of gays. Local gays actually said that if
Muslims do not like a country that accepts gays, then they should get out of
the country! That was published in a newspaper. Yet, if a Muslim said gays
should leave any country that accepts Muslims, it would not be published!
Does not that single statement by a gay scare you? It should, because it
shows that gays want total domination of our minds and environment and they
have the boldness and power to get such views published, whereas anyone
not agreeing will be branded as criminal.
13th
Throughout this book you will see why I refer to fascism. It is the
regime* behind all homosexual activity and demands today. So, when you
read any part of this book, keep the word ‘fascist’ in mind, because it
describes homosexuality as it really is.
Gays will, of course, try to turn the term around so that it points at me.
Frankly, I don’t care two hoots. They always try to brand critics as bigots,
30
Nazi’s, etc., so it is now the same old, tired, phraseology from them! But the
game is up; I recognise this ploy as just a part of their ‘gay agenda’.
(* If we are to be more pedantic, the gay movement is based on two
factors – fascism and a form of Marxism, Dialecticism. For more details of this
see later chapter on political correctness).
I have the human right to express my views. If I want to say
homosexuality is unnatural I have the right to say so. If I wish to say it is
immoral, I have the right to say so. Any law that says something else is
working against human rights and freedom of speech.
If homosexuals wish to present a counter-view, that’s fine. If they wish
to live immorally, that’s fine, because God will judge them. But once they try to
impose their views on me by law or by physical violence or by sheer pressure
of group intimidation, that is not acceptable. It is why this book was written.
Governmental bodies who frame laws should look again at why they
are forcing society to accept homosexuality. No law can force a change of
attitude or mind, only an outward acceptance because there is no other
avenue. This will eventually blow up in the faces of those who are fascists.
No government can tell us why they are acting so irrationally! None can
give a satisfying reason for making homosexuality ‘moral by law’! None can
explain the belief that homosexuality is ‘safe’, when it clearly is not!
Homosexuality movements are fascist. That is that. If we continue to let
them win the day, we will all lose… including homosexuals.
The Spitter
A man thought it would be thrilling to dribble sputum into other people’s
food, even though he had a fatal virus. He did it in secret, every opportunity he
could. But it wasn’t enough. He wanted to ‘come out’ with it.
He somehow managed to convince a local doctor that it was good and
safe to spit into food, and the idiot doctor believed him. That’s because he,
too, had a similar perverted sense of fun.
They began a campaign to allow freedom of spitting into food and
began to spit in restaurants, even though customers were appalled and
chased them.
Eventually, the two found some more idiots and between them they
convinced idiot politicians that it was their ‘right’ to spit into someone else’s
food. Slowly everyone became convinced (they claimed to actually see the
king’s new clothes!) and there came a time when people who were disgusted
by this habit were penalised by law. Then came imprisonment if they did not
ask the man to spit in their food. But, they also had to eat the garbage after he
had done so. The man and his friends were ecstatic, knowing they had
deluded so many influential people!
But, the death toll rose dramatically.
Disclaimer: This story is not about leaders in the USA or the UK. Legal and
political leaders in those countries would never be so stupid, irresponsible, or
crass. No, I’m not laughing, honestly.
31
Chapter 2
Are Gays ‘Born that way’?
“There’s no possibility of somebody developing
homosexuality from hereditary or organic causes.
It’s just impossible.”
“I myself have reviewed all the literature, including
LeVay’s study, and I certainly don’t believe, and I
don’t think any scientist believes, that there is a
biological predetermination for sexual orientation.
There’s
much
more
evidence
for
early
environmental factors that would set the stage for a
person’s sexual orientation.”
“The genetic theory of homosexuality has been
generally discarded today… no serious scientist
suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship
applies.”
When I first studied the subject of homosexuality (from pro-gay
sources), I could see a very real dichotomy: male homosexuals and their
superficial blaming of society, and society, who could not accept what
homosexuality stood for, or what it did. I was a Christian, but I had no inward
conviction or belief concerning the matter. Therefore I was, in effect, a neutral
observer. Only later did I discover what science and the Bible said about
homosexuality.
Fascination with the fact and fiction of homosexuality stayed with me as
I watched this sexual activity turning on its own axis and making further, and
different, claims for its own existence. Today, the whole thing has changed,
and homosexuals now believe (or pretend to believe), against reality, that
everyone now accepts their ‘condition’. To repeat – gay might be legal but it is
not accepted!
Even so, it is still fascinating to watch gays invent all kinds of
deceptions and games, which they successfully foist onto society and
governments; and the way society outwardly accepts gay rubbish without a
question, whilst calling it ‘filth’ in close circles. Anything for a quiet life?
32
No Free Speech
All that has happened is that gay activists are so violent in their
responses to criticism, and have brought the law on their side, that few are
willing to discuss the matter, let alone be critical; as some know to their cost.
Over the past 30 years, free speech has certainly been discouraged, if
not stopped, by gay activists, whose usual responses include their own
invented word ‘homophobic’ (a weird, nonsensical word) and a variety of
insults, such as ‘bigot’, ‘fundamentalist’, and ‘ignorant’. Strangely, though
‘homophobic’ was coined by gays to mean a fear of homosexuality, it is now
used by them to mean a hatred of gays! And they get away with it! Constantly,
I refer to gay claims as ‘absurd’, and this is just one reason why I do so!
Heterophobia
Nowadays, what was left of free speech is all but eliminated. In my
experience and in the experience of many others, gay people hate anyone
speaking their mind, if it is against homosexuality. They are, then,
heterophobic as well as fascist. This is usually sufficient for all who are not
gay (the majority) to maintain a strategic silence, for fear of attack.
Also, strangely, homosexual activists are cannibalistic, for they even
shout ‘homophobic’ at fellow gays who reject extremism! Thus, just as in the
death-camps of Nazi Germany, modern zealot gays devour their own kind.
There are gays out there who oppose the extremists – let’s hear from
you! Stand up and tell them they are fascists! It is their actions that
bring you to the limelight and cause the rest of society to rise up in
anger! The majority do not accept homosexuality, so why draw attention?
I can discuss the subject from both a scientific and a theological/moral
angle. Both angles deny gays the legitimacy they so earnestly crave. Due to
lack of space, not all research has been included in this book, but those I have
cited are typical and accurately portrayed.
It is now a common refrain amongst gays to claim they are ‘born that
way’ and, if connected with a church, that ‘God made us this way’. “People are
‘born gay’. Therefore, it is impossible for anyone to change. This myth is
primarily based on two widely reported scientific studies.” (8). These are given
below. (See later section where you will see homosexuals can and do change
back to normality).
Biology or Choice?
The secondary causes of homosexuality are many, and are not as
clear-cut as gays wish us to believe. On August 30th, 1991, several
newspapers reported on the work of Dr Simon LeVay, a researcher at the
Salk Institute, San Diego, and the headlines certainly grabbed gay attention:
“Brain stem part different in gay men: studies suggest biological basis for
homosexuality” (Seattle Times)
“Are gay men born that way?” (Time)
“Is this child gay – born or bred?: The origins of homosexuality.” (Newsweek)
“The survey of identical twins links biological factors with being gay.” (Los
Angeles Times).
As is often the case, gay activists seized on these studies and made
them say what they did not really say, thus perpetuating the myths current in
gay circles, and used as propaganda. (And this is what they will do with this
33
book, too! Just watch them, like eager little beavers, desperately throwing out
garbage against it!). Even governmental leaders have swallowed these lies
(hence the emergence of fascist laws)! In particular Dr LeVay’s research was
taken to mean he had found evidence that homosexuality was genetic and
biological in cause. But, this was not the case, as he himself admits!
LeVay worked on cadavers (dead bodies). He assumed (without any
genuine reason) that of the 41 cadavers, 19 were homosexual men, 16 were
heterosexual men, and 6 were heterosexual women. He saw that some (not
all) of the neurons in the hypothalamus region were larger in heterosexual
men. From this very small and unqualified basis he assumed that if
homosexuals had smaller neurons in this area, then this ‘may’ be the cause of
homosexuality. (Note the vital word, ‘may’: all pro-gay pseudo-research
thrives on such indeterminate words, making the findings useless and without
scientific merit).
For this claim to be true, 100% of all neurons in this area had to be
consistently smaller, for homosexuality to be called ‘genetic’ or ‘biological’,
and therefore ‘natural’. This was his own benchmark, with which I concur on
scientific grounds. He published a statistical chart of his findings in Science
magazine – and even this was flawed, showing that he had not proved his
hypothesis in any way.
There is also the major point that as all his subjects were dead, there
was no way to confirm their history or thoughts, and so anything LeVay
produced, by definition, had to be a ‘casual’ link (possibly) and not ‘causal’.
Why was his chart in Science flawed? Well, as he himself said, his
findings had to show a 100% consistency…but of the 19 supposedly
homosexual men, 3 had larger nuclei than heterosexual men! According to his
own theory, this should prove not the cause of their homosexuality, but that
they were ‘super-heterosexual’! That is, LeVay actually falsified his own
hypothesis.
Added to this, 3 of the heterosexual men had smaller nuclei than their
homosexual counterparts. That is, 17% of his subjects contradicted his own
theory. (9). In fact, no scientist has isolated any gene that supposedly ‘causes’
homosexuality. This is because, scientifically, no such proof can ever be
found. Ever.
There is yet another problem with LeVay’s findings: very few scientists
suggest, and no scientist has ever proved, that the hypothalamus causes
sexual orientation.
An acknowledged expert in same-sex attractions, commenting on
LeVay’s claims, said: “We’re talking about a general area of the brain that has
to do with emotions, including sexuality; but in this particular nuclei, we have
no clear understanding of what function it serves to this point.” (10). In other
words, there was no proof whatever that LeVay was even partially right.
Another expert (Dr Socarides) went a step farther, saying that the
research was just a sham: “I believe this theory is completely erroneous.
There’s no possibility of somebody developing homosexuality from hereditary
or organic causes. It’s just impossible.” (11).
I am not on an equal footing with brain specialists, but I do have
sufficient knowledge to challenge LeVay’s findings, on similar grounds, and
especially on grounds of methodology and interpretation.
34
It is impossible for any scientist to accurately and finally pinpoint and
categorise brain activity and functions. No man can properly identify even the
most innocuous of brain areas, as being specifically and only responsible for
certain functions. Much less can he say that a particular part of the brain
‘causes’ choice of behaviour! To repeat: “It is impossible”!
Dr Socarides adds: “the question of a minute section of the brain – submicroscopic almost – as…deciding sexual object choice is really
preposterous…Certainly…a cluster of the brain cannot determine sexual
object choice. We know that for a fact.”
I have said for many years that all my findings point in one direction,
that homosexuality is a determined choice, made by an individual, to engage
in a particular sexual act or thought. There can be many reasons for the initial
interest (secondary cause) in homosexuality, but the decision to engage in the
activity and to continue interest in one’s thought-life is a choice (prime cause).
The only secular alternative to this is mental imbalance; that is, a person is
saying he is unable to control his own actions. The only spiritual alternative is
demonic possession. These are logical conclusions in their own spheres.
Let me put it simply. If a man has never travelled on a train, he cannot
be said to be a train traveller. But, if he buys a ticket and boards a train, and
travels to his destination, he becomes a train traveller. His points of
embarkation and disembarkation are irrelevant.
Likewise, the secondary cause of homosexuality is really not relevant:
the fact is, a man or woman is ‘homosexual’* by an act of the will – to act out
homosexuality is to be ‘homosexual’ at that precise point. (He is an
‘homosexualist’). But, when not acting out homosexuality, that person is not
‘homosexual’. (As I have already said, I use the word ‘homosexual’ in this
book only because it is widely recognised. In reality it has no meaning).
The man on the train is a train traveller. When he is not on the train, he
is neither travelling or on a train, but only has a propensity to do so. This is
true of a man who never travels by train and never does so throughout his life.
Thus, everyone in the world is potentially a train traveller, but not all
engage in the practice. The same can be said of any sexual choice that is
possible. A man who indulges in an homosexual activity is, at that time,
‘homosexual’ or an ‘homosexualist’. But, when he is ‘dormant’ he is not
homosexual. In the same way, to refer to someone as ‘heterosexual’ as an
over-arching title is superfluous, except as a protest against homosexuality.
I am saying, then, that there is no such condition as ‘homosexual’, only
a propensity to act out a particular sexual choice at any given moment, just as
the train traveller is only a train traveller when he actually boards and stays on
a train that takes him to a destination. Outside of that experience, he is a
walker, or a car driver, or a ‘plane passenger, etc., or even a non-traveller.
This is a very important statement, for much is made by homosexual
activists of their common ground together. But, each man or woman comes to
their sexual choice for different reasons and by different routes, and does not
always indulge in the same activities. Yes, they engage in certain common
activities, but this does not prove a common ancestry. A vacuum cleaner and
a man both ingest materials, but this does not prove they have the same
genetic parents!
A rich man can buy caviar, and may often do so, but this is not ‘proof’
that every man who buys caviar is rich. However, homosexuals tend to band
35
together as a precaution against criticism, and they have developed a very
extensive network of people, ideas and activities, creating a mythical lifestyle.
This is the basis of their claim to legal protection. There is no biological
basis, so they invent a lifestyle that is quite out of step with reality and the rest
of society. The reason is not that society is cruel, but that homosexual activity
is unnatural.
It is painfully clear, from physiology and anatomy, that male and female
bodies naturally ‘fit’ each other. Male does not fit male, and female does not fit
female. The effeminacy found in some male homosexuals, and the maleness
found in some lesbians, can be viewed not as genetic, but simply as a
psychological attempt to try to offer what is missing in a one-sided
relationship, a self-delusion. (One example of this is the way certain
obviously-‘gay’ men’s female-type voices change back to normal male voices
when they are engaged in ordinary pursuits! Strange, eh?).
By its very nature, the relationship is sterile. Or, one tries to provide
what is missing by adopting unnatural characteristics in the extreme, as a
psychological imbalance. Recent decisions by lesbians and gays to adopt
children are an admission of this inability to provide a fully-orbed natural
relationship. Though they have all the elements necessary to reproduce, they
cannot do so when paired with the same gender. So, they have to enter a
ridiculously complex loop to get children! Why not just do what men and
women were designed for, and produce children the natural way?
There is also the fact that certain neurons can fluctuate in size because
of a particular activity, and do not, therefore, cause the activity. In the same
way, a man who continually engages in highly dangerous activities will have
an abnormally high content of adrenaline in his body. If the level remains high,
it can change his heart structure and responses to such an extent that he has
a cardiac arrest.
This reversal is confirmed by the assistant to the president of the Salk
Institute, Dr Kenneth Klivington, who points to: “a body of evidence showing
the brain’s neural networks reconfigure themselves in response to certain
experiences.” (12). So, even if LeVay is right (which he is not), it is far more
probable that the homosexual activity altered the neuron size, rather than that
neuron size caused homosexual behaviour.
It should be noted that LeVay did not find proof that his subjects were
homosexual or not. A science reporter, who is himself homosexual, admitted
to this fact. (13). Sexual orientation was not verified. The whole research
method itself was flawed and useless.
It is significant that LeVay only turned to this research after his own gay
lover died. His intention was to ‘prove’ a genetic cause for homosexuality. He
said that if such a cause was not found, then he would abandon science
altogether. (14). He did not find it, nor has he resigned!
I call this bad science as well as bad methodology. In research terms, it
makes his whole research in this area questionable, if not useless. LeVay had
tunnel vision, and was not working according to proper scientific rules of
research. He was certainly trying to extend proper neurone research in a way
that cannot ever come to absolute conclusions.
That is, no scientist can ever, not even with endless funding and time,
prove that a particular neuron actuates this or that outward action, because
actions (unless physiologically autonomous, like breathing… though even
36
breathing can be stopped at will!) are mainly determined by choices. LeVay’s
work, then, is fruitless and without real direction. At the most he might come
up with casual observations, but nothing more.
His work is, without doubt, pathologically induced, with a prejudiced
assumption as his starting point. His intention was merely a device used to
find a way to justify homosexuality. In my extensive studies in this area I have
noted, time and again, that gay activists will go to abnormal lengths to ‘prove’
their case, but inevitably they always fail. Newsweek itself added: “He is
promoting the idea that homosexuality is a matter of destiny, not choice.” As
Shakespeare said, “The lady protesteth too much.”
Dr Ankerberg asks vital questions: “Even the measurement that LeVay
used is suspect. Do you measure the nuclei by size, by volume, by actual cell
count? Do you measure them by density? What do each of these
measurements mean? And again, has anyone scientifically established that
INAH3 has any impact at all on sexual orientation? No!” (15)
I concur that no scientist has established any link at all. Further, no
scientific study has replicated similar results, and one study, to my knowledge,
contradicts it (Dr Schwab of the Netherlands). This is no small matter, for in
science a study that cannot be replicated exactly, or replicated at all, is thrown
out as untenable.
Dr Nicolosi said: “I myself have reviewed all the literature, including
LeVay’s study, and I certainly don’t believe, and I don’t think any scientist
believes, that there is a biological predetermination for sexual orientation.
There’s much more evidence for early environmental factors that would set
the stage for a person’s sexual orientation.” (16)
The famous Dr Kinsey said “I have come to the conclusion that
homosexuality is largely a matter of conditioning.” (17). This is also my own
view, after many years observation of homosexuals and scrutinising the
literature and research findings. A person firstly has to ‘cross the taboo line’
before he or she ever considers actual engagement in homosexuality.
Today, this ‘crossing’ is facilitated by a cohesive homosexual network
plus the legal constraints placed on society for admonishing such behaviour,
and the growth of pornography and sexual encounters via the internet. (Gays
admit this accounts for the recent big increase in homosexuality).
Even so, there is still the taboo, and many people are greatly
traumatised by the process. Not because they are castigated by society (for to
that point few probably know a person is homosexually inclined), but because
they realise they are crossing a taboo and doing what is immoral and
unnatural, and this sets up an enormous dark pit of deep anxiety.
Note: Crossing a taboo is traumatic and potentially damaging to the
one who crosses it. It has often been said that only an insane person will
engage in self-harm activities that cause him or her to experience stress and
anxiety, and the disapproval of society.
This is a false argument. In my own psychiatric work, and in the
counselling of literally thousands of people with a vast variety of problems, I
have noted that those who have a particular determination to indulge in a
certain activity - not just homosexuality - will do so regardless of disapproval
by others or damage done to themselves.
Their pursuit of the activity is deemed to be of greater value than any
damage done. In the sexual realm this is illustrated by the continuance of
37
high-risk activities performed by heterosexuals, even though they know of,
and regularly contract, STD’s, just as homosexuals contract HIV.
Also, the dynamics of ‘crossing a taboo’ are fascinating. A taboo
(whether deemed to be genuine or not, legitimate or not) can be both an
object of fear and of desire. I have been told by a number of people that if
they are told not to do something, they go ahead and do it anyway, just to be
stubborn. To me this is just plain childishness, an indication of ego
overcoming sense, intellectual immaturity. A person has to contemplate the
taboo for a very long time, and this creates fascination, leading to continual
thinking about the object of desire (whatever it is, sexual or not).
The more one thinks about it, the more it is desired, and the more it is
desired the greater becomes the anxiety about it... because it is a taboo. It is
also, by the signs and symptoms, obsessive-compulsive behaviour. Before
engaging in the taboo activity, there is confusion and immense anxiety, but
once the taboo is breached there is immediate release of emotion.
This is not proof that one has at last taken courage and done what is
‘natural’, but, rather, proof that a person is unable to sustain continuous pentup anxiety indefinitely and so jumps headlong into an illicit activity. It is, then,
a simple ‘crashing’ of barriers and a breakdown of normality. The aftermath
may be a feeling of guilt, but when a taboo has been crossed just once, any
future similar activities become much easier to perform and handle, because
conscience is weaker and the delusion takes over.
This same dynamic is found amongst serial killers, persistent drug
users, and even violent religious zealots. After the repetition of the behaviour
there is then a growing desire to rationalise it, whether or not the reasoning
makes any sense, or is realistic. This explains the often bizarre claims to
genetic or biological causes for homosexuality. (See Appendix: Taboos)
Bu this does not explain how intelligent lawmakers and politicians
follow the lie hook, line and sinker! They don’t examine gay claims. They just
accept them without question. This is very odd behaviour. Very odd indeed.
They have gone on to produce layers of law specifically to protect an
abnormal and unsafe sexual choice! At no other time and in no other realm
has such absurd lawmaking been envisaged, let alone actually carried out!
Double Trouble!
Another piece of poor science oft-quoted was propagated by Bailey
and Pillard, in their study of identical twins. Because homosexuality is
prevalent amongst twins and adopted brothers, it was assumed that there was
a strong connection. (But, should we be surprised if those in the same family
exhibit similar characteristics, simply through copying? e.g. as with families
containing schizophrenics).
Methodologically, yet again, their study was seriously flawed. Firstly,
they found their subjects by going through magazines exclusively published
for homosexuals. Automatically, this tells me that there was a restriction on
their test population, and the study was not randomised or non-biased (18).
Also, they based their research on the (non-) findings of LeVay, even though
they were debunked!
The respondents were 52% identical, 22% fraternal and 11% adopted;
9% of non-twin brothers were homosexual, too. Obviously, because of the
source of the subjects, they were all homosexual. The researchers thought
38
that this was a very high percentage…but what could they expect if all the
subjects were found through homosexual sources? The assumption was that
the sexual orientation must be genetic. This is just as ridiculous as being
surprised to find apples amongst other apples in an apple barrel!
If you have not already noted the figures, if 52% of identical twins were
homosexual, this means that the rest, 48% were not homosexual. Indeed,
they were strongly heterosexual! Yet, they shared the same genes as their
brothers, a fact that flew in the face of the researchers’ assumptions.
Noting this very anomaly, Richard Cohen, a respected researcher,
commented: “As identical twins have identical genetic make-up, it is much
easier to interpret the findings as supporting the nurture rather than the nature
theory. If a homosexual orientation is genetic, then 100% of all identical twin
brothers should have been homosexual, but only half were. Therefore, it is
easy to conclude that environmental factors, not genes, cause
homosexuality.” (19)
Interestingly, even LeVay admits that neither his own research, or that
of Bailey and Pillard, prove that homosexuality is genetically determined: “At
the moment it’s still a very big mystery…” (20).
And, what do we find? That Dr Pillard is…yes, an homosexual (what a
surprise!). He, too, confessed that it was his agenda to ‘prove’ a biological
basis for homosexuality: so much so, that he was willing to use a faulty
population for his studies, and to come to a flawed conclusion, based on the
already debunked views of LeVay.
Famed experts in the field of human sexuality, Masters and Johnson,
said: “The genetic theory of homosexuality has been generally discarded
today…no serious scientist suggests that a simple cause-effect relationship
applies.” (21).
That the conclusions of this duo were reached back in 1984 makes no
difference to the known facts, for nothing has changed since that time! No
government on earth can justify its pro-gay stance, given the above facts! If
there are no scientific reasons to say gay is inborn, why do governments
make pro-gay laws? It is not rational. It is not good. It is fascist!
Dr John Money
John Money (John Hopkins University) is another ‘expert’ in the
sexuality field. (Note that he is strongly pro-gay and pro-paedophile). He said:
“No chromosomal differences have been found between homosexual subjects
and heterosexual controls…On the basis of present knowledge, there is no
basis on which to justify an hypothesis that homosexuals or bisexuals of any
degree or type are chromosomally discrepant from heterosexuals.” (22).
I repeat, no genuine scientific study before or since the 1980’s
contradicts these conclusions. (But a number of desperate pro-gay
researchers produced works that have since been discredited).
In a separate, earlier, publication, John Money said: “The child’s
psychosexual identity is not written, unlearned, in the genetic code, the
hormonal system or the nervous system at birth.” (23). It is also the view I hold
(for different foundational reasons), and so I deduce that claims to being
homosexual from an extremely young age are highly suspect, and probably
‘inserted’ into the memory at a later date…unless the youngster was ‘initiated’
at an early age by adult gays (see section on paedophilia).
39
Also, how do homosexuals react to the pro-gay editor of the Journal of
Homosexuality, John DeCecco, when he says: “The idea that people are born
into one type of sexual behaviour is foolish.”? (24). It is a fact that there are
many ‘foolish’ people in the world, even in medical and nursing circles, who
slavishly adhere to outdated and corrupt data. See the way ‘X’ in the UK was
so viciously attacked by fellow ‘professionals’ who had no idea what they were
talking about.
Dr van den Aardweg adds: “No genetic factor – sexual or otherwise –
has been found that would differentiate persons with homosexual tendencies
from others.” And so the list of denials of a biological cause of homosexuality
continues… and continues… and continues.
Kinsey’s Report
In his 1970 report, Kinsey showed that 84% of all gays “shifted or
changed their sexual orientation at least once”, 32% reported a third
change, and 13% reported at least five! (25)
The question, then, begs to be asked… if homosexuality is a condition
fixed at birth, why do 84% of them change their orientation at least once, and
some many more times? (The answer is painfully obvious to people with
brains: homosexuality is choice of a bad habit. As with any habit, we can
change it!). And what of the high number who completely return to
heterosexuality permanently?
These 1970 findings were repeated again by Bell, Weinberg and
Hammersmith, in 1981. In fact, the number of reported changes
increased. This is another proof that homosexuality is not a fixed
condition but just a sexual choice at the time. If we apply the principle of
adjustment, the figure for those who are homosexual (at any one time)
must be lowered to 1% or even less, because so many change back
again to normality.
As I said before, the findings do not alter, and no researcher has ever
proved even one minor link between homosexuality and genetics. If anything,
research only proves that sexuality now offers an even greater range of
objects to choose from. Often, confusion about orientation is taken to mean an
homosexual disposition, when, in reality, it is just… confusion! The word
‘confusion’ hides the truth, that it is not confusion at all, but a fight against
morality and inward repulsion. In his/her lifetime a man/woman will think many
things, including about immoral sexuality. Most are rejected. It is only when
these immoral thoughts turn into actuality that problems arise.
(This supposed ‘confusion’ is pounced-upon by predatory paedophile
homosexuals, who search-out boys for sex. Statistically, this predatory activity
applies to a huge proportion of gays – well over 70%. Yet, as most experts
say, boys go through a time when they prefer boys to girls, but homosexuals
use this to make them think they are ‘confused’ about their ‘real’ state, latent
homosexuality and sexual desire! If there are no homosexuals on the scene,
the boys grow up quite normally. Any other claim is a lie).
In the main, homosexuality has been “removed from… the list of
pathologies” (26), but the same writer acknowledges “This is not to suggest
that all psychologists see homosexuality as normal.” (27). Indeed, MANY do
not accept the official line! Of course, gays never quote that last bit!
Psychoanalytical theorists believe the ‘problem’ is caused by a fear of facing
40
up to male peers. In the past 30 years, all homosexuals (male and female) I
have met, display symptoms of neurotic instability and emotional immaturity.
There have been no exceptions whatever!
On the other hand, others (28) said that homosexuals do not suffer any
more incidents of mental disturbance than others, but suffer anxiety caused by
society’s response to homosexuality. Therefore, to see homosexuality as
abnormal is a value judgement (because human sexuality is ‘infinitely
variable’).
In many ways the latter statement is true, but it implies that the value
judgement itself is at fault, or is abnormal. We could follow this argument in
the case of murder. If we lived in an era when killing others was taken lightly,
there would come a point where murder would be treated as a value
judgement. Would this make murder simply a value? Or would it remain
intrinsically wrong? In other words, in the whole of society (including those
who are Christian), can the values of the majority outweigh the values of a
minority who continue in what is thought to be ‘wrong’?
One can ignore the Christian response to homosexuality, but would still
have to prove the case that homosexuality is indeed acceptable. The way to
do this in the secular sense would be to list the benefits of homosexuality as
opposed to the perceived ‘badness’, as well as the views of the majority (over
99% of any population).
The ‘homosexuality as an alternative’ argument cannot be used
legitimately, because, as simple physical comparisons show, there is no
equivalence. There is no ‘like with like’ comparison, ceteris paribus, because
the variables have no significant ‘touching points’ on which to base an
evaluation. These are matters of fact, not ‘value judgements’. Two apples are
not an alternative to an apple and an orange. They are just two apples! They
are not equivalent to oranges, but are different.
Later Reports
It might be said that I have quoted only older reports, but, as I have
said, nothing has altered over the past decades; the conclusions remain much
the same. In 1995, Bailey and Zucker said there is “clear evidence of a
relation between patterns of childhood sex-typed behaviour and later sexual
orientation.” (1995 review of studies of homosexuality). This tells us that
homosexuality is a choice and not a biological ‘given’.
Despite the corrupt methodology and findings of LeVay, Dr Richard A.
Isay embarrassingly refers to his discredited research as if it were true. (29)
This goes to show that even in the late 1990’s medical men could ‘get it
wrong’ by quoting material that is less than useless. He refers to LeVay’s work
by saying “many investigators now believe… the genesis (of homosexuality) is
(attributed to) in-utero development of the brain…” quoting the very factors
already discredited and debunked! And even in a 2005 book (‘Born Gay’, see
later) the authors rely heavily on discredited research!
The same kind of third-hand knowledge is presently passed-around on
the subject of AIDS, and so the inherent flaws and lies are constant currency.
As the maxim states, say something for long enough and it soon becomes
accepted as truth! However, it is not acceptable for this to be perpetuated by
professional researchers.
41
If ‘many investigators’ follow LeVay’s research as ‘fact’ then they are as
flawed in their thinking as was LeVay! And, if researchers insist on using
flawed research as their foundation, their action can best be described as
intellectually inappropriate and prejudiced.
I have no doubt whatever that those who recently criticised ‘X’ in the
UK nursing press were thinking of these ‘many investigators’… perhaps they
should value true research methods as I do, then they might see a different
picture. It stands to reason, that if LeVay’s work was flawed and worthless,
then so are the views of ‘many investigators’ who accepted it at face value!
The issue for me is not homosexuality itself, but the fact that
researchers are deliberately misinforming the public and medical personnel in
order to ‘prove a point’ and further the gay agenda. If we allow bad research
to replace truth, then we are in a very poor state.
Most health personnel say their work is based on research (evidence
based). Yet, they cannot distinguish true research from bad, as is evidenced
in so many medical myths that continue to be published unchecked.
Discussion of valid opposing views is strongly discouraged if not punished,
even amongst intellectuals (so-called).
MF Conclusions
In 1997, the CMF (Christian Medical Fellowship, with many doctors
amongst its membership), medically reviewed the historical and current views
on homosexuality. The authors, Rachael Pickering and Peter Saunders,
quoted Bancroft (British Journal of Psychiatry): “This is an area, par
excellence, where scientific objectivity has little chance of survival.” The
authors say: “Tenuous conjecture is portrayed as certain conclusion to a
gullible public.” (And ‘public’ includes governments and police).
This is certainly true. In the mid 1980’s when a UK nurseresearcher/lecturer presented three year study findings of the then new AIDS
research, he discovered that the UK government was deliberately spreading
misinformation to the public, supported by gay propaganda. Using the actual
figures given by the government, he proved beyond doubt that both were
building a myth, which prevented proper treatment and diagnosis of HIV/AIDS.
But, propaganda won because it was simpler to digest, and the gay
machine was greater than the nurse’s resources. The result of this
misinformation is millions of deaths. (It is notable that although he had regular
information as a legitimate researcher, he was denied the same information
by the government as soon as he published a summary of his findings!).
Certain precautions are advised by the CMF authors:
1. Is the research replicated? If it is not, then be wary! The case of
Kinsey’s famed ‘10% of the population are gay’ is given as an
example…later research showed that Kinsey’s research methods were
faulty, and the figure now stands at only about 1% - 2% (maximum). If
we remember the fact that many homosexuals revert to heterosexuality
at least once, even this low figure is suspect.
It should be remembered there is no such thing as ‘homosexual’ (as
a condition), but only homosexual behaviour. In the same way, a man
can think he is an elephant until he dies, but he does not ‘become’ an
elephant, no matter how much he thinks he is one, and no matter how
many elephant-like activities he engages in!
42
2. Look at other scientific reviews. When homosexuality was mapped to a
section of the X chromosome, it was reported as a proven fact…but
later BMJ reviews sought greater caution.
3. Does the research contain ‘confounding variables’ that can distort the
findings? (Reference is made to the research mentioned earlier of
twins…the authors in this report also question the samples because of
their bias).
4. Does the brain affect behaviour – or does behaviour affect the brain?
(A question looked at earlier). This is a vital query, but no scientist can
conclusively prove that the brain directs sexual behaviour to such an
extent that the person is helpless to resist. It may be true in cases of
severe head trauma, or organic disease damage, but not in the case of
straightforward sexual activity.
5. We must also see if the proposed theory is too simplistic (because life
itself is far from simple). It is my conclusion that if there are many
possible theories, then no-one has an exact answer…unless, of
course, there is just one major statement opposed by different theories
allied to the same basic idea, e.g. choice or biology.
Psychiatrist Richard Pillard claims that bisexuality, homosexuality and
heterosexuality, are all examples of ‘biological diversity…with a genetic basis.’
(30). This is opposed by researchers such as Van Wyk and Geist: “biological
factors exert at most a predisposing rather than a determining influence.” (31).
That is, biology, at the most, is an indirect casual influence and not a causal
factor. And, as all genuine researchers say, there is no way anyone can
‘prove’ a causal link.
The two CMF authors go on to look at current and past theories, and
show that they are all questionable. In their review of LeVay’s debunked
research, they advise that of those who were examined as cadavers, most
had died of AIDS (which could have affected findings).
The question is thus asked, were the nuclei altered in size by the
disease, and did the disease promote homosexual behaviour? Even if this
were so, an altered brain structure does not prove the ability of a disease to
alter sexual ‘orientation’ (choice) or activity. Sadly, most pro-gay people deny
opposing views, or their legitimacy, so they are rarely made known, even to
professionals in the health field.
In another report, the corpus callosum was said to be ‘female-typical’ in
homosexual men…but 23 later studies gave totally different results! (32). The
list continues in this fascinating review of theories and debunked theories.
Time and again, those with a vested interest in proving a biological link
with homosexuality (e.g. homosexual researchers) corrupt their own research.
Surely they realise that bad methodology can be recognised at twenty paces
by those who research? (But not, it seems, by those who create our laws).
Thus it is that all the pro-gay biology-orientated research results have
been discredited or put into the ‘highly questionable’ category! Why do progays and homosexuals continue with disreputable theories? It can only be
because they still want justification for what they do, which only goes to prove
the claim that homosexuals know they have crossed a legitimate taboo.
Do you think I am allowing my own view on homosexuality to influence
my ideas? Then listen to T. McGuire, who wrote in the Journal of
43
Homosexuality: “Any genetic study must use: 1. Valid and precise measures
of individual differences, 2. Appropriate methods to ascertain biological
relationships, 3. Research subjects who have been randomly recruited, 4.
Appropriate sample sizes, and 5. Appropriate genetic models to interpret the
data. To date, all studies of the genetic basis of sexual orientation of men and
women have failed to meet one or more or any of the above criteria.” (33)
Please note – ALL the studies have been either deficient in one area or
more, or have failed miserably to comply with any of them! It is these feeble
research constructs, devised by people interested more in promoting
homosexuality than in proper research, the ‘gullible public’ prefer to believe.
And, U.S. and British health personnel appear to be just as gullible.
Not gullible? Then why do you accept gay propaganda without
bothering to examine it in detail? And without bothering to argue against its
false claims? Why do you accept without question, research that has been
roundly debunked by science? And if you know the truth, why don’t you hit
back when gays demand you obey them? Why don’t you harass the
government to change the laws back to normality and decency?
44
Chapter 3
More on The ‘Natural’ Myth
“Where is the concrete, credible, scientific evidence
(for a biological cause for homosexuality)?“
“…this ‘born gay’ idea is not new, not proven, and
frequently contradicted by what the researchers
actually said.”
“Time and again I have been described as someone
who ‘proved that homosexuality is genetic’… I did
not.” (Simon LeVay)
Gays insist on saying they are ‘born gay’, even when the research
proves otherwise. So, let’s continue to examine this matter, because, if people
are born gay, they are born with birth defects! If ‘gay’ is natural, then cyanide
is great for the constitution!
‘Born Gay’ (2005)
by Dr Qazi Rahman & Dr Glenn Wilson
Well, they keep on coming, whether or not their arguments make
sense! In an effort to continue to inflict bad research onto the public, so that
they still think gay is widespread and ‘natural’, these two men merely say the
same old things. (Note: their book is not original research but an overview of
research already done, without critical analysis).
They say, without bothering to cover their ignorance: “It is quite clear
now that homosexuality in gay men and lesbians is caused by biological
factors.” Look back at the last chapter! They refer to the work of LeVay as
“groundbreaking”. Oh dear.
Thus, we can see straight away that these two leading lights in
research circles are basing their work not on truth, but on the work of people
like LeVay, whose own research has been debunked many times and is
known to be gay fantasy rather than fact. This is the same LeVay who
admitted that he did not prove a genetic cause for homosexuality!
Yet, incredibly, Rahman and Wilson say the biological cause for
homosexuality is “widely accepted”. Full marks for trying yet again to inflict
homosexuality onto the public without any proof at all, but they fail to notice
45
that only academics who have no idea of what they are talking about will think
the same way! Only academics who base their thinking on the same source of
error (such as the work of LeVay, et al) can support the same beliefs.
One reviewer says, with insight, “(this book)… is not written for the
academic world of science and medicine, where this issue is no longer
debated” (34), but for the general public who don’t know what they are talking
about, either. It is a mistake to think this issue is no longer debated, because it
is. And genuine researchers do not side with Rahman and Wilson, or any
other researcher who, with prejudice, continue to claim wondrous things for
genetic research, pretending it supports a gay gene.
As a critic has said, “Where is the concrete, credible, scientific
evidence (for a biological cause for homosexuality)?“ (35). Even this
latest book by Rahman and Wilson fails miserably to provide such proof.
If you want a credible answer to these two gullible pro-gay researchers,
try ‘My Genes Made Me Do It!’ (Neil & Briar Whitehead), with fully annotated
references. They, too, examined LeVay’s work thoroughly and, as experts in
genetics, they obliterate LeVay’s methods and conclusions, and rightly so.
Also go to another expert criticism by Dr Paul Cameron (36). And as
for gays being unable to change… try reading what Masters and Johnson said
(see later notes), as well as testimonies later in this book, which contradict
such blatant, lying propaganda.
Do not underestimate this matter, for it is vital to all current thinking on
the subject. As I have already said, if gays have no biological reason for
their sexuality, then they also have no right whatever to claim special
status in the courts.
If there is no genetic/biological reason for being gay, then it means (as
it does) that all court rulings that have enabled gays to claim legal
backing are bogus and false and must be repealed.
Gays distract everyone by using ‘hot’ words like ‘discrimination’,
‘human rights’, ‘dignity’, ‘civil rights’ and the favourite, ‘homophobia’! This is
because they have no proof whatever that their ‘condition’ is genetic, and it is
all part of their ‘agenda’… It can’t be proved at all by any unbiased
researcher.
Rahman and Wilson trot out the usual debunked researches, but, of
course, as they are writing for laymen, their readers will hardly know they are
being taught bad science, will they? And that is all to these authors’ discredit.
In the book, they say “… our sexual preference is a fundamental and
immutable component of our human nature.” And blatantly claim this is what
the research proves. Only normal heterosexual sexuality is part of our human
nature. Homosexuality is false, and that is why those who indulge in it have to
furtively build-up to it by firstly crossing the taboo line. And this is why they
inevitably experience depression etc… they know what they do is unnatural.
Research like that of LeVay? What garbage! No research to date has
proved any kind of immutability! No research can ever assert that any
microbiological element in our bodies can make us come to emotional or
sexual decisions, let alone make us commit actions that proceed from such
decisions. There is no mechanism known to science that can do it. Therefore,
practically, it is impossible.
They claim sexual preference is fixed at birth. But this cannot ever be
proved! Only heterosexuality is fixed, because it is normal and with us at birth.
46
And these researchers know it. They are duping the public big time. They
even go so far as to predict evolutionary changes in society because of this
sexual preference, which will make homosexuals prevalent in the world
(forgetting, of course, that the world would just die out altogether within just
one generation, either because there would be no children, and through
diseases like AIDS). The purpose is not to present good research, but to
propagate homosexuality!
For goodness sake, it has already been shown that homosexuality is a
sterile condition. Why do you think gays try to adopt? So, from taking on board
debunked research, these two men give us a fantasy world scenario that will
never come about… and all under the banner of ‘telling the truth’.
Significantly, the two authors have refused to admit to their own sexual
preferences. I wonder why!
They claim homosexuality runs in families… but remember the
debunked studies on twins? Being gay has nothing to do with familial patterns
or genes. It has to do with choosing a sexual object, sometimes from a young
age*. Those gays who insist they have ‘always’ been gay are playing a game
of selective memory!
To be gay is to think about being gay, about gay encounters, about
same-sex activities. Without the thought there would be no gayness.
Therefore, babies and ordinary young children can’t be gay. That’s a fact!
(*To justify their criminal activities, paedophiles often insist young
children act ‘sexually’ and ‘enjoy’ what has happened to them. It is true that
even very young children can act in a way that is interpreted by adults as
‘sexual’, but which are not actually sexual in their own young, immature
minds. Rather, they do something that might be novel or pleasurable. This is
very different from being ‘sexual’, and cannot be used as ‘evidence’ that a
young child ‘complied’ with a sexual act in a sexual way. Thus, even if a
young child commits an act that adults call ‘homosexual’ it does not in any
way prove that the child was ‘homosexual’ in thought or desire).
Rahman and Wilson offer speculation and guesswork instead of proved
science; “(they) suspect that some male foetuses absorb low amounts of
testosterone in certain parts of the brain.” (37). Anyone with an ounce of
research sense will tell you this is sheer guesswork… but how many layreaders will know that? Look at the words… ’suspect’, ‘some’, ‘certain parts’.
Nothing proved at all. Just speculation. Even if testosterone is not fully
absorbed, this cannot prove beyond doubt (the absolute measure for a theory
to be law) that such a circumstance produces homosexuality.
If I press a switch and the light comes on, can a casual onlooker say
with certainty that the switch is responsible for the illumination? No, he can’t!
What if someone else had a different switch, and pressed it just as I pressed
mine? There would be no connection whatever, would there? What if the light
came on coincidentally, the bulb being fixed not to the switch but to a sensor?
Or what if a timer activated, and I touched the switch at exactly the same
moment as the timer did its work? Or the light was activated by remote
control?
Can you see what I’m saying? There must be a definite flow from one
point to another, and this flow must be proved many times. Parts of the
continuum must be removed, so that other possible influences are shown not
47
to be part of the equation. In other words, Rahman and Wilson fail to try to
‘falsify’ (disprove) their theories, and so they fail to act properly as scientists.
They say “Heritability is thought to be…” Again, notice the word,
‘thought’. This is not proof of any kind, only guesswork. But, a gullible public
will accept it as proven fact. Gays will accept any methodological trash, no
matter how tenuous is the suggestion!
In their attempt to influence us, they say differences in genes between
pre-gays and pre-straights (that is, whilst babies are still in the womb) “might
affect certain receptors in the brain that influence the activity of male sex
hormones.” Do you know just how exasperating this kind of pseudo-scientific
mumbo-jumbo is to read? Again… see those vital words, ‘might’ and ‘certain’?
These are the words of laymen not of scientists.
Even if there are differences in the brain, this in no way proves that the
differences ‘cause’ homosexuality. There is no way to prove it at all. Indeed,
whilst the presence of the amount of sex hormones can be proved, what those
hormones mean is another matter, and their relationship to behaviour simply
cannot be proved! This is because sexual behaviour is just a personal choice
involving innumerable (and possibly unquantifiable and unqualifiable)
variables.
Vague allusions are made to the neural circuit leading to opposite-sex
attraction being absent. Eh? What on earth are they saying? It is, again, just
scientifically meaningless garbage. They cannot prove that a particular neural
pathway causes, or does not cause, attraction. Once more, there is no
mechanism to establish such proof.
Wait – There’s More!
On 27th June, 2006, BBC News reported on the latest fallacy, eagerly
taken up by a forever-hungry media. This time the myth came from the
Journal of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Canada. It just
goes to show that even the most prestigious bodies have had their brains
sucked-out by aliens!
I urge the reader to remember the importance of words. Especially
words like ‘may’ and ‘could be’, etc. This latest paper is no exception to the
long list of guessing games employed by pro-gay researchers. The title of the
BBC article (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5120004.stm?Is) is “Womb environment
‘makes men gay’ .“ Yeah, right!
That is pretty much final, eh? But wait. Now read the text, and it all
unravels! Though the opening title suggests a final law of nature, the second
paragraph is anything but. It says “a man’s sexual orientation may be
determined by conditions in the womb, according to a study.”
Just from this short piece of prose alone we can say:
1. The study ‘may’ show a womb connection. Once again, as with all
other similar studies, the real status of the study is shown: it is the
usual guess-work. ‘May’ is far removed from ‘law of nature’!
2. The statement contains two incompatible elements, sexual choice and
supposed physical preconditions. As we have shown before, no
physical condition can possibly cause a man to choose his sexual
choices… because choice is choice, and choice is based on what one
wishes to do, not what one is forced to do by supposed ‘pre-conditions’.
48
So, immediately, then, this study is suspect. If you are a (real, with your
head screwed on right) researcher you know I am correct!
Scant reference is made to ‘previous research’ which ‘had revealed the
more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to be gay’. Apart from the
fact that there can never, ever, be a provable link here, because this is also
guess-work, the note ends with “but the reason for this phenomenon was
unknown”. Oh, what a surprise! It is ‘unknown’ because there is no way a
claimed physical factor can in any way ‘cause’ a man to choose to be gay! I
find the credulity (or is it deliberate avoidance?) of researchers embarrassing.
This newest Canadian study “has shown that the effect is most likely
due to biological rather than social factors.” Now look at that again and be just
as embarrassed as I am! It is sloppy writing, mixing fictional guesses with
supposed factual results. Note the wording: ”has shown” indicates that the
results prove something beyond doubt. Yet, it is quickly followed by the words
of guess-work: “most likely due to”! That is, the results are not proof of
anything, but are just hypothetical! For goodness sake, why can’t researchers
and science writers learn to separate fact from fiction?
To arrive at this momentous non-result, Prof. Anthony Bogaert of Brock
University, Ontario, studied 944 heterosexual and homosexual men, who had
biological or non-biological brothers. According to Bogaert the link between
homosexuality and the number of older brothers only came about if they
shared the same biological mother. But, as any researcher will know, this link
cannot be proved to be causal at all. At best it can only be casual. That is,
unproved and unprovable.
It would be even more interesting to repeat the study in a country
where homosexuality is not accepted! I am willing to state categorically that
the results would be very, very low! Indeed, it is possible he would find no
homosexuals in the families under test. I doubt, though, that Bogaert took
such a variable into account.
For reasons only attributable to having the brain sucked-out by aliens
(just as valid as all the supposed ‘proofs’ for a biological cause for
homosexuality), the Prof says “These results support a prenatal origin to
sexual orientation development in men.”
Now, let us get down to real work: to ‘support’ the idea, the Prof would
have to follow each person from the womb to his choice to become gay.
Instead, he is extrapolating from data he cannot verify. That is, he is basing
his claims on what gay men tell him, and he then works backwards to arrive at
a supposition! This is ‘evidence’?? Hardly! The Prof cannot prove his claim in
any way. No way at all. It is, again, guess-work.
Then comes a wonderful bit of fantasy: “He suggests the effect is
probably the result of a ‘maternal memory’ in the womb for male births.”
Where on earth does he get such a weird idea? Sci-Fi films? And where is the
proof? As I have already said, there can be no proof, because the idea is
unprovable! This might be very convenient for gays, but it does nothing for the
man’s scientific credibility. Rather, it helps to fill trash-cans.
Note, again, the wording. “Suggests” and “probably” linked with
something which is also unprovable, “maternal memory”! More guess-work
words. No-one knows what adult memory is, let alone what this ethereal
‘memory’ in the womb is like! But, of course, gullible laymen will accept it all
49
with a great big gulp of fairy-dust. And desperate gays will use it just as freely
as ‘proof’.
But wait, the Prof gives us immense wisdom: “A woman’s body may
see a male foetus as ‘foreign’, prompting an immune reaction which may grow
progressively stronger with each male child.”
So, there you have it – the proof we need – more guess-work! Note the
wording, “may”. Why should the Prof say the woman’s body views the foetus
as ‘foreign’? Where is the proof? There is none, and it cannot ever be proved.
We have two guesses here, one following the other: there MAY be a
recognition of something foreign and this MAY lead to an immune reaction! To
put this in perspective, it is like a NASA scientist saying the moon ‘may’ be
made of poisoned cheese and this ‘may’ be why there are no mice there.
The guess-work continues: “The antibodies created may affect the
developing male brain.” The usual guessing word is used, “MAY”. But now the
Prof uses the ancient resort of bad-science… the ‘If-Then’ form of
argumentation. Remember, this is one guess put on top of another guess, in
the hope that the gullible onlooker accepts the second guess to be true!
Thus, the Prof now assumes the first guess (the ‘If’ part) is true (that
the womb produces antibodies) so that he can say the second guess (the
‘Then’ part) is true (“it MAY affect the developing brain”)! Or to put it another
way, he piles guess upon guess in the hope that someone somewhere will
accept it as true, though there is not a shred of evidence in support! To think
that this man was paid big money to say all that. Why not just ask a novelist to
write it instead? At least he would make it into a good story.
An accompanying article was presented by the Professor’s colleagues,
who said the study appears to say the “prenatal environment… fosters
homosexuality in (the mother’s) younger sons.” Sounds good? Yes, until you
go to their final statement: “But the question of mechanism remains.”
Recognise it now? Yes - more guesses! (Oh yes, and ‘appears to say’).
That latter statement is important. It is the same kind of ‘mechanism’
that is missing from the evolution theory, the one important factor that would
make or break evolution. Evolution can never, ever be proved, but a
mechanism for evolution would at least pave the way to making the
hypothesis closer to theoretic fact and physical scientific law.
Let me put it this way, I can imagine that green eyes are ‘caused’ by
the rays of the sun striking a golden platter at noon in a locked room in
Iceland, that ‘may’ affect the development of my eye in Mongolia. The only
thing that is missing is the ‘mechanism’, the ‘how’ of the equation. Without the
mechanism the theory is useless. Yes?
That is like the idea the Professor has created. He proposes a poor
hypothesis but has no way of proving its legitimacy. He cannot give us the
mechanism, the way the hypothesis can move forward to at least become a
simple working theory. This is because no such mechanism exists and even if
he got closer to describing one, it can never be proved anyway.
The gay-rights group, Stonewall, said of the ‘research’, “Increasingly,
credible evidence appears to indicate that being gay is genetically determined
rather than being a so-called lifestyle choice.” (Surprise, surprise!). That is a
non-scientist commenting on something he cannot properly comment on.
Note how he says that evidence for a biological cause is ‘increasing’?
He cannot justify that statement because, thus far, every piece of pro-gay
50
research (Including the one above) has not just floundered, but has
disintegrated! Though this current ‘research’ proves nothing, gays will add it to
their list of ‘proofs’, though, one by one, each ‘proof’ has been obliterated.
Then comes the most important comment by Stonewall: “It adds further
weight to the argument that lesbian and gay people should be treated equally
in society and not discriminated against for something that’s just as inherent
as skin colour.” And in that statement we find the real crux of all pro-gay
research… the desperate need to be accepted as equal, and using any old
rubbish to ‘prove’ their case. They are as credible as film fans claiming
vampires exist because they have seen them in Hammer movies!
As usual we can cast aside the attempt to say gay is equal to skin
colour. It is simply not true and cannot be proved. But, the link between
genetics and skin colour is proved. Gays and lesbians are equal in the sense
that they are fellow human beings. But, they are not equal in terms of morality
or facts. They choose their lifestyle. They are not ‘born that way’ and this
latest research again shows us more nonsense. Indeed, the more debunked
researches come on the scene the more preposterous are gay claims.
It is not worthy of the title ‘research’, because it has no real purpose or
scientific plausibility. It simply makes a rough hypothesis based on a dubiously
small sample, a sample with so many variables as to be impossible to make
sense of any data collected. With so many ifs and maybes, the research does
not even reach first base, but is just guess-work by people who happen to be
highly educated, but forlornly bad at interpretation of their findings.
Stonewall, like so many other gay groups, says that gay is legal and
accepted. But it is not accepted! Stonewall is using a marketing ploy - say it
often enough and people will believe it. Homosexuality is indeed legal in many
countries, but it is certainly not accepted! Gays could not care less if science
proves this or that. What gays want is equality-on-paper (they do not care
whether they are equal or not - they just want gay sex, so they’ll invent any
claim to keep the pot boiling!), something they can never have, because
homosexuality is not natural and is a false lifestyle adopted by men and
women who are sad enough to base their whole identity on sex. This is not
just unnatural, it is also unbalanced.
Another ‘research project’, then, bites the dust! When will universities
learn that pro-gay research is useless. Not one project has proved its case.
So why fund it at all? None of it makes sense.
Where is that one honest university that will pronounce such
studies useless, squandering money that could be used on legitimate
studies? Such a university would indeed be brave, but it is necessary to
break the current lines of fantasy that rule research departments
everywhere. Is there an honest university out there? Is there an honest
researcher out there? Who is brave enough to face the facts and tell
gays to take a hike? They are wasting valuable resources and making
everyone obey their every command. It must be stopped right now.
An Old Deception
The idea that homosexuals are ‘born that way’ is an old one, and it is
constantly rehashed for the reasons discussed above: the need to get the law
on the side of perversions, allowing practitioners to act without challenge.
51
“This ‘born gay’ idea is not new, not proven, and frequently
contradicted by what the researchers actually said.” (38). The idea goes
back at least to 1899, when it was proposed by Magnus Hirschfeld in
Germany. Though he did not prove his case, either, he demanded equality for
gays on that very basis. See how vital this is? The whole gay scene will come
crashing down, if only those who claim an intellect allowed truth to percolate
their minds? Surely we can find the aliens and suck-back the brains?
Did you know that Simon LeVay actually admits: “Time and again I
have been described as someone who ‘proved that homosexuality is
genetic’… I did not.” (39). Why, then, are Rahman and Wilson basing their
own book on the work of LeVay, claiming that the genetic link is proven, when
he said no such thing and when he actually denied saying or claiming it?
It is true that he wanted it to be the case, but even his ardent
homosexuality could not manufacture the claim as ‘fact’. He knew his work
was debunked and that any more debunking would finish him as a credible
researcher, so he probably ‘came out’ with his frank admission to save his
career! (This is a ruse used by many debunked and exposed politicians, too.
They just admit to their indiscretions or failures and carry on regardless!)
There are many scientific criticisms of LeVay’s work. Read them for
yourself, because it is important to know what is garbage and what is genuine.
There is no scientific proof for what Rahman and Wilson, and Bogaert, are
saying. Like everyone else with a vested interest, they base what they claim
on debunked research. But, as I have already said, who, in the lay-world,
knows about it, or is able to challenge it?
One believer in a gay gene even proclaimed that the book by Rahman
and Wilson “conclusively shows that sexual orientation is natural, normal and
certainly not a choice.” (40). But note this, he made this assertion even before
reading the book!! Now that’s non-prejudiced and scientific, isn’t it?
We should be thankful that in Japan “male homosexuality and
lesbianism is not ethically and legally advanced yet.” (41). No doubt they will
soon succumb to the lie. The same writer says “many Japanese… show a
clear distaste or repulsion at just hearing the word, ‘gay’.” In reality, most
people in the West think exactly the same way, too. But they dare not
say so, for fear of retribution… especially not in universities, where progay policies are being set up to batter academics and students with.
Rahman and Wilson must also take into account the stark fact that
many homosexuals often revert to heterosexuality during their lives, if not
permanently! This hardly substantiates their claims, does it?
I could fill a separate book showing heavy criticisms of the
genetic/biological argument for homosexuality. That’s another fact. Try, for
example, the counter-arguments given by the National Association for
Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). There are many more!
Dare you look closer at the spurious claims made by researchers like Rahman
and Wilson? Dare you stand against the crowd and think independently? Or
are you just another pro-gay clone?
Neurogenetic Determinism
When it comes to Alzheimers and Huntingdons, science can better
direct its studies, because these are properly witnessed, diagnosable
conditions, where neural research can have direct results. But, once we go
52
beyond what is properly diagnosable, “things become much murkier.” (41).
Homosexuality cannot be ‘diagnosed’ or genetically plotted for a very good
reason: there is nothing to diagnose and nothing to plot! How can science
trace a biological pathway for a personal choice? It is just not possible.
As Rose says, a complete map of the human genome may indeed be
in sight, but no amount of information on any gene, neurone, or other brain
part, can furnish us with any link between what a body part does chemically or
physiologically, and how human beings behave. There is simply no scientific
way to give such a tremendously complex answer!
“The abnormal genes and their protein products associated with
neurodegenerative diseases such as Huntingdon’s Chorea have been
identified. Genetic risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease are known… But when
we move beyond the terrain of relative diagnostic certainty, represented by
such traditional neurological disorders, things become much murkier.”
Work done on ‘gene markers’ that ‘might’ influence or produce
conditions such as schizophrenia or depression have been introduced with
much fanfare, only to be withdrawn quietly because research is not replicable!
“The trouble is, that as each old claim disappears into the mists, newer
and even more extravagant ones appear. Genes, it is said, are responsible for
such diverse features of human conduct as sexual orientation, poor behaviour
in school, alcoholism, drug addiction, violence, risk taking… and even
compulsive shopping.”
Rose relates that a massive amount of funding is made available to find
a gene controlling this or that behaviour… including ones that may “turn gays
into straights”. What a waste! All gays have to do is change their minds!
He examines the claims made by drugs manufacturers who produce
remedies for hyperactivity, and says, “As the label (of attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder) is given primarily on the basis of reports about the
child’s behaviour, we simply don’t know (if a drug works), whatever the loudly
voiced claims of the drug’s advocates.” This vital fact must be applied to
genetic claims made about causes of homosexuality.
Rose continues, by giving ‘examples’ (one!) of genetic research that
now lords over all other researches as ‘true’, that a particular gene produces
violence. As he rightly points out: “The problem is that complex social
activities… entail multiple interactions and processes, and to reduce them all
to a unitary phenomenon… is to oversimplify.” This line of reasoning is used
to refer to alcoholism, which, he says, arises not out of genetic problems but
social problems. (Similarly, homosexuality is a social problem).
He summates by saying that even when we have clearly defined
conditions such as neurodegenerative diseases, and have identified genetic
factors, there are still no effective treatments. And “The tendency (today) to
view the complexities of human behaviour as genetically determined has
important consequences.”
One such consequence is the provision of laws and ‘rights’ for
behaviours that are not natural, such as homosexuality. He equates this with
the newish, fashionable, ‘diagnosis’ of ‘attention deficit hyperactivity disorder’,
for children who are simply childishly naughty and allowed to get away with
being disruptive. (That describes gay activism very closely indeed).
Rose says “Social problems such as violence and alcoholism (are
being) regarded as neurogenetically determined; solutions are then seen as
53
lying in molecular research rather than in reshaping society.” (This is because
it is easier to give pills than to change attitudes)
Gays and pro-gays are feverishly trying to find something they will
never find; a genetic cause for homosexuality. And, if they are honest about it
(can they be honest?) they will admit that it does not matter if a gene is ever
found, because the simple chase after such a gene is sufficient for them to
perpetuate their myths and to keep governments funding research, giving
them valuable time to brainwash society!
Homosexuality is an erroneous behaviour arising out of sexual lust, not
from a gene! And, as we have shown, no gene, or other body part, can prove
a cause for behaviour. At the very best it might show a vague casual effect,
but nothing more.
Prudish…or Prudent?
The Victorian era was known as ‘prudish’ and ‘conservative’. When its
ethos was transferred to India, revisionist historians (i.e. gay!) said India was
‘held back’ in terms of sexual liberalism.
But why? Sexual liberalism leads to disease, destruction of society, and
warped social values. What, then, is the worth of liberalism? Gays want total
liberalisation of all, and particularly their own, sexual predilections. To allow it
is to inject society with the virus of hedonism and harm. Why should all of
society be forced to recognise and maintain what is harmful to its well-being?
It does not make sense, whichever way one looks at it.
Is it not prudent to restrict or even deny the legitimacy of those who
wish to do us harm? Is it not prudent to deny murderers the right to kill at
random? Is it not prudent to deny rapists the right to molest and damage
people? And to lock up paedophiles for life?
Then why is it not prudent to stop gays from forcing their dangerous
lifestyles on society as a whole? They have already been highly instrumental
in ‘gifting’ the whole world with AIDS (gays call it ‘giving the gift’! Nice, eh?).
Now, they are demanding the ‘right’ to seduce, molest and abuse our children!
It was the one small door (acceptance of gay ‘rights’) opened by governments
and lawmakers that will bring this evil design to fruition.
Nursing Journal Letter
On August 24th, a UK nurse wrote a letter of objection to a Prof Wright’s
words. It was published in the Nursing Standard (UK). The letter could not
have been more charitable! As a health worker with post-graduate research
experience, especially in homosexuality & AIDS, the nurse was alarmed by
the false claims made by someone who is a professor of health in a university:
Title: ‘It Is Absurd To Claim That Homosexuality is
Healthy.’
“I have studied homosexuality for the past
30 years, from psychological, psychiatric and
theological perspectives. I am therefore surprised
that one who is as qualified as Stephen Wright
should get his ideas so wrong in his ‘Love is God’
article (‘Reflections’, August 10th).
54
Sexuality is not fixed, as he suggests, and
nothing in the research literature confirms that it is.
There are hypotheses aplenty. It is true that a small
number of homosexuals are gay because of
childhood influences. There are also rare anatomical
reasons. But, mainly, people are gay by choice.
For Prof. Wright to claim that homosexuality
is ‘healthy’ is an absurdity, especially given the
known dangers in male gay activities. When I first
nursed homosexuals, the cause of their condition
(e.g. neuroses) was not society’s attitude toward
them, but their own inner knowledge that their
choice was ‘against nature’.
I do not believe in castigating gay people, or
that they can be changed by psychology. But nor
do I accept that those with authority should spread
bad research or propaganda, which only makes
matters worse.”
You can read for yourself how mild the letter was! The result of this
letter was page after page of abuse in the following few weeks’ letters’ pages,
none of which were justified! This straightforward and simple letter led to
further vile discrimination and vicious attacks by homosexuals, even from
those he knew personally, supposed ‘friends’.
Yet, what the nurse (hereafter referred to as ‘X’) said was within the law
and factual. (It is my personal view that the letter was rather tame). How can
facts be called ‘hate speech’??
Facts don’t matter to gays, though. They only want to perpetuate their
deceptions by law and stealthy propaganda without substance. The reason?
Their lives are founded on sex and they just want freedom from all and any
restraints. Gays are controlled by their sexual lusts, salves to their perverse
thinking. They are afraid of someone like ‘X’, because she strips their lusts
down to the truth.
Answering Some ‘Criticisms’
The following comments are gleaned from some of the many letters of
opposition to ‘X’, published in the Nursing Standard. I will not refer to them as
‘criticism’ because they do not deserve such a worthy title. After reading them
I was more than aware that the journal had used her letter as an excuse to
forward the gay agenda, without regard for the truth. I take the liberty of
responding to these crude and badly formed attacks on ‘X’, because she will
not defend herself. I have checked the letters myself… the writers, all nurses,
ought to be ashamed of themselves!
1. “unsubstantiated assumptions about the dangers of the
homosexual lifestyle” (Note: other letter-writers denied that
homosexuality is a ‘lifestyle’!). What ‘X’ said was hardly
‘unsubstantiated’. Her comments were based on the scientific and
medical facts, as you have already seen, whereas the letter-writers
based their own assumptions on debunked research and ignorance.
55
2. “I think the clue to where (she) gets (her) ill-informed judgements
from is in the word ‘theological’. Since when does theology
constitute a medical science…?”
From what I can gather in her original letter, ‘X’ said she had
studied homosexuality from several viewpoints, including theology. As
she points out, this did not mean that theology was her starting point, or
the final arbiter. Indeed, I cannot see in her letter anything to suggest
she was writing from a theological stance. She refutes the idea that she
publishes ‘ill-informed judgements’, only facts, and claims that her
theological stance can be quite separate from her medico-scientific
stance, as it was in her letter. It is interesting to note, however, that
when Prof Wright used his theological ideas to support his pro-gay
stance, that was not challenged! So, it is quite alright to support
homosexuality with theology, but not alright to oppose it with theology!
Theology is not a medical science. Nevertheless, it is a science.
A social ‘science’ is a body of knowledge that applies the same rigor to
its study as does any physical science. Despite humanism deciding
otherwise, theology is one of the top ranking sciences.
When ‘X’ uses theology in the study of social phenomena she
does do so from the perspective of a Christian. This is seen to be ‘bad’
by the letter-writer, though, of course, he feels he is quite free to speak
from a non-Christian perspective! Prof Wright does not publish his
theology from a Christian perspective, so that is acceptable! (I have
read some of his output; it is quite weird). It can be seen from the
above that much selective prejudice is relied upon by nurses.
3. “(‘X’) is voicing an opinion that goes against that of the entire
legitimate medical establishment.”
Oh dear! So that is supposed to be final? (Where is the proof of
the allegation?). This statement is not about being ‘legitimate’ at all, but
about being ‘politically correct’! Since when does a lone voice against
an ‘establishment’ necessarily prove that the lone voice is wrong? This
is a false argument, as any philosopher (and medical scientist) knows.
There have been many instances in the history of science and
medicine, when the entire establishment has got it wrong. It was only
when the lone voice prevailed that something positive was effected!
For myself, when I know I am right, I could not care less how
many critics there are. ‘X’ says her attitude is the same as mine, and
that she did not voice an ‘opinion’, but known facts, as presented by
science and medicine. The letter-writer was very foolish to say that the
‘entire’ medical establishment is against what ‘X’ said. It is a deception,
for it is not true, as is seen in this book. Also note that most ‘experts’
obtain their information from the same sources. Thus, if their original
source is wrong, so will be the ‘experts’! By contrast, ‘X’s own research
was original.
To reverse the letter-writer’s own words, ‘the clue’ is in his own
prejudices and use of words. By saying that ‘X’ is opposed by the
‘entire’ establishment, the writer is attempting to isolate her as an idiot
(another ploy of the gay agenda). By equating this ‘entire’
56
establishment with ‘legitimate’ he thinks he delivers the decisive deathblow… but he does not. He is just being boringly ‘clever’ by using a
rhetorical device resorted to by insecure people everywhere who use
bad logic, based on an incorrect knowledge of the facts! Very few of the
establishment truly believe as gays do.
The same writer then tells the Nursing Standard that it “should
not print such nonsense”. This is repeated in several ways in all the
letters, and it is typical of pro-gay sentiments… and fascism. The idea
is very simple: create a false law to protect homosexuality, and then
batter opponents into submission and silence! Apart from this editorial
suppression and repression, ‘X’ also had to contend with the bad
atmosphere created by other gays, who did not bother to ask her why
she had written her letter or why she had said what she said. It was
easier to make assumptions and to just hate her!
4. “I did not choose to be gay”
This unsubstantiated claim is now the rallying-call of all
homosexuals in all countries, male and female, even though it is
completely false and pathetic. None of the pro-biology/genetics
arguments hold water, and have been disproved or debunked
completely. Thus, homosexuality is a choice!
It is also false to suggest that one would not deliberately choose a
lifestyle that brought “tears and turmoil”. It is very evident in other
neuroses that people are more than willing to accept ‘tears and turmoil’
in order to maintain their chosen lifestyle. Sex is one of the easiest of
desires to satisfy, and fantasy is one of the mental exercises easiest to
fulfil. All it takes is continual fantasising to become habitually ‘hooked’
and to put up with anything harmful in what hooks us. This is well
documented in cases of pornography and all other bad habits.
Did not choose to be gay? Are we talking about the mental
processes, or the actual physical enactment of gay sexuality? Are gays
truly telling us they could not stop enacting gay sex? Then they are
telling us they have no self-control… or that they are mentally unstable.
For me, this is pathetic, not ‘scientific’. If gays wish to pursue their
lifestyle, let it be on the basis of honesty, not pathos.
A man or woman chooses to perform a sexual act. Is this not
correct? If it is not correct, then those who rape and kill in the
performance of sex are to be excused! Are you really saying you do not
choose to take the first step, whether this is eye contact, smiles, words,
touch, or actual sex? Please, do not insult my intelligence by saying
you do not choose to have gay sex!
Or, perhaps you are saying your internal mental responses
‘cause’ you to be homosexual in thought and desire? What is the
scientific basis for this claim? (Even anecdotal evidence would be
something!).
Homosexual - you will be unable to give me any evidence,
because none exists! Researchers have debunked any claim to
biological/genetic causation… so what is your claim really based on? If
there is no proven scientific cause, then what causes you to be
homosexual? It can only be your own choices. (I am not disputing the
57
very rare cases of gender confusion caused by actual physical
malformation of sexual organs, etc., but that isn’t ‘gay’ either).
No man or woman is ‘forced’ to become gay… even a gay (male
or female) rape cannot force the victim to become gay. It is a gradual
process involving much thought and desire. At every step one can stop
the process, but the more the process is internally accepted and used
the greater becomes the desire. This is no different from any other
habitual response in which the person is self-conditioned to accept
what may previously have been unthinkable.
There comes a definite point at which the ‘taboo’ line is crossed.
In itself, this releases an immense pressure within and is a kind of
mental propellant into a physical world of desires that had once been
contained only in the mind. Once the taboo line has been crossed, the
person becomes ‘transformed’ in attitude and mind, as he or she now
has to not only combat his or her own natural mental disapproval, but
also has to combat the disapproval of those who now know he or she is
‘gay’. To say this is ‘pressure from society’ is pathetically simplistic and
prejudiced… it is, really, heterophobia!
The person who ‘comes out’ is not really finding society at fault. He
or she is merely coming against what is already in one’s own mind, but
amplified because he or she insists on making the new lifestyle known
publicly. To make matters far worse, the propagandists have taken
their fantasies a stage further by demanding legal protection (which
sets up antagonism within society) and public acceptance.
The effect of this is to (temporarily and superficially) silence critics,
but not the inner turmoil of the gays themselves, or what people really
think. Nor will it stop the day when the majority are so angry at being
manipulated or ordered to think in a particular way, they will turn on the
so-called ‘minority’.
Thus, like those hooked on drugs, gays have to increase
pressure on society to make it comply with their personal sexual
desires. Sadly, this pressure can only prove fruitless, because a
chosen habit that is perpetually enacted can never be satisfied. Nor
can it force society to accept what is being proposed.
The result is an inner life that does not equate with what is being
claimed, or with society at large. It is exemplified by constant, pathetic,
‘gay pride’ marches and events, more legal demands, and over-the-top
public declarations of gay satisfaction. These would not be necessary if
gays themselves were truly in harmony with their own bodies and their
natural use.
Instead, gays have to continually convince themselves that their
lifestyle is ‘natural’. How can it be, when female and male bodies ‘fit’,
but like-bodies do not? But, homosexuals already know this, which is
why they shout so loudly in ‘affirmation’.
There is also an emotional/mental-response difference between
male and female. Therefore, if a couple are of the same sex, there is
an imbalance in mental responses and conditions.
5. “…my only other option (to not being gay) was to be a shadow of
myself, living a lie. That is not very healthy, is it?”
58
This statement was made after the statement in item 4. The
answer is found above. It is very common for gays to blame society for
their anxieties and mental imbalances. Yet, their claims are groundless.
In what way is this woman ‘living a lie’ if she does not express her
homosexuality? In which way was her previous un-gay life a ‘lie’? This
is a false form of argumentation. The same kind of ‘argument’ comes
from serial killers, too!
Let us be very clear about it. A person chooses his or her sex
object, whether it is someone of the same sex, other sex, a shoe, or a
carved-wood camel! All it takes is excessive fantasy to produce an
actual public expression of one’s inner choice. ‘Lies’ do not come into it
at all. It comes down to whether or not one wishes to ‘go public’ with a
chosen sexual object. To foist this onto the public is to project the result
of one’s own fantasies onto everyone else, without any kind of
justification or invitation, and to expect them to fall in line, even though
most people loathe the homosexual lifestyle or see it as ‘sickening’.
We do not see those with a shoe fetish demanding legal
protection, or ‘coming out’, so why do gays do it? But, gays are
shameless, though their behaviour is seen to be shameful by the
majority in society.
It does not make sense, except in one particular way. Legal
protection allows gays to indulge in their chosen sexual activity
without hindrance, and to recruit others… not for the good of the
recruits, but as a source of supply of more sex objects. This is
why gay activists continue to push for an even lower ‘age of
consent’. And why the majority of paedophiles are gays (see later
chapter on paedophilia).
Whether or not non-expression of homosexuality is ‘healthy’ is
up to the homosexual, not society. It is the individual who chooses to
continue in their fantasies, not society at large. If a fantasy life is
harming us, then we should stop the fantasy, not indulge in it even
further. If we do not stop, then we only have our own selves to blame
for any consequences. The statement in point 5, then, is neither
acceptable or viable.
6. “Homophobia makes people ill…”
I love the way that an invented word, cobbled together to mean
a ‘fear of homosexuals’ (when it actually means ‘fear of mankind’), is
passed around like a true word! The word is meaningless and is not
based on fact (and has more recently been re-invented by gays to
mean ‘hatred of gays’!! These people are like immature kids playing
with words).
Anyone who objects to the claims of homosexuals is labelled
‘homophobic’. Again, this is indicative not of strength, but of the weak
position held by activist-gays. I have already shown a mechanism by
which people can make themselves ‘ill’, simply by enacting a fantasy.
‘X’ says she does not hate homosexuals, nor does she ‘fear’ them.
(Indeed, she says she was always kind and friendly toward them; even
gays acknowledged this). She merely presented the facts! So why use
it against ‘X’ as an allegation? It makes no sense.
59
7. The RCN, a UK nursing union, provides ‘support’ for gays in nursing.
But… why? ‘X’ says she made a protest to this union, and recently
resigned, because she believes her own fees should not be used to
give support for a chosen lifestyle of any kind. Why not give support to
paedophiles, or zoophiles, or even necrophiles? After all, these are
chosen sexual objects, too.
A union should exist to protect its workers as workers, not as
choosers of a particular sexual object! A nurse or doctor should be
judged by their skills and knowledge, not by their sexual activities. If
they require union help it should not be on the basis of sex but on the
basis of skills and other work-related issues.
The RCN’s homosexual support group boasts that a variety of
other organisations also support gays. But what does this prove, apart
from the fact that they, too, are stupid and have succumbed to political
correctness? One group mentioned is the UK’s Metropolitan Police, but
the fact that some who belong to a particular gay police association
harass ordinary members of the public, to silence even the most
courteous of objections to homosexuality, is not made known. If I know
about it in the USA, why don’t politicians, judges and the public know
about it in the UK, and put a stop to it?
8. “the diversity of human sexual expression is nothing compared to
that found in nature…”
This is an incredible piece of bunkum! How does the writer know
what goes on ‘in nature’? Has he followed every animal, insect and fish
to find out? Or is he relying only on a few select book texts, or even
random popular film evidences? There is no way that ‘homosexuality’
can be planted wholesale on animals and there is no way that he can
prove his case from animal behaviour.
Or, is he trying to say that he is no better than an animal and he
operates on the same level? Animals act instinctively (and so choice of
sexual object does not enter the argument). Men and women act with
thought and deliberation. There is no real comparison to make, so the
claim is absolute nonsense.
9. “With the AIDS pandemic destroying a continent’s youth and a
huge increase in sexually transmitted diseases among
heterosexual westerners, it is worth looking more closely at who
the healthy ones are.”
This is what I call sheer gall. As ‘X’ points out in her earlier
studies, all cases of AIDS in the West, at the beginning, were
exclusively homosexual! Today (as she predicted years ago) this has
shifted, but gays still account for half the known cases (the proportion is
now rising again)! This is an astounding figure, with the onus firmly on
the homosexual side. See the figures in a later section! It might interest
the reader to know that ‘X’ and I both have a similar distaste for
heterosexual promiscuity, too.
The same letter-writer admires Prof Wright for having an ‘open’
mind, because he has ‘studied and learned much’ (though he appears
60
to know nothing about homosexuality). ‘X’, too, ‘studied and learned’
much (I have seen her CV!), but comes to very different conclusions,
as have many others. This is the nature of both truth and academic
research. So, why is Prof Wright considered to be wonderful and ‘X’
thought to be a bigot? The reason is easy to discern: Prof Wright is progay! He need not express the truth or use genuine research. But, so
long as he sides with what is untrue, or what cannot be proved, he
must be okay. Hm. That’s scientific!
10. “Had ‘X’ researched homosexuality in any evidence-based way,
(she) would know that all human societies provide evidence of
homosexual activity. The available research suggests that
homosexuality is natural.”
This writer is trying his very best to appear intellectual, but can
only manage a pseudo-intellectual response, failing miserably. (I have
seen this kind of pompous pretence to intellectual capacity many
times!). I know very well that homosexuality is found everywhere, and
in every age. But, the mere existence of a set of conditions does not
necessarily make those conditions ‘natural’ or ‘right’ or ‘moral’ or ‘good’.
It is obvious, even to a fool, that a man ‘fits’ a woman’s body.
The ‘natural’ means of procreation are man-woman sex acts.
Homosexuality relies not on this ‘natural’ relationship, but on
relationships that ‘make do’. Some acts are shared with heterosexual
activity, but the foundational fact is that men and women are literally
‘made for each other’, physiologically, anatomically and emotionally.
We cannot escape this fact.
And what is “all the available research” that suggests
homosexuality is natural? He must be reading different material, for
none of the research attempts to prove how ‘natural’ homosexuality is,
only that it is, possibly, ‘biological’… and I have already shown that this
idea has been debunked many times. From his use of words, this
person does not understand research or terms used, and does not
know what he is talking about.
11. “The NMC Code of Professional Practice says nurses must
‘respect the patient or client as an individual’. This includes all
aspects of their diversity.”
‘X’ says she knew this and I complied with it. She also had a
lengthy discussion with the NMC*, about three years ago (I have seen
copies of letters)… which is probably far more than the writer of the
statement has done. (*NMC = Nursing & Midwifery Council, the
regulatory body for UK nurses). ‘X’ says she respects people as
people, but no law or rule can force her to respect what they do! Also,
as a nurse, she says she could look after a person regardless of their
sexual choices. In this case, the writer is making pointless points!
12. “It is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of sexual
orientation…”
‘X’ says, “Yes, I know this, too, and I comply with it. Nothing in
my original letter says otherwise. I was challenging bad methodology
61
and bad presentation of the facts, nothing more. I do not discriminate
against colleagues or patients who are gay, and no-one can say that I
have. Indeed, I have written proof in the form of testimonials from gays
I have worked with.”
If this is what ‘X’ believes and does, what is the writer’s point?
There is none!
12. “…homosexuality is not related to pathology and should not be
treated as an illness.”
It seems to me that pro-gays are incapable of reading properly.
Where in her letter did ‘X’ say that homosexuality is an illness? She did
not say it, nor, she confirms, does she believe it. The same writer also
jibes that the research she referred to must belong to the “post-war
era”… no, it refers to research up to 2006, and AIDS figures as late as
August 2005!
The writer assumes many things about ‘X’ and deduces that she
must be ‘ignorant’. From what I can make out, he bases this on the fact
that ‘X’ proposed a different argument, when differences are the lifeblood of genuine research. If no-one had a different idea, there would
be no progress.
In my view, it is not ‘X’ who is stuck in the past and antagonistic
toward progress, but those who persist in perpetuating gay lies and
propaganda that do not hold water. Let the truth be known, and let gays
stand or fall by it, just as myself and ‘X’ have to stand or fall by our own
statements. Gays are taking medical research backwards, into a state
of regression, wasting time, money and effort. We are again entering a
Dark Age.
13. “Even if being gay were a lifestyle choice… why the need to blame
the gay person for that choice?”
This objection was made by Prof Wright in his very weak retort.
In which way did ‘X’ ‘blame’ gays for their choices? The only blame she
places on them is the blame they deserve for illnesses caused by their
sexual actions. This is no different from blaming anyone else, gay or
not, for contracting (or passing on) diseases that are the result of their
own unwise actions. ‘X’ says, “I cannot ‘blame’ anyone for making false
or mistaken choices, because I, too, make mistakes.” (Nevertheless,
they remain guilty of any repercussions).
Prof Wright suggests, strongly, that ‘X’ is making homosexuals
‘scapegoats’ for her own ‘hang-ups’. What on earth is this man trying to
say? Thus far he has made no intellectual sense at all. To repeat an
earlier word, it is bunkum! ‘X’ does not display sexual or other hangups. If people wish to choose homosexuality, that is up to them. ‘X’
says that what she objected to were Prof Wright’s odd and unproved
theories presented as facts. “As a health academic,” says ‘X’, “Wright’s
methods are highly suspect, given that his conclusions are so bad! He
replied knowing that many pro-gays had already attempted to slaughter
me, but his response is a non-response.“
The facts are plain: homosexuality is a choice, and male
homosexuality is unsafe, as figures prove. As a health worker ‘X’ can
62
tell a man that his smoking is the cause of his ailment. So, why can we
not have the maturity to tell an homosexual that the cause of his AIDS
is himself and his lifestyle (as gays themselves have already admitted
elsewhere. See later section)? The mental block in all this amongst
pro-gay ‘believers’ is phenomenally surreal.
14
“People who... are gay… are loved as any other by the
Absolute.”
This is another Prof Wright ‘gem’ and a great example of
gobbledegook. What or who is this ‘Absolute’? The Bible, claiming to
be God’s word, states that homosexuality is an ‘abomination’. In that
same word, God does not accept homosexual activity as legitimate, but
He condemns it, demanding repentance, change, and rejection of its
underlying thoughts. Is the Christian God included in the ‘Absolute’… or
is Prof Wright’s ‘god’ a conglomeration devised to satisfy his own
peculiar ‘take’ on what he thinks is spiritual?
Very clearly, he cannot be referring to the Christian God, for God
condemns the practice outright, despite what vocal ‘Christian’ gays
proclaim. And if Prof Wright is not referring to the Christian God, what
drivel is he referring to, because it looks suspiciously like he has made
up his own DIY ‘god’? (Note that this same argument he quotes is
being used to absolve paedophiles. Is Prof Wright also supporting gay
paedophiles?).
I could include many more quotes, but the gist has been given. ‘X’ was
completely set-up by these false arguments, but her arguments are watertight. My own findings show that research into what causes homosexuality has
all been instigated by gays themselves. Rather than allow the findings to
explain themselves, by their own admission they set out to ‘prove’
homosexuality is genetic/biological. This is not good science and so they have
consistently failed, refusing to falsify (disprove) their own hypotheses.
There is also the valid scientific point that no researcher can ‘prove’
beyond doubt that there is any biological cause. They can only go so far as to
show evidence that there might be a casual relationship. As this is no better
than coincidence, this path of research is fruitless.
No researcher on this planet can ever prove a causal relationship…
now, that is a genuine fact! (People must learn the difference between
‘evidence’ and ‘proof’ if they are to argue properly). The reason why no causal
link can ever be proved is painfully simple: a set of physical circumstances
has no provable connection to personal choices of any kind, let alone sex.
I (and many others) have shown there are no biological causes for
homosexuality. Why do gays want such a cause? Because their claims
to legitimacy and legal protection are founded on the much hoped-for
existence of a biological cause! (Once one theory is debunked, they
immediately try another debunkable theory, to keep the issue ‘alive’).
Without it, gays are simply men and women who choose a deviant
sexual object.
And that is why all governments must take the claims in this book
to heart, and delegislate gay laws.
63
Dick & Dora Think They are Black
Dick was born in Norway of Nordic parents. So was Dora, his best
friend in school. Their parents moved their families to Africa, where, of course,
they all remained ethnically Nordic, blonde-haired and bodily white as snow.
But, foolish Dick and foolish Dora looked upon the local Africans and
decided they, too, wanted to be black. They were only about ten, but an older
person persuaded their immature minds it was a good thing, so they must try
being black to stop their confusion.
So, the foolish two used to run into the surrounding desert to sunbathe.
Their parents caught the sun, too, but tried not to get burnt. But Dick and Dora
were immature and silly. They wanted to be black so that they could call
themselves ethnically Black. They sunbathed even more, and their parents
noticed their foolishness.
At first Dick and Dora denied they had been doing something foolish,
and kept their sunbathing secret. But, their teenage years crept up on them
and they decided to be bold. They sunbathed until they crisped! Their alarmed
parents warned them strongly, but the two kids decided they knew better.
Beside, they were now crisped to a black colour… soon they could call
themselves ‘Black’! That their skins became prematurely old and wrinkly did
not bother them. Their older, cancer-ridden friend smiled in encouragement.
So, they grew a bit older and when they thought they were mature
enough (though their actions proved otherwise), they came out with it and told
their parents: “We’re ethnically Black, now. We were born this way.” (Their
older friend kept telling them this). And so they left their homes and lived in
the desert, crisping themselves. They even ignored the advice of a doctor.
Unfortunately, Dick and Dora gathered with others of the same mind,
and, between them, they decided the only way to stop people calling them
foolish was to refer to themselves as a community and as a ‘minority’.
Eventually, this ploy worked, mainly because people were ignorant and didn’t
bother to check the facts. And so others joined the ‘community’ and convinced
themselves they were right. Local witch doctors thought it must be true, too,
because bird bones fell in the right combination. But genuine doctors did not
believe a word of it, because they were intelligent.
But, one by one, the community members dropped like flies with skin
cancer and other dread diseases. Then, even Dick and Dora had skin cancer.
So as not to show their parents they were right after all, the two friends went
far into the desert to die. A short while later, researcher-friends of the two
found bodies. Vultures had made them unrecognisable, so autopsies were
done and Dick and Dora’s families were advised. Distraught, they cried out “If
only they were not such fools! If only they lived normally!”
In an effort to cover their own stupidity, the friends denied Dick and
Dora were fools, by claiming their desire to be Black was a physical and
genetic condition… they were only trying to comply with the biological ‘facts’.
Other researchers who heard this laughed and denied such a claim. “It is
scientifically impossible!” they shouted.
Finally, though, the world was filled with ignorance and many more
boys and girls joined the group, claiming they were forced to become crisped
64
black by their genes… and because older crispers told them so! They became
one of an illusory ‘minority’ and, like those before them, most died of cancers
and other awful diseases.
Eventually, Dick’s parents thought-through what had happened and
realised it was all a big scam, invented by those who wanted to cover-up their
stupidity with pseudo-science. They saw that no man or woman could be born
Nordic and yet also claim to be African! They decided to confront the group, to
warn them and possibly save their lives, but by that time all the crisped people
were fully deluded and threw stones at the sad parents, who had to withdraw
to a safe place.
Knowing these parents knew the truth, the crisped people, now calling
themselves ‘The Minority’, persuaded local judges wearing headresses but
lacking in common-sense and facts, to protect them by law. A few coloured
beads helped, too. So, they went to the parents and forced them to leave the
country, or be put in prison.
Local employers, stupid to a man, thinking they were being very clever,
refused to employ the parents. Not only that, but they managed to persuade
their grandchildren, who were only 8, to join ‘The Minority’. (The kids couldn’t
get their tongues around it and hilariously referred to them as ‘The
Monstrosity’). So, the group recruited very young kids, who they could
manipulate and indoctrinate.
From a hidden distance the voice of reason came: ”If you are born
white, you will not be ethnically Black. You are not a minority: you are just
stupid, and so many of you will die.” But, did they listen? No, they died.
65
Chapter 4
Gay is Safe?
“We’ve changed, but not changed enough, and
because (of this)…the infection rate continues to be
unrelentingly high. All our efforts at education,
‘safe sex’, and behaviour modification, have been
insufficient to keep the gay population from
continuing to be destroyed.”
“Even more perverse are so-called ‘conversion
parties’, in which HIV-negative men willingly submit
to sexual intercourse with AIDS-infected partners.
This is called ‘giving the gift’, and those looking to
become infected with HIV are called ‘bug chasers’.”
“(the) pursuit of absolute sexual freedom was
biologically disastrous for gay men”.
“Social condemnation is, in fact, just about the only
realistic measure that can be taken to combat the
behaviour.” (Gay quote)
“Studies have shown a decline in AIDS-defining
malignancies since the advent of HAART. However,
the incidence of non-AIDS defining cancers among
HIV-infected patients seems to be increasing.”
‘numbers of anal-sex acquired AIDS have increased
by a “quantum leap” .’
I agree with the authors who said: “All of us sense that we have
responsibility for our destiny. We are not solely genetic machines anymore
than we are blank slates on which experience writes. At some point, every
practising homosexual makes a choice to indulge in homosexual fantasy or to
have gay sex. However, we must not make the mistake of ignoring the role of
nature and nurture…”
It is perfectly true that many factors lead up to an homosexual choice*.
As a Christian I accept this, and I add what the Bible says, that homosexuality
is a sin. So, besides being a taboo-breaker, it is also against God’s will, as
declared in the Bible. (*Just as many factors lead up to a man committing
murder. The pre-murder factors are totally separate from the fact that murder
is a vile crime).
66
This can be called a ‘value judgement’ and in many ways it is.
However, for the Christian, God is actual, and if He is real, and He means
what He says, then it is wise to obey His commands. In a very real sense,
homosexuality is natural for mankind’s fallen state, but is unnatural in God’s
order of things. At any rate, Christian values do not harm society, whereas
homosexual values do. AIDS alone is a sufficient proof. As is the fascist gay
rejection of free speech and attacks on heterosexuality.
That homosexuals see this as a ‘value judgement’ is irrelevant, for their
own ideas on their immorality are themselves ‘value judgements’! And if both
are value judgements, why do gays claim the right to superiority for their own
judgement?
This logic is even accepted by philosophers. If, then, God says (as He
does) that homosexuality is a sin, and He also says that we choose to sin,
then we may also choose the opposite, good or holiness. If you read this
carefully, Christian or not, you will find nothing in the statement inconsistent
with the overall facts found in this paper.
Saying something is sin does not mean a Christian can be harsh
toward those who commit ‘sin’. After all, those who sin are just like you and
me, and to be harsh toward a sinner is to be harsh toward oneself. It is a
matter of stating what is known, and leaving it at that. This, however, is a
problem, for as a Christian I am also a health worker and a tax-payer.
Therefore, it is my duty to do what is good for those I care for, to teach the
truth in health matters, and to ensure that my personal tax is not squandered
on conditions that have mythical or dubious causes.
For example, in the first few years of HIV/AIDS all cases in the USA
and UK were, without exception, exclusively homosexual in cause. Dr Napier
of the UK and I know this to be true because we had access to the statistics
and reports and shared our findings. Now, if homosexuals know their
behaviour is causing such an awful disease, which is now pandemic, why
should my taxes be used to pay for their treatment... especially when they
continue in the same behaviour? Even gays question the ethics of thus
‘rewarding’ those who bring disease upon themselves and the world.
I have the same attitude toward those who indulge in dangerous sports,
and those who smoke or drink to excess. Those who bring upon themselves
danger, and then contract diseases or accidents as a result, should not expect
others to pay. This is basic ethics.
It is not unethical to deny treatment to those who willingly indulge in
dangerous behaviour. It is unethical to give treatments that then reduce the
cash amounts available to others whose conditions are not brought about by
their own disregard for health. I am not alone in this judgement; many
physicians think the same way.
We all make mistakes, and allowance must be made for this very
human trait. But to ‘reward’ consistently bad behaviour, or continuing
dangerous behaviour with treatment is wrong, when so many people,
especially the old, cannot have urgent treatment at all until it is too late. Every
country MUST as a matter of principle and truth, condemn homosexual
behaviour because of its propensity to promote disease. There are countries
that do this.
There are, then, ramifications to being homosexual. In 2005, 58,000
people in the UK had HIV (a figure that does not include actual AIDS). In the
67
USA the numbers are far higher. Whilst it is true that not all of them are
homosexual, homosexuals must take the blame for this awful disease, and
should not expect their treatments to be paid for by other citizens, when they
are the result of immorality. Yes, pay for those who contract HIV inadvertently
(e.g. wives who do not know their husbands are visiting prostitutes), but not
otherwise. (I say the same for accidents caused by knowingly indulging in
dangerous sports, or for diseases caused by smoking, drug taking, and
heterosexual promiscuity, etc.).
Homosexuality as Unsafe
Prof Wright actually claimed in the UK’s Nursing Standard that
homosexuality was ‘natural’ and ‘healthy’. When I saw that, I was utterly
flabbergasted! The dangers in homosexuality are well-known! But, as usual,
propaganda has taken over and white-washed what is very dark indeed.
It is fact that all the AIDS cases in the UK, when it was first discovered
in the mid-1980’s, were exclusively homosexual. At that time Dr Napier
predicted what would happen next, and from what I have read, his predictions
came true. Homosexual behaviour spread the virus via bisexuals, needle
sharing and blood transfusions. From there, the equally wrong behaviour of
promiscuous heterosexuals helped to spread AIDS into the general
population. But, the cause of the whole epidemic in the UK (and USA) was
homosexuality, as the figures show.
For a time homosexuals were more careful, but this began to show
signs of waning, as AIDS amongst homosexuals again rose. No danger in
homosexuality? And what about lesbians, who claim they are in no danger at
all? Sadly for both male and female homosexuals, neither are right, as official
statistics prove. And for those who say I am still not being current enough, the
information I refer to was compiled and updated on August 26, 2005. The date
I finished this chapter was 1st September, 2005!
The latest statistics on the world epidemic of AIDS & HIV (Table 1)
were published by UNAIDS/WHO in December 2004. The report gives AIDS
and HIV statistics for the whole world and for regions, and these are given in
full. From this, you can see just how ‘safe’ homosexuality is! Don’t think that
this book will be outdated because the figures change, for the infection rate
can only rise in the future.
World Estimates of the HIV & AIDS Epidemics
at the End of 2004 (Table 1)
Estimate*
Range*
Total
Adults
Women
Children 15
39.4
37.2
17.6
2.3
35.9 – 44.3
33.8 – 41.7
16.3 – 19.5
2.0 – 2.6
People newly infected with HIV in
2004
Total
Adults
Children 15
4.9
4.3
0.64
4.3 – 6.4
3.7 – 5.7
0.57 – 0.75
AIDS deaths in 2004
Total
3.1
2.8 – 3.5
No. People living with
HIV / AIDS in 2004
68
Adults
Children 15
2.6
0.51
2.3 – 2.9
0.46 – 0.60
* millions
*millions
More than 20 million people have died of AIDS since 1981.
Africa has 12 million AIDS orphans, thanks to homosexuals and promiscuous heterosexuals.
By December 2004 women accounted for 47% of all people living with HIV worldwide, and for
57% in sub-Saharan Africa. (Please note this statistic if you are a lesbian who thinks she is
safe: many are bi-sexual and/or have had previous/still have sexual relations with men).
Young people (15-24 years old) account for half of all new HIV infections worldwide - more
than 6,000 become infected with HIV every day. Partial thanks to predatory gays.
Of the 6.5 million people in developing and transitional countries who need life-saving AIDS
drugs, fewer than 1 million are receiving them. but the public pays for this anyway!
Regional Statistics for HIV & AIDS, end of 2004 (Table 2)
Region
Sub-Saharan Africa
East Asia
South & S.E. Asia
Oceana
Eastern Europe &
Central Asia
Western &
Central Europe
North Africa &
Middle East
North America
Caribbean
Latin America
Global Total
Adults &
Children
Newly
Infected*
Adult
Infection
Rate ( %)
Deaths of
Adults &
Children*
3.1
0.29
0.89
0.005
0.21
7.4
0.1
0.6
0.2
0.8
2.3
0.051
0.49
0.0007
0.060
0.61
0.021
0.3
0.0065
0.54
0.092
0.3
0.028
1.0
0.44
1.7
39.4
0.044
0.053
0.24
4.9
0.6
2.3
0.6
1.1
0.016
0.036
0.095
3.1
*millions
*millions
Adults &
Children
with HIV /
AIDS*
25.4
1.1
7.1
0.035
1.4
*millions
Notes
Adults in this report are defined as men and women aged 15-49. This age range captures
those in their most sexually active years. While the risk of HIV infection continues beyond the
age of 50, the vast majority of people with substantial risk behaviour are likely to have
become infected by this age. Since population structures differ greatly from one country to
another, especially for children and the upper adult ages, the restriction of 'adults' to 15-49
has the advantage of making different populations more comparable.
Children orphaned by AIDS are those children under 18 who have lost one or both parents to
AIDS. Thanks go to the willingly-promiscuous who orphan their own children.
All the statistics on this page need to be interpreted with caution because they are estimates.
Sources


UNAIDS/WHO AIDS epidemic update, December 2004
UNAIDS/WHO 2004 Report on the global AIDS epidemic
During 2004 around five million adults and children became infected
with HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), the virus that causes AIDS. By the
end of the year, an estimated 39.4 million people worldwide were living (dying)
69
with HIV/AIDS. The year also saw more than three million deaths from AIDS,
despite the availability of HIV antiretroviral therapy, which reduced the number
of deaths in high-income countries.
If people know what causes AIDS, primarily homosexuality and also
sexual promiscuity of all kinds, how can we say that anything other than
heterosexual monogamy is safe and good? How can we say homosexuality is
‘safe and good’ when AIDS is increasing faster than we can cope with? How
can the behaviour be condoned when children are brought into the world
complete with the deadly virus? And when stupid gays deliberately contract
HIV at orgies?
Homosexuality is no longer the sole perpetrator of AIDS, but it is still a
vital and major source of the disease, as figures show. Other diseases are
also associated with homosexuals, not exclusively, but certainly in higher
numbers, such as certain rare cancers, hepatitis, etc. (See later sections).
The figures suggest a disturbing trend, that AIDS is likely to become
cyclical in prevalence, as younger men and women come on the scene and
choose to be gay, not having direct experience of the horrors of the start of
AIDS in the West, and not having the truth before them.
This has already been noted by gay groups themselves. It means that
the already phenomenal numbers of AIDS patients will be added to
substantially with every new generation, because they ignore the facts and the
dangers. Added to this is the absolutely scandalous new ‘game’ of deliberately
contracting HIV!
Larry Kramer
Dubbed “America’s angriest and most powerful critic of how the world
responded to the greatest catastrophe of the 20 th century (AIDS)”, Larry
Kramer (a gay) “takes on the new AIDS crisis and shows us the only way out:
ourselves.” (43). Written by Larry Kramer, it is true: the blame for the recent
huge rise in AIDS must rest firmly on the shoulders of gays (again).
Gabriel Rotello says, correctly, that AIDS will not go away. “We’ve
changed, but not changed enough, and because (of this)… the infection rate
continues to be unrelentingly high. All our efforts at education, ‘safe sex’, and
behaviour modification, have been insufficient to keep the gay population from
continuing to be destroyed.” (44)
Kramer says, “Gabriel’s book also makes the airtight case - still
considered controversial, unfortunately, rather than undeniable - that we
brought AIDS upon ourselves by a way of living that welcomed it. You cannot
‘xxx’ (Obscene word replaced by xxx) indiscriminately with multiple partners,
who are also doing the same, without spreading disease, a disease… that…
carries death. Nature always exacts a price for sexual promiscuity.”
He continues, “Tragically, not enough of us have responded to this
information maturely and responsibly. Too many of us have used almost every
conceivable excuse not to face this plague squarely and honestly. We think
we know what’s safe and unsafe, know all about condoms, know all about
these new drugs… and we get very irate when the word ‘promiscuity’ is used.”
“But nobody is out there saying loud and clear: ‘Stop acting like ‘xxx’
(and) start acting like adults. Even in the best of times, an adult does not act
Russian roulette with ‘xxx’.” (Obscene words replaced by ‘xxx’).
70
Kramer goes on to berate all the gays who write pro-gay sexual
material, and says that, without doubt, it is all contributing to the deaths of
more gays. Also, as a gay, he says that most of it is just rubbish, given to the
media for a cheap sexual thrill. He says there is no comparison between this
gay rubbish and genuine literature and films, where sex is never even
mentioned, and when it is, it is not replete with foul language and graphic
descriptions.
Now, that is written by one of the most influential gay writers in the
USA! Yet, someone as arrogant as Prof. Wright thinks he knows better. So do
all those ignorant nurses who are sad enough to agree with his material.
Kramer and other gays openly admit that what they do is highly dangerous
and is the cause of AIDS spread. Why are Wright and his ilk trying to tone all
this down? To bring more millions of deaths to men (and women) whose gay
tendencies are reversible and habitual, and not inborn?
HIV Superstrain
Most HIV research concentrates on only 2 strains of the many known to
exist (in the 1980’s, if I remember correctly, there were at least 20). Now, a
‘superstrain’ is poised to take over.
In 2002, Harvard AIDS researcher Dr Bruce Walker stunned
participants at the 14th International Conference on AIDS. He gave the
example of an HIV infected gay whose body successfully combated the virus
on its own. But then he had sex (what kind of fool is he?) with a man whose
HIV strain was different, and his clinical condition went into rapid decline.
(Also note the complete disregard for propriety and safety, a constant feature
amongst gays).
He told the audience “The public health implication of this is that it is
possible to become infected with a second strain of HIV, even a very closely
related one.” Another scientist said this has “shattering implications” for the
development of an AIDS vaccine. In plain terms, it means the HIV virus is so
mutable and durable, that the standard method of vaccine-making will almost
certainly not work.” (45). (I find it very interesting that Dr N of the UK predicted
all this in 1985, but, as usual, no-one listened!)
Cash-Cost to Society
The conference heard that the cost of treating a single AIDS patient in
the USA is $34,000. The cost of treating relatively healthy HIV infected
patients is $14,000 apiece. As over 900,000, almost a million, are living in the
USA with either AIDS or HIV, this amount of expenditure cannot be sustained.
And yet the situation is becoming far worse. Homosexuals must be made to
pay for their own treatment, and insurances should refuse to pay for it
because it is self-inflicted.
In the UK a woman with breast cancer struggled for years to get a
particular effective drug prescribed, but was stopped many times because of
the cost. Here we have a woman, one of many, whose condition was
contracted without her consent and knowledge, and without anything in her
lifestyle to invite it. The same can be said of many other conditions in which
treatment is potentially costly, but refused
On the other hand, UK AIDS and HIV patients are given free
treatments, though they are very costly, without any kind of moral judgement!
71
AIDS and HIV in homosexuals are invited by way of life, and by promiscuity,
and by unnatural sex. Yet mindless support by governments continues
everywhere! Why do we all have to help pay for treatments? And why not
attribute blame to gays with HIV/AIDS? They know what causes it and yet
they deliberately seek it!
Roman Catholics & AIDS
According to the Vatican, the Roman Catholic church helps about one
quarter of the world’s AIDS sufferers. Yet, it is also heavily criticised, because
of the late pope’s attitude to condoms. (46)
From what I can see, it is not about help given, but his refusal to allow
the use of condoms. This is not rooted in anything the Bible teaches, but in
the way the pope interpreted it. In some ways I can understand his response,
because by giving condoms we are perpetuating the crisis and obliquely
condoning promiscuity.
The real problem is that the true calling of the church-proper is to look
after its own flock. What the ‘world’ does is not truly the concern of the
Church, which only consists of those who are ‘saved’. But, Roman
Catholicism, being expansionist, sees all of humanity as its flock. This tends to
muddy the waters, and it is why the RCC looks after one quarter of AIDS
sufferers.
The actual Biblical response is far more defined: Those who are
Christians must look to their own back-yard and their first concern is to obey
God, then look after parents, then family, and then all others in the Church.
Those outside the Church may be helped, but only on an ad hoc basis, when
individual Christians are ‘called’ to do so.
I used to live next door to a thief. His front door was right next to mine.
Every night he would get drunk on the proceeds of his crimes, and vomit all
over his doorway and ours. We were then left with a stinking mess to clear up.
Those who contract AIDS by deliberately indulging in high-risk immoral
activities are dumping their consequences on the rest of society, expecting
them to pay and help.
African countries are now insisting that the West helps them! But, it is
the promiscuity of their own peoples that led to the crisis. Though most cases
are now in the general population, it is still perpetuated by promiscuity. Who
actually has the courage to place blame on promiscuity? Nobody! This is the
dilemma for Christians. Do we continue to clean up the vomit every day,
knowing more will be spread on our doorstep the next night? I don’t think so.
A few African countries have taught morality as well as giving out
condoms (which cannot guarantee safety anyway). Well, what others are
doing might help in the physical realm, at least partially and for a short while,
but giving out condoms is not the real answer. The real answer is no sex
outside of marriage. But, to be even more direct, each partner (and I am
talking about heterosexuality, the natural union) must not have had sexual
partners before they marry. Gay ‘marriages’ are sad farces, so I don’t include
them in my statement.
In other words, they live chaste lives and do not fornicate. When any
AIDS help only consists of giving out condoms, the position is hopeless, as
cases of AIDS, HIV and other STD’s continue to rise frighteningly. Sorry to
say it of our cousins, but one only has to see TV footage of British youth on
72
holiday to see what the problem is: disgraceful sexual behaviour that does not
care about consequences. They are like homosexuals who, knowing about
AIDS, continue in their sexual activities. Why should the world pay?
When the pope, then, denied condoms but gave ‘mopping up’ care, he
brought the problem on his own head, by mixing worldly issues with church
ones. If authorities or countries wish to give condoms to their people, it is up
to them. We know it will merely be superficial, because then people think it is
okay to have sex with whoever they like. The true answer is to openly and
singularly condemn sexual immorality, and to re-introduce old-fashioned (but
relevant) social stigma for those who live badly. (This has been strongly
urged upon society by a gay leader!)
For Christians, support of immorality is not the way to go, because it
encourages promiscuity. It is certainly not how we would approach the issue
within the ranks of Christians, where obedience to God and morality would be
the main issue. The true attitude is no sex before marriage (heterosexual) and
monogamy in marriage. This is its own safeguard. Many science and medical
experts said this at the very start of the AIDS epidemic, but, of course, gays
shouted them down! Even so, the answer is really that simple.
AIDS, ultimately, is the result of homosexuality and immoral living, no
matter which way it is viewed. It is not up to the world to clean up the vomit left
by others! The reason we are doing it, is that gay activists are clinging to their
agenda, making everybody think homosexuality is natural, so they can be
regarded as ‘victims’. By doing so, they make a claim for special help.
Remove this falsity and you come back to immorality. Gays must look
after their own, and not expect the rest of the world to pay for their continuing
hazardous lifestyles. As you will see in this book, gays could not care less
about AIDS, just as they could not care less about anything else. They
continue to indulge in repeated sex escapades, even when they have HIV,
regardless of risk, and then demand treatment. This is not acceptable.
Gay Sluts
Dreher then quotes from a Par Pride article, ‘Gay Sluts are Back’, by
Simon Sheppard, who calls himself a ‘gay slut’. This idiot “celebrated the
renaissance of promiscuity among Bay Area homosexuals.” He said, “The
threat of HIV was (and is) real and deadly. But the disease was also seized on
as an instrument of control, by assimilationists within the queer community,
who wanted us all to behave like good girls, and by those in the larger
heterocentrist culture who were both envious of, and repelled by, men who
numbered their sex partners in the dozens. Or hundreds. Or thousands.”
I use the word ‘idiot’ in its true sense, for Sheppard is truly an arrogant
fool, who is now promoting gay promiscuity, even though it will increase HIV
and AIDS numbers exponentially. He is not alone, however, in his disgusting
hedonism. His view is replicated many times over the world.
Sheppard praised what he calls “unapologetic homolust” and says
health workers only tell ‘queers’ what they already know, that numbers of
anal-sex acquired AIDS has increased by a “quantum leap”. He is proud of his
stance and urges others to live like him. That’s fine, but he should not then
expect the public to pay for their immorality.
The Gay Pride issue of the New York Village Life (where AIDS runs at
four times the number found in San Francisco, conferring the title of ‘AIDS
73
capital of America’ on New York) also lauded those who live by promiscuity…
dozens of men having orgies with each other and disregarding any kind of
health warnings. “After years of AIDS anxiety and government repression, gay
public sex is bigger and better than before.” Now that’s a great boast! This is
sexual lust unadorned, beyond extreme, and the real end of what being gay is
all about. And it is what governmental laws are supporting.
This is helped enormously by the internet, where men can indulge their
fantasies and lusts very easily. When researching this book I saw many web
sites I wish I had never come across, such was their perversity… I did not
entering into the sites because graphic filth was on the opening front pages!
Speaking of the way homosexuals are acting out ‘unsafe’ anal sex, a
leading gay columnist, Michelangelo Signorile, says that this practice was
“quite common” five years ago and is now starting to make a come-back: “it’s
the danger that makes this kind of sex so exciting…” Yeah, right!
Conversion Parties
A far more disgusting homosexual perversion is quoted by Dreher:
“Even more perverse are so-called ‘conversion parties’, in which HIV-negative
men willingly submit to sexual intercourse with AIDS-infected partners. This is
called ‘giving the gift’, and those looking to become infected with HIV are
called ‘bug chasers’.”
A variation of this wonderful game, ‘Russian roulette parties’, consists
of anal sex “with HIV-positive and uninfected men, whose HIV status may not,
by mutual consent, be known before the sex begins.” (Note: it only takes one
incident to become infected. It is a mistake to think that only those who are
obviously lust-driven will succumb: it also happens to those who are lonely,
and who only occasionally go in for unsafe sex. (48)
Bread and Circuses
How can homosexuals be like this? Easily. Homosexuality is a choice
of sex object based on lust. In what is now happening we easily see what
Sodom was like. Christians believe what their Bible says, and it states, in
Romans chapter one, homosexuality is not just a single sin, but a whole host
of sins, the end result of inward wickedness. Frankly, even if we discard the
Bible view, the facts all suggest an inner turmoil and a furious drive within that
keeps homosexuals from truth, reason and sanity.
We have seen how, once the line of a taboo has been crossed, every
new experience afterward is made easier. And, as we all know, for any
habitual activity to remain exciting, it must be indulged in even more. Those
caught on this treadmill of lust will eventually do anything to heighten the thrill,
even if it means the death of self or others. This is exactly the same in any
pornographic extreme. If you think most gays are too afraid of AID’s to deny
themselves the ‘thrill’ of gay sex, then think again! They really don’t care.
Those who do are a very small minority!
The thrills of Rome were many, but to keep crowds interested, the
organisers of ‘sport’ (you know, throwing people to lions, etc) had to
continually up-date and increase the ‘thrill factor’. They gave them ever moredegrading spectacles, with food thrown in. Bread and circuses! The result was
a lot of dead slaves, and thousands of Romans satiated beyond normality with
whatever was on offer. They were desensitised to anything and everything.
74
That is the position of gays today, as Gay Pride marches indicate. And that is
also part of the infamous ‘gay agenda’: desensitisation of the public, so that
they will eventually accept anything, no matter how vile or deadly.
Sharp Increase in AIDS
The sudden sharp rise in HIV and AIDS is proof that these practices
are on the increase, says Dreher and those he interviewed. And Centres for
Disease Control confirm that because of this stupidity, there is soon to be a
fresh and even greater wave of AIDS amongst homosexuals. What did Prof
Wright say about homosexuality being ‘safe’? Is he on the same planet?
Concerned, some gays have spoken out about this insanity, but have
themselves been attacked, and even called ‘homophobic’!! Gabriel Rotello
says “(the) pursuit of absolute sexual freedom was biologically disastrous for
gay men”. He warns: “It takes only a small number of gay men who engage in
unprotected sex with multiple partners to keep the epidemic alive.” (49)
Dreher says what I have said before, that if the health hazard was, say,
typhoid, the government would quickly jump in and seek the cause of the
scourge and deploy treatments and urgent strategies to get rid of it. But not so
with AIDS and HIV! Don’t you think this is extremely weird?
He says that non-gay newspapers and media do not mention
these trends, so public outrage is never initiated. “Imagine how the
phenomenon would be reported if, in the middle of a deadly typhus
epidemic, people were keeping the epidemic going by getting together
to exchange infected lice for fun and pleasure. How would the
newspapers report it? What would the public say? How would the
government react?”
The article continues: “Social condemnation is, in fact, just about
the only realistic measure that can be taken to combat the behaviour.” In
other words, a gay is saying that the only way to combat homosexual
lunacy is to condemn homosexuality publicly!
The same writer ends with this: “One is tempted to think: ‘So what?
What goes on behind closed doors is nobody’s business’. This is fatally
wrong. Aside from the fact that it’s inhumane to remain indifferent while
people blithely kill themselves, there is the not-insignificant matter of the
enormous cost to the tax-payer and the healthcare system. And, much more
important, the mutation of HIV into newer and deadlier forms of the virus - a
process aided by sex between HIV infected men by different strains - has
made an AIDS vaccine an even more remote possibility… male
homosexuality… has become a death cult. Yet no-one dares to hold gaymale society accountable for the nihilistic, erotomaniacal subculture
that sustains the killing and dying.” Remember: this is from a gay
article!
Gays are responsible for AIDS and for its spread. Homosexuality is a
dangerous, unhealthy, deadly practice. And those who become infected with
HIV and AIDS because of homosexual practices should not expect the rest of
society to pay for their treatments. They themselves have rendered almost (if
not totally) impossible the idea of a real treatment.
Being Gay is ‘Healthy’?
Below (Tables 3 & 4) are pertinent facts and (latest) figures, supplied
not by ‘queer-bashers’ or ‘bigots’ but by the National Centre for HIV, STD and
75
TB Prevention, USA. They show, very clearly, that homosexuals bear the
brunt (and, logically, the ‘blame’) of AIDS, and massively so.
This kind of ratio is replicated throughout the West, so for health
professionals to say that homosexuality (male in particular) is ‘safe’ and
‘healthy’ is not just wrong, it is negligent and preposterous. And if gays are
statistically responsible for most gay cases, we have every right to say that
their lifestyle is unsafe and unhealthy, as is any promiscuous lifestyle.
By not properly pinpointing the source of the pandemic, governments
are wasting funds and effort, and allowing deaths by AIDS to escalate. This
was Dr N’s predicted back in 1985, and nothing has changed.
AIDS Cases by Exposure Category (Table 3)
Exposure Category
Male-to-Male sexual contact
Injection Drug Use
Male-to-Male Sexual Contact
and Injection Drug Use
Heterosexual Contact
Other
Estimated No. AIDS Cases in 2003
Male
Female
Total
17,969
17,969
6,353
3,096
9,449
1,877
1,877
5,133
281
8,127
276
13,260
557
The numbers above show clearly that homosexual activity accounts for nearly four times the
number of heterosexual male cases. Figures below are even greater
AIDS Cases by Exposure Category (UK) (Table 4)
Exposure Category
Male-to-Male sexual contact
Injection Drug Use
Male-to-Male Sexual Contact
and Injection Drug Use
Heterosexual Contact
Other
Estimated No. AIDS Cases
Through 2003
Male
Female
Total
440,887
440,887
175,988
70,558
246,546
62,418
62,418
56,403
14,191
93,586
6,535
149,989
20,726
The latest statistics on AIDS & HIV in the UK were published in July 2005 by the
Health Protection Agency.
The first of the tables below shows a dramatic increase in the number of women
diagnosed with HIV. In 1990, females accounted for just 15% of HIV diagnoses, but in 2004
that figure was 43%.
The second table shows that the annual number of deaths among HIV-positive
people rose during the early 1990s but then plummeted after the widespread introduction of
highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).
The third table shows that 92% of UK HIV diagnoses have been made in England
(around 84% of the UK's population lives in England).
HIV Infected Individuals & AIDS Cases
by Year of Diagnosis and Sex (UK) (Table 5)
Year of
Diagnosis
1989 or earlier
Male
HIV
Female
Total*
Male
AIDS
Female
Total
12894
1319
14240
528
155
3553
76
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Until June 2005
Total
2177
2278
2202
2101
2042
2086
2119
2093
2087
2156
2484
3110
3583
4014
4007
1234
52,667
369
451
542
533
534
572
587
669
758
945
1390
1959
2643
3180
2965
814
20,230
2551
2729
2745
2635
2577
2658
2706
2763
2846
3103
3874
5070
6226
7194
6973
2048
72,938
1148
1255
1405
1551
1624
1488
1173
860
596
564
588
487
552
506
446
109
17,750
97
139
174
238
227
284
270
217
195
192
245
241
324
401
331
72
3,802
1245
1394
1579
1789
1851
1772
1443
1077
791
756
833
728
876
907
777
181
21,552
* Includes 41 HIV diagnoses with sex not stated on the report
AIDS Cases by Exposure Category.
All Years to end of June, 2005 (UK) (Table 6)
How HIV infection
was Probably Acquired
Male
Female
Total
Sex between men*
12,721
12721
Sex between men and women
2863
3014
5877
Injecting drug use
881
346
1227
Mother to infant
303
291
594
Blood/tissue transfer
752
119
871
or blood factor
Other/undetermined
230
32
262
Total
17,750
3802
21552
Percentage total
82
18
100
* Includes 333 men who had also injected drugs
%
59
27
6
3
4
2
100
As with all other tables, this table shows without doubt that homosexuals are the major source
of AIDS.
HIV Infected Persons by Country and Exposure Category
All Years until end of June 2005 (Table 7)
Country of Diagnosis
How HIV Infection
probably acquired
Sex between men*
Sex between
men and women
Injecting drug use
Blood/tissue transfer
or blood factor
Other/undetermined+
UK Total
34,265
27,864
Channel
Isles/Isle
of Man
32
31
47
38
England
32,149
26,145
Wales
511
360
N.
Ireland
195
135
2,988
1,601
45
58
8
21
1,232
118
4,273
1,798
11
3
6
2
4,304
58
11
242
4,615
5
6
Scotland
1,410
1,224
%
77
Total
67,228
1,032
370
4,226
72,856
82
100
*Includes 758 men also injecting drugs + Includes 1297 children of HIV infected mothers
How People Probably Became Infected, by Year (Table 8)
How HIV infection was probably acquired
Sex
Sex between
men and women Injecting drug use
between men*
1989 or earlier
9381
1073
1868
1990
1706
534
201
1991
1718
650
243
1992
1643
781
187
1993
1512
776
204
1994
1486
794
167
1995
1480
854
182
1996
1558
837
173
1997
1414
1013
171
1998
1370
1170
132
1999
1376
1441
113
2000
1518
2011
114
2001
1771
2890
134
2002
1868
3725
115
2003
1926
4364
118
2004
1956
4034
118
Until June 2005
614
949
34
Total
34,297
27,895
4,284
* Includes 758 men who had also injected drugs
Year of HIV
Diagnosis
Notes
Numbers, particularly for recent years, will rise as further reports are received.
Due to rounding to the nearest whole number, percentage columns may appear not to total
100%.
Sources:

1
HPA Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (HIV and STI Department) and
the Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health: Unpublished Quarterly
Surveillance Tables No. 67, 05/2.
Last updated August 23, 2005
You will notice that, in the UK, numbers of deaths from AIDS are still
greater for homosexual men overall (though they know the risks), than for
heterosexuals. But, whilst deaths from AIDS caused by sex between men and
women grow, this fact hides another, underlying, fact…that the women who
died did not contract AIDS out of thin air.
Their contact must have been via bi-sexual men*, who are, if we
remove the false label, men who want sex from whatever human source they
can obtain. They are both hetero- and homo-sexual in their preferences and
are promiscuous. These men can be married or single, the women may be
loyal wives or prostitutes. It does not matter, for the source of their condition
were men who contracted HIV through contact with other men*. The figures,
therefore, hide vital clues to the causes of the deaths.
78
(*Or, via prostitutes who have been with so-called bi-sexuals, or via needles shared
with bi-sexuals or homosexuals, etc. The links are obviously homosexual, as all cases of
AIDS were attributable to homosexuals at the start. Therefore, every case subsequent to that
time must logically be related to the same source).
Below is the content of a gay website. Again, clearly, it mentions some
of the significant risks in homosexual activity. Remember, these are facts
given by a U.S. gay group, and are not invented by myself. Do not just read
the words, look at the ramifications and consequences. Any part of the text
shown in bold type is highlighted by myself.
“July 17, 2002
A Question of Cultural Competence in the Medical Community
TEN THINGS GAY MEN SHOULD DISCUSS
WITH THEIR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
SAN FRANCISCO -- A survey of members of the Gay and Lesbian Medical
Association (GLMA) released today listed 10 health care concerns men who
have sex with men (MSM) should include in discussions with their physicians
or other health care providers.
"Clinicians providing health care to gay and bisexual men may not be
aware of all of the things that should be discussed during the visit," said
GLMA President Christopher E. Harris, MD. "We are concerned that
physicians and other health care providers who do not understand the health
risks in the gay community cannot provide competent care. This is why we
asked our members to help us define the health care concerns most relevant
to MSM. Our purpose is to inform health providers and allow patients to be
proactive in their relationship by knowing what questions to ask."
"Naturally, not everyone has the same set of risks," said educator and
medical journal editor Vincent M. B. Silenzio, MD, MPH. "But after we look at
gender (men in general are increased risk of heart disease, for example) age,
family history, and other basic factors, we need to consider issues that relate
to the culture or subculture.
We know that gay men face greater discrimination than their
heterosexual counterparts, for example. Family pressures, combined with
social pressure, cause significant stress. It might be important to
discuss depression or anxiety (Ed. See earlier arguments about the real
cause of this stress), and possibly substance use. If you know that someone
is sexually active, it is important to talk about safe sex, the need for hepatitis
immunization, or periodic tests for anal papiloma." (Ed. None of which is
necessary in normal sex between heterosexual married couples!)
Gay Men and MSM Health Concerns
1. HIV/AIDS, Safe Sex
2. Substance Use
3. Depression/Anxiety
4. Hepatitis Immunization
5. STDs
6. Prostate/Testicular/Colon Cancer
7. Alcohol
8. Tobacco
9. Fitness (Diet & Exercise)
10. Anal Papiloma
79
Gay and Lesbian Medical Association News Release:
TEN THINGS GAY MEN SHOULD DISCUSS
WITH THEIR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
COMMENTARY
Vincent M. B. Silenzio, MD, MPH
Board of Directors, GLMA
Co-Editor, Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association,
Private Practice & Assistant Professor, Columbia University, New York,
HIV/AIDS, Safe Sex
1. That men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV
infection is well known, but the effectiveness of safe sex in reducing the rate
of HIV infection is one of the gay community’s great success stories.
However, the last few years have seen the return of many unsafe sex
practices. While effective HIV treatments may be on the horizon, there is no
substitute for preventing infection. Safe sex is proven to reduce the risk of
receiving or transmitting HIV. All health care professionals should be aware of
how to counsel and support maintenance of safe sex practices.
2. Substance Use
Gay men use substances at a higher rate than the general population,
and not just in larger communities such as New York, San Francisco, and Los
Angeles. These include a number of substances ranging from amyl nitrate
("poppers"), to marijuana, Ecstasy, and amphetamines. The long-term effects
of many of these substances are unknown; however current wisdom suggests
potentially serious consequences as we age.
3. Depression/Anxiety
Depression and anxiety appear to affect gay men at a higher rate than in
the general population. The likelihood of depression or anxiety may be
greater, and the problem may be more severe for those men who remain in
the closet or who do not have adequate social supports. Adolescents and
young adults may be at particularly high risk of suicide because of these
concerns. Culturally sensitive mental health services targeted specifically at
gay men may be more effective in the prevention, early detection, and
treatment of these conditions.
4. Hepatitis Immunization
Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually
transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of
the liver known as hepatitis. These infections can be potentially fatal, and
can lead to very serious long-term issues such as cirrhosis and liver cancer.
Fortunately, immunizations are available to prevent two of the three most
serious viruses. Universal immunization for Hepatitis A Virus and Hepatitis B
Virus is recommended for all men who have sex with men. Safe sex is
effective at reducing the risk of viral hepatitis, and is currently the only means
of prevention for the very serious Hepatitis C Virus. (Ed. Again it must be said
– normal sex between heterosexual married couples who have been
previously chaste, does not have this problem).
5. STDs
Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men
80
at a high rate. This includes STD infections for which effective treatment
is available (syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, pubic lice, and others), and
for which no cure is available (HIV, Hepatitis A, B, or C virus, Human
Papilloma Virus, etc.). There is absolutely no doubt that safe sex reduces
the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, and prevention of these infections
through safe sex is key. (Ed. This is partly a myth. Wearing condoms is no
sure safeguard against STD’s, but they do increase the activities that induce
them).
6. Prostate, Testicular, and Colon Cancer
Gay men may be at risk for death by prostate, testicular, or colon
cancer. (Ed. It is unclear whether or not homosexual activity increases the
risk). Screening for these cancers occurs at different times across the life
cycle, and access to screening services may be negatively impacted because
of issues and challenges in receiving culturally sensitive care for gay men. All
gay men should undergo these screenings routinely as recommended for the
general population.
7. Alcohol
Although more recent studies have improved our understanding of alcohol use
in the gay community, it is still thought that gay men have higher rates of
alcohol dependence and abuse than straight men. (Ed. I have witnessed
this in many gays and lesbians I have known). One drink daily may not
adversely affect health, however alcohol-related illnesses can occur with low
levels of consumption. Culturally sensitive services targeted to gay men are
important in successful prevention and treatment programs.
8. Tobacco
Recent studies seem to support the notion that gay men use tobacco at
much higher rates than straight men, reaching nearly 50 percent in several
studies. Tobacco-related health problems include lung disease and lung
cancer, heart disease, high blood pressure, and a whole host of other
serious problems. All gay men should be screened for and offered culturally
sensitive prevention and cessation programs for tobacco use.
9. Fitness (Diet and Exercise)
Problems with body image are more common among gay men than their
straight counterparts, and gay men are much more likely to experience an
eating disorder such as bulimia or anorexia nervosa. While regular
exercise is very good for cardiovascular health and in other areas, too much
of a good thing can be harmful. The use of substances such as anabolic
steroids and certain supplements can adversely affect health. At the
opposite end of the spectrum, overweight and obesity are problems that
also affect a large subset of the gay community. This can cause a
number of health problems, including diabetes, high blood pressure,
and heart disease. (Ed. Again – is this related to homosexuality itself, or is it
a casual relationship?).
10. Anal Papilloma
Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human
papilloma virus —which cause anal and genital warts — is often thought
to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these
infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay
men. Some health professionals now recommend routine screening with anal
Pap Smears, similar to the test done for women to detect early cancers. Safe
81
sex should be emphasized. Treatments for HPV do exist, but recurrences of
the warts are very common, and the rate at which the infection can be spread
between partners is very high.” (Ed. Time and again, the only sure way to
have safe sex is… between heterosexual married couples who have
previously led a chaste life!).
One thing is sure from the above data: male homosexuality is far from
safe or healthy. Even this gay group admits there are health risks peculiar to
gays! When figures and facts are given by gay groups, what opposing
argument can gays offer?
(I have included all the data, so I cannot be accused of selective quoting. The queries
prefaced by ’Ed.’ are my own.)
The following information is from the same source as the above.
Bold-letter emphases have been added by myself.
“In the United States, health officials reported over 32,000 cases of
syphilis in 2002, including 6,862 cases of primary and secondary (P&S)
syphilis. In 2002, half of all P&S syphilis cases were reported from 16 counties
and 1 city; and most P&S syphilis cases occurred in persons 20 to 39 years of
age.
The incidence of infectious syphilis was highest in women 20 to 24
years of age and in men 35 to 39 years of age. Between 2001 and 2002 the
number of reported P&S syphilis cases increased 12.4 percent. Rates in
women continued to decrease, and overall, the rate in men was 3.5 times that
in women. This, in conjunction with reports of outbreaks of syphilis in
MSM, suggests that rates of syphilis in MSM are increasing. (Ed. MSM
means ‘men who have sex with men’…yet another euphemism and an
updated version of ‘sodomy’!)
Over the past several years, increases in syphilis among MSM have
been reported in various cities and areas, including Chicago, Seattle,
San Francisco, Southern California, Miami, and New York City. In the
recent outbreaks, high rates of HIV co-infection were documented,
ranging from 20 percent to 70 percent. While the health problems
caused by syphilis in adults are serious in their own right, it is now
known that the genital sores caused by syphilis in adults also make it
easier to transmit and acquire HIV infection sexually.
Genital sores (chancres) caused by syphilis make it easier to transmit
and acquire HIV infection sexually. There is an estimated two- to five-fold
increased risk of acquiring HIV infection when syphilis is present. Ulcerative
STDs that cause sores, ulcers, or breaks in the skin or mucous membranes,
like syphilis, disrupt barriers that provide protection against infections. The
genital ulcers caused by syphilis can increase the infectiousness of and
susceptibility to HIV.
Because effective treatment is available, it is important that persons be
screened for syphilis on an on-going basis if their sexual behaviors put them
at risk for STDs.
The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted
diseases, including syphilis, is to abstain from sexual intercourse or to
be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who
has been tested and is known to be uninfected. (Ed. the only sure way is
82
to be monogamous with a member of the opposite sex where both partners
have never had sexual relations outside of marriage. This is fact.)
Genital ulcer diseases, like syphilis, can occur in both male and
female genital areas that are covered or protected by a latex condom, as
well as in areas that are not covered.” (Ed. The writer of this American
article does not have the courage to say that condoms are not a sure way to
avoid infection!).”
It should be obvious to any reader that the figures all show a
dangerous and increasing level of illnesses amongst homosexual men,
making the claim to being ‘healthy’ not just questionable, but farcical.
CROI Findings (Documented comments are in quotation marks)
The incidence of four cancers is “significantly greater than expected in
HIV patients.” As incidences are greater in homosexuals, the point is obvious.
The cancers are “Lung, Hodgkin’s Disease, Anorectal and Melanoma.” (50)
“Studies have shown a decline in AIDS-defining malignancies since the
advent of HAART. However, the incidence of non-AIDS defining cancers
among HIV-infected patients seems to be increasing.” The authors of the
paper concluded that these incidences have “notably increased”. (51)
HIV/AIDS among Men Who Have Sex with Men
In the United States, HIV and AIDS have had a tremendous effect
on men who have sex with men (MSM). MSM accounted for
approximately two thirds of all HIV infections among men in 2003, even
though only about 5% to 7% of men in the United States identify themselves
as MSM.
The number of HIV diagnoses for MSM decreased during the
1980s and 1990s, but recent surveillance data show an increase in HIV
diagnoses for this group.
Statistics
Cumulative Effect of HIV Infection and AIDS (through 2003)
 An estimated 503,305 MSM (440,887 MSM and 62,418 MSM who
inject drugs) had received a diagnosis of AIDS, accounting for 67% of
all men and 54% of all people who received a diagnosis of AIDS.
 An estimated 295,981 MSM (257,898 MSM and 38,083 MSM who
inject drugs) with AIDS had died, accounting for 68% of all men and
56% of all people with AIDS who died.
At the end of 2003, an estimated 207,323 MSM (182,989 MSM and 24,334
MSM who inject drugs) were living with AIDS, representing 66% of all men
and 51% of all people living with AIDS
Note. Based on data from 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and US dependencies, possessions, and associated nations.
(Ed. You will see from the above that heterosexual AIDS amounts to only 8%.
If we add MSM and MSM plus drug use together, we get a figure of 67%
amongst gay men… though we cannot be sure how many are in this latter
category. Whichever way we look at it, the figures are huge and damning.)
83
AIDS in 2003


An estimated 19,846 MSM (17,969 MSM and 1,877 MSM who inject
drugs) received a diagnosis of AIDS, accounting for 63% of all men
and 46% of all people who received a diagnosis of AIDS.
An estimated 7,248 MSM (6,015 MSM and 1,233 MSM who inject
drugs) with AIDS died, accounting for 55% of all men and 40% of all
people with AIDS who died.
Note. Based on data from 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and US dependencies, possessions, and associated nations.
HIV/AIDS in 2003
In the 33 areas with long-term, confidential name-based reporting, an estimated 15,756 MSM
(14,532 MSM and 1,224 MSM who inject drugs) received a diagnosis of HIV/AIDS,
accounting for 68% of all men and 49% of all people receiving an HIV/AIDS diagnosis
that year.
Race/ethnicity of MSM living with HIV/AIDS at the end of 2003
(total no. = 181,206)
(Ed. From the available tables we find that white gays predominate, which
suggests that ethnicity can protect against gay-related diseases, by socially
preventing men in those cultures from considering homosexuality as an
‘alternative’. The same kind of safety net appears to operate in the matter of
drug injection; see below).
Risk Factors and Barriers to Prevention
Sexual Risk Factors
Sexual risk factors account for most HIV infections in MSM. These
factors include unprotected sex and sexually transmitted diseases
(STDs).
 Not using a condom during anal sex with someone other than a primary
partner of known HIV status continues to be a significant threat to the
health of MSM. Not all the reasons for an apparent increase in
unprotected anal intercourse are known, but research points to the
following factors: improvements in HIV treatment, substance use,
complex sexual decision making, seeking sex partners on the Internet,
and failure to maintain prevention practices. (Ed. Though condoms
are not altogether effective anyway)
 STDs, which increase the risk for HIV infection, remain an issue
for MSM. According to the Gonococcal Isolate Surveillance Project,
the proportion of positive test results for gonorrhea among MSM
increased from 4% in 1988 to 19.6% in 2003. Rates of syphilis
among MSM have increased in some urban areas, including San
Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Seattle. In the 9 US. cities
participating in the MSM Prevalence Monitoring Project, STDs and HIV
positivity varied by race and ethnicity but tended to be highest among
African American MSM [6]. In addition to increasing susceptibility to
HIV, STDs are markers for high-risk sexual practices that can
transmit HIV, making increases in STD rates a cause for concern.
84
Substance Use
The use of alcohol and illegal drugs continues to be prevalent
among some MSM and is linked to HIV and STD risk. Substance use can
increase the risk of HIV transmission through the tendency toward risky
sexual behaviors while under the influence and through sharing needles or
other injection equipment.
Reports of increased use of the stimulant drug methamphetamine
across the country have raised public health concerns because
methamphetamine use has been associated both with sexual risk behaviors
for HIV and STDs and sharing injection equipment when the drug is injected.
Methamphetamine and other ‘party’ drugs (such as ecstasy, ketamine, and
GHP [gamma hydroxybutyrate]) may be used to decrease social inhibitions
and enhance sexual experiences. These drugs, along with alcohol and nitrate
inhalants (“poppers”), have been associated with risky sexual practices
among MSM.
Complacency about Risk
Almost 25 years into the HIV epidemic, there is evidence of an
underestimation of risk, of difficulty in maintaining safer sexual practices, and
of a need to sustain prevention efforts for each generation of young gay and
bisexual men.
 The success of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) may
have had the unintended consequence of increasing some MSM’s
risk behaviors. Some research
 Long-term efforts to maintain safer sexual practices present a
significant challenge. A 4-city study indicates that years of exposure to
prevention messages and long-term efforts to maintain safer sexual
practices may play a role in the decision of HIV-positive MSM to
engage in unprotected anal intercourse.
 The rates of risky behaviors are higher among young MSM than
among older MSM. Not having seen firsthand the toll of AIDS,
young MSM may be less motivated to practice safer sex.
MSM Who Are HIV-Positive
HAART has enabled MSM who are infected with HIV to live longer—an
undeniably positive outcome of new treatments. However, HAART’s
success means there are more MSM living with HIV who can potentially
transmit the virus to their sex partners. This emphasizes the importance of
prevention efforts focused on those who are living with HIV.
Although many MSM reduce risk behaviors after learning that they
have HIV, most remain sexually active. Most MSM with HIV believe that they
have a personal responsibility to protect others from HIV, but some engage
in high-risk sexual practices that may result in others’ contracting HIV.
Some interventions for persons living with HIV have been shown to be
effective. More prevention efforts need to be directed to this group. (Ed. More
pertinently, they must stop homosexual behaviour altogether – the only
genuine answer! Forget ‘prevention’ and costly programs!)
85
The Internet
During the past decade, the Internet has created new
opportunities for MSM to meet sex partners. Internet users can
anonymously find partners with similar sexual interests without having
to leave their residence or having to risk face-to-face rejection if the
behaviours they seek are not consistent with safer sex.
The Internet may also normalize certain risky behaviors by
making others aware of these behaviors and creating new connections
between the men who engage in them. In contrast, the Internet is a
potentially powerful tool for use with interventions. (Ed. Note that all these are
quotes amongst gays and not just my own opinions).
Social Discrimination and Cultural Issues
MSM are members of all communities, all races and ethnicities, and all
strata of society. To reduce the rate of HIV infection, prevention efforts must
be designed with respect for the many differences among MSM and with
recognition of the discrimination against MSM and persons infected with HIV
in many parts of the country.
Social and economic factors, including racism, homophobia, poverty,
and lack of access to health care, are barriers to receiving HIV prevention
services, particularly for MSM of minority races or ethnicities. Indeed, African
American and Hispanic men are more likely than white men to be given a
diagnosis of HIV infection in the late stages of infection, often when they
already have AIDS.
(Ed. This is ridiculous. Gays cannot blame the rest of society because
they contract HIV! It is contracted by indulging in gay sexual behaviour, in
spite of having detailed knowledge of AIDS available. Nor can one blame
supposed ‘homophobia’. HIV prevention, bluntly, is non-sex with men who
have had sex with other men! This is blatantly obvious, but ignored).
 Stigma associated with homosexuality may inhibit some men from
identifying themselves as gay or bisexual, despite having sex with other
men. These men may miss prevention and health messages directed
to openly gay men. (This is sheer speculation and tries to dismiss the
idea that gay men do not know the safety issues. It is significant that
gays do not contemplate the possibility that society at large stigmatises
behaviour that is thought to be anti-social, or unhealthy, or against
religious mores. That is, their own behaviour produces antagonism, not
‘homophobia’.)
 African American and Hispanic MSM are less likely than white MSM to
live in gay neighborhoods. Therefore, prevention programs directed to
gay neighbourhoods may not reach these MSM.
 For Hispanic MSM, unique cultural factors may discourage openness
about homosexuality: machismo, the high value placed on masculinity;
simpatia, the importance of smooth, nonconfrontational relationships;
and familismo, the importance of a close relationship with one’s family .
 Although Asians/Pacific Islanders and American Indians/Alaska Natives
accounted for less than 2% of the AIDS cases in MSM reported
nationally between 1989 and 1998, these groups accounted for
noteworthy proportions of cases in certain metropolitan areas. Also,
HIV among American Indians/Alaska Natives may be underestimated
86
because of the underrecognition of American Indians/Alaska Natives as
a race/ethnicity in surveillance systems.
Concurrent Psychosocial Problems
Depression, childhood sexual abuse, using more than one drug, and
partner violence, have been shown to increase high-risk sexual behaviours.
Further research has shown that the combined effects of these problems may
be greater than their individual effects. Therefore, MSM with more than one of
these problems may be at higher risk for HIV infection.
The emergence of this type of research, which shows the interaction
and additive effect of various psychosocial problems, will result in more
refined prevention efforts. (Ed. Even so, gays choose their sexual objects and
cannot claim ignorance or inability to reject certain activities).
MSM as a group continue to be most affected by HIV and AIDS.
 Healthy Relationships, which helps develop the skills and self-efficacy
of people living with HIV/AIDS
 Peers Reaching Out and Modeling Intervention Strategies (PROMISE),
which uses peer advocates (including men who do not identify
themselves as gay) to help people adopt practices to reduce or
eliminate risk for HIV infection
Last Updated: July 25, 2005
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention
AIDS and Young Men in UK
“Homosexual men remain the group at the greatest risk of getting
infected with HIV in the UK … Estimation of current HIV incidence rate among
men who have sex with men is difficult… the great majority of new infections
(for UK residents) will, however, have been acquired in the UK, and there are
indications of rises in behaviours associated with increased risk among men
who have sex with men in the UK.” (52).
The same is also happening everywhere else, as boys and young men,
recruited into homosexuality by predating older homosexuals, and the
internet, enter fully into the gay scene without caution. They have, in effect,
stamped “give me AIDS” across their foreheads!
The report from which the above quote was taken then goes on to
make excuses for the rise in HIV infections, and tries to reject the idea that the
rise is caused by a very simple fact, gay sex. It adds: “evidence suggests
that… gay men have been most sensitive and responsive in regard to safersex promotion, and condoms are widely and properly used.”
Why, then, is there a rise? Reports show that gays are abandoning all
sense of shame and caution by engaging in orgies and other nasty sexual
habits. When the media first told us gays were now the most responsible of
groups to apply safer-sex rules, and were to be applauded, I could have died
with laughter! It was gays who gave us AIDS in the first place!
Are we to thank murderers for not killing us, though they have already
killed thousands? This is great gay propaganda, but it has no shred of truth.
87
Yes, gays were responsive at first. After all, their ‘lovers’ were dying like flies!
It was just an initial knee-jerk, after which, as usual, ‘anything goes’.
The report also says that gay young men might feel ‘uncomfortable’
about purchasing condoms, and so on. In other words, they are not guilty of
HIV spread to themselves or to others, but are portrayed as ‘victims’! For
goodness sake, gays should not talk so much drivel!
Any person of any age is quite capable of saying ‘no’. Gays who say
otherwise are liars, or, they are mentally unbalanced and unable to choose
sexual experiences. Every person who indulges in a sexual activity (apart
from obvious victims of crimes like rape and paedophilia) does so by choice,
even a woman who performs sex just to keep her husband quiet!
It is about time gays really took responsibility for their actions. HIV and
AIDS in gays are self-inflicted conditions; gays are not ‘victims’, but willing sex
addicts who have a total disregard for both morality and the consequences of
their unsafe actions. They certainly couldn’t care less about the rest of society!
Are Chinese Ignorant – or Savvy?
Very often I wonder about the sexual preferences of those who write on
HIV and AIDS in a favourable light. A report from the U.S. Embassy in Beijing
(April 1997), says that Chinese gays do not know how to protect themselves
against HIV and AIDS because they are repressed. What a crass lie!
It is fact that to become homosexual (male or female), the person has
to cross a taboo line. Gays (here, ‘gay’ is used to refer to men and women)
deliberate when and how to make their first gay contact. Then, they deliberate
how and when to have their first gay sexual experience, usually amidst great
internal anxiety and proper shame. AIDS facts are well-known.
So, to suggest that gay men do not know how to protect themselves is
stretching credulity too far. Gays know from the outset that their behaviour is
wrong. That is why gays hide their identity for so long. (It is another part of the
gay agenda to make themselves out to be ‘victims’ who need help – money,
medical, legal, etc).
The Chinese are not, then, ignorant. Like all other gays, Chinese gays
enter into their relationships with deliberation, choosing to do what is
unnatural and immoral. To say they are somehow ‘surprised’ by any sexual
diseases they get, is, well, childish. Even if the first few with AIDS did not
know how they contracted the disease, the rest would very quickly become
aware! They know how they become ill. They also know that they ought to
stop what they do, not just use condoms!
Sadly, China is slowly relaxing its social disapproval of homosexuality
and gays are becoming more open about their existence. Are gays trying to
tell us that the growth of AIDS is not coincidental with the growth in gay
propaganda that produces a false social approbation? In most of China gays
face “contempt from the public”. In the Embassy report this is presented as
somehow wrong, so I can only conclude that the report’s writer is gay.
Though the total number of HIV and AIDS cases in China is presently
small, “many… of the… infected people are male homosexuals.” The writer
inadvertently points to the fact that homosexuality is the cause of AIDS, when
he says, “…while people familiar with the U.S. experience of HIV/AIDS might
well expect to see HIV emerge among Chinese men who have sex with
men…” HIV, then, is to be expected amongst gay men as part of the ‘deal’.
88
It should be noted that HIV/AIDS levels are very low compared to the
rest of the world. It is starkly obvious that this is because the social ethos does
not allow homosexuality to thrive easily, because of a stern disapproval.
Reader, this disapproval has so far saved the Chinese people from the full
horrors of HIV/AIDS and uninhibited homosexual lifestyles!
Once the Chinese allow total freedom for gays to operate, HIV/AIDS
levels will increase dramatically. I say this as a prediction. Keep it in mind,
because there is no way homosexuals can later say I was wrong! The rise will
prove my point – gay is unsafe/unnatural. Remember, watch for it happening.
Is Compassion Justified?
Constantly, there is a call for ‘compassion’ for gays with AIDS. This is
yet another success story for gay activists and their agenda. How can we
show compassion for people who deliberately infect themselves and others;
who indulge in actions that are highly immoral; who openly vow to destroy
people of faith (e.g. Christians); who openly tell us they are out to seduce our
children, and who use fascist techniques to put people down by law?
Their behaviour could easily take the lives of my family, or yours, in
certain non-gay circumstances (just as happened to hapless haemophiliacs
before the link with ‘bad blood’ was discovered). Are we to show compassion
for such a vulgar disregard for life? I don’t think so.
And where is blame? In all the literature, though there is allusion to
gays as the source of HIV and AIDS, no mention is made of actual blame! An
arsonist who kills by fire is taken to court and incarcerated. A rapist who kills
in the enactment of his heinous crime is incarcerated (or put to death in some
countries or states). A chef who infects customers with salmonella is
prosecuted. A local council is sued if a sidewalk slab is unsafe and someone
breaks a leg.
Gays are to blame for the pandemic raging around the whole
world, but who is blaming them? Why are they not being taken to task?
(Remember, some leading gays say this themselves!). If we have to pay for
their treatments with our tax monies, we should at least expect that gay
perpetrators of ‘hate crimes’ (e.g. spreading HIV) are blamed and given legal
penalties. At the very least, they should pay for their own treatments.
I would have no problem giving help to gays who turn their backs on
their immorality, but to give help to gays who could not care less who they
infect, or that they are themselves infected? Such a response is itself immoral
and unethical. Without the element of blame and guilt, all talk of help is
shameful and unwarranted. If Uganda and similar African countries tell those
with AIDS that theirs is a moral problem, why can’t countries in the west?
If I were presented with a gay with AIDS and asked to care for him in a
health setting, I would certainly do so, without qualm. But, not if that man
continued in his gay lifestyle whilst still accepting treatment. The same applies
to men who smoke to such an extent that they have heart attacks. If they then
need intensive care, but continue to smoke, we would rebuke him strongly,
and point out that effective care relies on his cessation of smoking.
Doctors who know that a patient is continuing in certain habits (such as
smoking) are now thinking of refusing further treatments. Why, then, is this
same logic not applied to gay AIDS patients? It simply does not make sense
to ignore such a vital factor that can save lives.
89
Stigma – Is It Justified?
“In the early days of the epidemic in North America, HIV/AIDS mostly
affected gay men. As a result there has been an enduring association
between the stigma of HIV/AIDS and the stigma of homosexuality.” (53).
Naturally, this statement was made by a pro-gay writer. His use of the words
‘mostly affected’ is deliberately wrong; it should read ‘only affected’.
If the data is the same as from the UK, ALL of the HIV/AIDS cases
were initially amongst gay men, not just ‘mostly’! Gay men introduced AIDS to
the west (and other countries in the world). Why is it wrong to link the two?
Even gays admit AIDS is their fault! And if men bring about such awful
disaster to the whole world, why is it said that they suffer ‘stigma’ as though it
ought not to exist? Gays are perpetrators, not ‘victims’. Open your eyes!
As a driver, if I kill a child whilst driving my car under the influence of
drink, or simply because I was driving furiously, I will receive a stigma. Do you
not think the stigma is justified? Then, why suggest that the stigma of being
gay, or of having AIDS, is somehow unwarranted?
In the same prejudiced article, in which heterophobia is expressed, we
are told that even if gays “stopped getting HIV altogether” the same
‘homophobic reactions’ would still occur. Yes, that is correct, because, with or
without AIDS, the gay lifestyle is still immoral, tasteless, and significantly
unsafe. But to suggest that all people with HIV will suffer ‘homophobic
reactions’ is farcical propaganda casting an engineered projection into the
future! They are words used to bring about ‘protection’ where no abuse exists.
The ‘reactions’ (when they rarely occur) we see today are carefully
choreographed by gay activists, who will milk the most innocuous situations
so that they are made to look like Hitler on the rampage! A police officer gave
me an example a few days ago: a gay put in an official complaint because a
youth looked sideways at him and muttered ‘queer’ before moving off. That
was supposedly a ‘hate crime’!
Come off it. Where is sense in all this? For a man to be called ‘queer’ in
the street, he must somehow have looked like what he was (which often
angers ordinary males, who see it as an insult to their manhood). But, to take
police action over a quiet muttering by one youth is going too far.
The public knows that a wife whose husband has infected her without
her knowledge of his gayness, is completely innocent and deserving of fullest
sympathy. To say that she will suffer ‘homophobic reaction’ is a blatant lie and
shameful propaganda. The obvious aim is to try to lump together everyone
who has AIDS, so that those who are gay escape moral judgement. I
sometimes wonder just how stupid gay activists think people are!
They then go on to moan about gays being stigmatised because they
have HIV. Why not? They contracted the disease by unnatural sexual unions!
Then, by very unsubtle means, the writer goes on to say it is wrong to blame
gays for their illness and expect them to pay for their own treatments. Why is
that? They deliberately contracted HIV, after all, so let them pay.
In some respects, it is hard not to laugh at such inane gay material.
These reports are like first attempts at writing essays… plenty of errors, but
with serious intent! Surely, only those already brainwashed by gay
propaganda will fail to see the glaringly massive gaps in its logic and truth? Or
maybe they, too, have had their brains sucked-out by aliens.
90
Not To Blame?
Up to 70% of all male prisoners in Zimbabwean prisons are involved in
homosexuality, where the HIV rate is running at 60%. (54). This is in a country
with 3,000 AIDS deaths every week, making it the most affected country in the
world!
Look hard at this fact. Critics are trying to blame ‘overcrowding of
prisons’ for the AIDS situation. My response is a genuine, ‘Eh??’
Evolutionists constantly talk blandly on TV about this or that animal
suddenly sprouting wings, or legs, and some that ‘somehow’ grew into human
beings. They get the same response from me, ‘Eh??’ because the same thing
is missing, truth and logic!
What do overcrowded prisons have to do with incidence of AIDS? If the
report said that overcrowding led to, say, TB, I could understand it. But AIDS?
Eh??
To get AIDS a male prisoner indulges in gay sex. That is a deliberate
choice. We cannot blame his urgent need to have sex, only his intemperate
desires leading to a stupid action. It took a deliberate choice to act sexually
with another man. In a country that leads the world in AIDS deaths, such a
choice is infernally crass! Yes, the prisoners who get AIDS in this manner are
to blame, not overcrowding.
Summation
UK Prof Stephen Wright made a big show of being correct, by saying
that ‘X’ did not know the facts. My own research suggests that ‘X’ knows far
more than Prof Wright does! I have spent time to place large amounts of
actual data (from gay, pro-gay, and also unbiased sources) in these pages for
this very reason.
There can be no doubt that between them these sources show not just
that gays are open to HIV, AIDS, and hepatitis, but also to STD’s, four
particular kinds of rare cancer (added to those they already contract), and a
growing number of other diseases, plus a coming ‘super-strain HIV’. Gays are
‘open’ to these things because they choose to be! I believe these evidences
obliterate Prof Wright’s (and other pro-gays’) claim to homosexuality (including
lesbianism) being ‘healthy’. I have even seen a report (which I cannot source
at this time) that gays generally have a lowered life-span (possibly by up to 20
years!) compared to their heterosexual counterparts.
There is a ’cross-over’ point, also, because homosexuals (male and
female) change their preferences, sometimes many times (or permanently),
and this is a very real cause for concern. This is how ‘innocent parties’
contract HIV, etc. It also shows that there is no such thing as ‘homosexual’,
only people who decide on this or that form of sexual experience at any given
time. It is all a choice.
As for homosexuality being ‘natural’… anatomy, physiology and
emotional facts all dismiss this claim out of hand. Homosexuality, whether
male or female, is sterile, both literally and socially. I have said it before - if we
extend the statement to its obvious conclusion, if all men only had sex with
men and women only with women, within a generation the whole world would
die out! In which way, then, can such relationships be ‘natural’ or a legitimate
‘alternative’?
91
The answer to this is found not in the ever-changing rules of society but
in true science, including theology (the latter I have deliberately avoided in this
chapter).
If we do not include theology, then, it makes no difference to the
argument that homosexuality is a personal choice, with no biological agent to
blame. Apart from this idea of choice, a huge burden is placed upon society,
as taxation is used to fund AIDS and HIV treatments, and other gay-related
diseases and pro-gay groups. It is highly questionable to fund self-inflicted
disease, by either treatment or legal support; it becomes highly unethical
when such monies are siphoned away from legitimate treatments, e.g. elderly
care, etc.
It is pointless to argue against this, for surgeons and consultants
already distinguish those who are ‘innocent’ in their diseases and those who
refuse to reject life-threatening activities. These can be anything from bungee
jumping to motor racing, smoking to heavy drinking or drug-taking. Ordinary
people know I am making sense.
Laws, too, are being misused to protect a lifestyle and personal
choices. Why should the law (and the money it costs western countries to
devise, write, and maintain it) be used for this purpose? Personal choice is a
matter for the individual, unless they impinge upon the rest of society. In the
case of homosexuality, personal choices do just this, and the rest of society
has to pay for what is a very small-number sexual activity.
Readers should note that as homosexuality is a choice, it is
qualitatively no different from other non-acceptable sexual activities, including
paedophilia or bestiality, for example. (The term ‘minority’ is a misnomer. It is
used by gays in a strategic attempt to convince governments that they need
protection. There is no ‘gay minority’. How can there be, when those who
commit homosexuality change back to heterosexuality, once, twice, more, and
even permanently?).
Very clearly, the facts speak for themselves: homosexuality is not
natural, not safe, and it endangers society. Homosexuality is a dirty coat that
needs to be thrown in the trash can.
Safety First
A man and his friend were racing their cars around urban streets, when
one of them veered off the road and hit a child on the sidewalk. The child died.
The driver was in a panic and dragged the child into the middle of the road.
He got away with it by saying the child ran out into the road.
But the driver was unbalanced and he decided he enjoyed killing. So,
he got a growing number if similar maniacs to follow his example and they
went out every day and did the same thing, watching carefully to see if there
were any witnesses, before veering off the road and killing kids.
In the end, the local authorities put a curfew on all the children. But the
driver found ways to entice the kids out to the sidewalk and killed them.
Because there were now so many of these insane drivers around, each child
was killed by a different person.
The death toll rose so much the authorities started to take parents to
court, and imprisoned them. It had to be their fault! Not one official bothered to
check the facts or to investigate the death scenes.
92
Chapter 5
Causes of Behaviour
”We tend to see ourselves as the authors of an act
primarily when we have experienced relevant
thoughts about the act at an appropriate interval in
advance.”
‘People “cause themselves to behave”. ’
“The main thing is to talk about gayness until the
issue becomes thoroughly tiresome…If you can get
the (straight public) to think homosexuality is just
another thing…meriting no more than a shrug of
the shoulders…then your battle for legal and social
rights is virtually won.”
‘What is the next step, once gay acceptance has
been achieved? Then comes the really bad stuff!
“First you get the foot in the door, by being as
similar as possible; then, and only then – when
your one little difference (sexual orientation) is
finally accepted – can you start dragging in your
other peculiarities, one by one.” ’
“Identifying homosexual behaviour as a choice
must clearly be avoided as ‘this would…open a can
of worms labelled moral choice and sin, and give
the religious right intransigents a stick to beat us
with’.”
“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. Noone is born gay. The idea is ridiculous.
Homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn
trait.” (a lesbian quote)
‘Kirk and Madsen further emphasised the need to
cover up male promiscuity and the predation
toward youth and boys, and promote a picture of
“faultless victims of bigotry”.’
Earlier, we looked at the fictitious claim that genes or some other
mysterious brain element can cause people to be gay. I have shown that no
gene or any other tiny scrap of brain tissue can cause anyone to actually do
93
something, unless they are brain damaged/mentally ill. So, why do gays
indulge in such high-risk immorality? They do it because they are sex addicts.
Smoking Gene
After the success of DNA researches, studies have gone into frenzied
overdrive to find genes that supposedly ‘cause’ us to smoke, drink, eat,
become criminals, be violent. You name it and someone, somewhere, is
being funded from public monies to ‘find’ a gene to explain everything! There
is even research claiming that people who shop too much are forced to do so
by their genes!! For goodness sake! It reminds me of ancient days when
alchemists devised wondrous but useless experiments. We seem to be going
backwards in intellectual pursuits.
Just one newspaper line says it all: “A single gene could be responsible
for determining how easily people become addicted to smoking…” (55). Note
the vital words, ‘could be’ (not ‘is’)! In same manner a single gene ‘could be’
responsible for pigs that fly.
And, “infidelity (is) linked to genetic make-up”. And, “Mother’s genetics
could influence sexual orientation”. You name it and there must be a gene for
it! I wonder if there’s a gene for making scientists do naff research? I think
maybe Homer Simpson could do better!
In ‘Dispelling Gay Genes’, we note that as homosexuality is a
sterile relationship, including reproduction, the ‘gay gene’ cannot be
passed on. Simple really. (56). In effect, if being gay is genetic, then all
gays would die out within a generation, because gay is sterile!
The commentator, referring to this fact and speaking from a bioethical
stance, says: “the researchers… are not arguing for a blunt and callous
genetic determination of homosexuality. Being more nuanced and reflective,
they stress that they think they have only explained ‘20% of the pattern’, and
speculate the ‘remaining 80% could perhaps be due to formulative
experiences during early life or even childhood’. We strongly believe that this
set of genes influences sexual expression, but they don’t determine it.”
Look at that carefully, for it supports earlier statements, that genes do
not determine our behaviour. The rest of the claims use words like ‘they think’,
‘speculate’, ‘could perhaps’, ‘believe’, and so on. The words of duff research.
However, the summary is that genes do not cause homosexual behaviour!
Just as genes do not ‘cause’ a woman to be unfaithful to her husband!
The Basic Statement
What are researchers trying to say, and why? They are basing their
assumptions on a mechanical universe, one that tries to dispense with the
idea of responsibility and/or God, or, at the very least, ordinary morality. To
them, persons are programmable machines. The first hurdle they must jump
over can never be jumped over, because they have to firstly prove that their
philosophical ideal is true.
If they can prove that the universe is just a bunch of mechanical nuts
and bolts (ignoring the question, “how did the nuts and bolts get there?”), then
they can go on to say that the human being is just a machine whose genes
determine, well, everything they do. (Gays who insist on this should reflect on
the implications, for if they ‘cannot help’ being gay, then neither can Christians
‘help’ being Christians! So why attack them and use law against them?)
94
In reality, there is no proof for an uncreated universe. Christians cannot
scientifically prove God made the universe, even though we can point to
evidences that support the statement. But, neither can science disprove God,
or prove non-God ideas of beginnings! Therefore, they have no more right to
express their desired conclusions than anyone else.
Evidence and Proof
An ‘evidence’ is anything that appears to point in a particular direction
or toward a particular goal. ‘Proof’ is a final, substantiated, and fixed, position
in which the evidences have all been shown to be correct, and there is no
other possible interpretation of the evidences. (As far as the scientist knows to
that point). In science, a true researcher will try his very best to ‘falsify’ his
scientific hypothesis, to show that his evidences do not point to a particular
conclusion. Just one contrary result invalidates his ideas.
However, one cannot deduce ‘proof’ unless the experiments can be
repeated or reproduced (replicated). How do you reproduce the making of a
universe? How do you reproduce the making of a human being from nothing,
using just laboratory equipment? I mean from scratch, not from pre-existing
materials such as eggs. It cannot be done. And that is why, by the way,
evolution is a non-starter. Evolution is not even a theory. It is just a very poor
hypothesis. And even that title is charitable.
What this means is that scientists can ‘speculate’ until the cows come
home, but speculation does not make an hypothesis, let alone a theory, or
establish ‘fact’. Those involved in genetic research trying to find a gene that
‘causes’ certain behaviours, are, then, wasting their time.
They can certainly ‘prove’ a gene’s existence in the body; or at least
the structure and locations they have already found. But, once they say a
gene does this or that, they enter the realm of speculation, because they
cannot prove beyond all doubt that the gene only does this or that, or only that
gene does so-and-so, or even that the gene does what they think it does.
As for behaviour, there is no mechanism at all by which a researcher
can show a link between what a gene is and does, and a person’s behaviour.
I challenge any researcher to prove such links. So far, they have failed, time
and again. Yet foolish politicians and lawmakers give total support to gays on
these bases… no proofs and no logical or known reasons! It is irrational.
The Mind
What does the mind do? We cannot say for certain. We do not even
know where the mind is! And we don’t know if the ‘mind’ is ‘the brain’, or if it is
something entirely different, or even ‘outside’ what is physically known.
‘Brain’ is an element producing chemicals and certain actions of the
body, such as movement, sight, and so on. But ‘mind’? What is it? Where is
it? Is it exactly the same as ‘soul’? What does it do that is distinct from the
physical brain? We cannot tell. Nobody can! Are thoughts ‘in’ the brain, or
somehow ‘outside’ it? If thoughts and mind cannot be located, how can any
researcher claim to have found a link between a gene and a behaviour? It is
not possible!
Why is this? Because our behaviour is not just a product of our physical
brain. Other things are involved: how we are brought up (nurture), how we
respond to what happens (environment/nature), why we think as we do, who
95
influences us, mood, desire, etc. But, the prompt to actual action, our
behaviour, is the result of a personal choice. How we get to ‘choose that
choice’ is another thing altogether.
What do I mean? For illustrative purposes, look at stealing:
A man goes into a shop to get a newspaper. He steals it. Does he steal
because of his genes? No. He stole the newspaper because he did not want
to pay for it. He thought it was a challenge. He has been brought up in a
family of thieves. He thinks it is okay because the value is small. He has no
money and desperately needs certain information. He hates the shop-keeper
and ‘wants to have one over on him’. Of course, he could also steal because
he is brain-damaged. Really, the possible ‘causes’ are endless.
But, are they the decisive causes? No, they are not. They are
secondary causes, not primary causes. What is a primary cause? The primary
cause is his own decision to steal. (We can go back even further than that and
ask what causes the primary decision? Christians know!)
No man can be forced by any part of his brain to steal. Men have
starved rather than steal food. So they certainly would not steal a newspaper.
Others do steal, on a regular basis. Some steal only once and are too scared
to do it again. Why do some steal and some do not? Does it mean that some
are unable to steal? No, all men can do all things that any other man does,
including sexual perversions like homosexuality. And, much as some of you
might hate it, this is what the Bible says about man, too!
No matter what outwardly ‘causes’ us to do anything, it is the inward
impetus that is important. The actual choice to do it. And what about choices
that harm us? It appears to be abnormal to choose an outcome that harms us.
So, why do it? The answer is that men and women can be perverse. They can
deliberately choose what is bad for them, or even what will kill them. What
else is smoking? Or drug-taking? Or alcohol abuse? Or homosexuality?
We have seen that a growing number of gays are deliberately engaging
in sex orgies with the intent to contract HIV!! It is the natural end result of their
lifestyle choice and reliance on an habitual addiction. And it is evidence of
being unbalanced. They cannot go any further in that choice. It is the ultimate
‘thrill’ of being gay. They say this themselves. So, when gays tell me they
would not deliberately choose what will harm them (e.g. their lifestyle) I just
smile and shake my head. Big time or hardly noticeable, gay is not a rational
choice and not normal.
Choosing Obliteration
Millions in the world die of drug dependence. They die not because
they cannot help it, but because they choose to stick a needle in their arm. To
do this they must first choose to get a needle, and the drug, and the syringe.
They must choose to assemble the components. They must choose to put the
liquid into the syringe. They must choose to stick the needle into their flesh.
They must choose to depress the plunger. And they choose to do it all over
again next time, if they are still alive. In anyone’s language such behaviour is
perverse and stupid.
Yes, after much use they will develop a physical dependence, but this
is not what causes death. Even if we have a dependency, we must still make
a choice to continue in that habit, and to stick needles in our body.
96
The only reason homosexuality is not openly called ‘perverse’ today is
that most people have been brainwashed by gay propaganda. A male and a
female are literally designed to ‘fit’ together. A man with a man are not. A
woman with a woman are not. Even with nuts and bolts, one part is called
male and the other part is called female! There is a good reason for that, or
does the simple logic escape you? In other words, homosexuality, whether
male or female, is not natural. Biologically, it is not natural.
If we choose to do what is not natural, then it is a ‘perversion’ of what is
meant to be. Again, does this logic escape you? If it does, it can only be
because you refuse to face reality and reject what is painfully obvious. Or,
your brain has been sucked-out by aliens.
I said it earlier, if couples were all male, or all female, the whole world
would die out in a generation! In what way is that natural? Is it natural to
indulge in same sex relationships and then insist on the fruit of heterosexual
relationships, i.e. children, when same sex relationships are biologically
sterile? Of course not. Sheer logic says so! (So do some lesbians). But logic is
not a gay strong point. It is usually glossed over with all kinds of nonsense, a
behaviour consistent with lying to oneself and childishness. Above all else,
homosexual behaviour is self-deceived and deceptive.
Gay insistence on parenthood is like two dead bodies pretending, in a
Frankenstein way, to be alive by ‘borrowing’ life from another source! And
even those who use their own sperm or eggs must ‘borrow’ from someone
else to complete the task, when, all along, their ability to reproduce is already
inbuilt, if they choose to be natural! Why re-invent the wheel? It all comes
down to choices. In this case, perverse ones. It is perverse to enter into
lengthy and complicated procedures when a natural one is already inbuilt.
Oppositional Defiant Disorder is what psychiatrists call persistent bad
behaviour in children, many of whom become anti-social. The causes are said
to be the environment or/and something within the child. Inner causes can be
something like epilepsy, brain damage, etc. Experts admit it can be ‘difficult’ to
establish any one cause. (57)
In truth, most children who are classified as ‘behavioural’ are just being
bad! It is unfashionable to speak of children being naughty or bad, but it is
what happens in a society where restraints are removed. Children who are
allowed freedom to do what is bad will inevitably continue along that path and
proliferate their misdeeds.
And this is why homosexuality is increasing. Not because of genetic
predisposition, but because more people are deliberately choosing what is
perverse. Widespread availability of pornography gives people an endless
variety of sexual objects to choose from. They can even be ‘offered’ without
invitation…
A short while ago I was looking at websites called ‘blogs’ to find
information for this book. One ‘blog’ search engine suddenly ‘offered’ me
names of women (and men) in my own area for sex, though there was no
indication at the top of the page to warn me!! Anyone wanting to act immorally
would jump at the chance, and they do, according to gays themselves.
Also, perverse choices are treated as ordinary subject matter in films,
TV, magazines, and so on. Gay-manipulated media ‘spread the news’ of gay
acceptability, thus softening the public to receive all kinds of perversity. But,
no gay media mogul will present the full facts, including the result of gay
97
promiscuity, such as AIDS and other diseases, paedophilia, fascism, loss of
free speech for heterosexuals, etc.
Gays protest about censorship, but it is gay media personnel who
censor! They choose what others may watch or hear. Those who watch and
hear can only ‘choose’ between pre-chosen items. Therefore, their choices
are not genuine results of free choice, but of propaganda. This all happens
because homosexuality is a personal choice, not genetic.
(Evidence from animal-behaviour experiments are only valid if we
assume man is an animal. Also, animals do not act as we do, and their
chemical make-up is different, etc. At the most, results of animal experiments
can only suggest a remote casual link, not a causal one).
Natural Justice
A research charity, Natural Justice (with Oxford University), claims that
supplementing diet with vitamins, minerals, and fatty acids, can reduce crime.
In a randomised controlled trial in a prison population, anti-social behaviour
was said to be reduced by one-third. (58)
The Natural Justice (NJ) organisation says this about research: “On the
basis that information is only as good as the means used to obtain it, it should
also be appreciated that the majority of the research into offending behaviour
focuses on social factors, and these are generally investigated in a way where
only correlations have been established.” (58)
Correlation and Causation
It continues, “Correlation is not the same as causation. Correlation
means there is some form of connection. To prove a causal connection you
have to do a very careful experiment that can control all other explanations,
and such designs hardly exist in criminal justice research because they are so
difficult to do with social factors. Thus, we really have limited knowledge of the
causes of crime or antisocial behaviour, but we have many correlations.”
Remember I said there were many evidences but no proof? This is
another way of putting it. NJ are saying that because of the many factors
involved in social behaviour, it is difficult to prove what causes it. Now apply
that to the antisocial behaviour known as homosexuality. Even if you prefer
not to say it is ‘antisocial’ the same principles apply.
Referring to its suggestion that nutrition affects behaviour, NJ adds,
“We are not saying that nutrition is the only cause of offending behaviour, but
it has the major advantage that it can readily be tested with real precision…
(But) perhaps the best way of preventing offending is to have a peaceful
mind.”
Superficially this research has nothing to do with being gay, but it is
very important, because it highlights some vital aspects of proper research. It
is true that if your body is not nourished properly, you are less likely to
function adequately. Most inmates of prisons are also drug-takers and heavy
drinkers and are bound to suffer from bad nutrition because of this. They also
have many years experience at being psychologically perverse and
misguided. When nutrition was balanced in the test cases, behaviour
improved. Does this prove that bad nutrition causes bad behaviour? No it
does not, as NJ itself has already admitted. It can have an effect, but it does
not cause the behaviour!
98
There is also the Hawthorne Effect to take into consideration. To
explain this effect in outline: it was found in a factory that when changes were
made to production methods of a special group of workers, they produced
more goods. Even when later changes were to their detriment, productivity
increased! The reason? The results had nothing to do with changes in working
methods; what mattered was that the workers were being treated differently,
and this made them feel special. (Homosexuals today?)
People in prison have a very low self-esteem. They are in prison
because they harmed society and were judged not to be suitable to remain in
society. And they usually maintain their drug habits whilst in prison, as prison
workers admit. Now, suddenly, they are part of a research project! In society
they are treated as a pariah; now, educated people want them to help! Is this
not a repeat of the Hawthorne Effect? Of course it is.
It is true that they will feel better by receiving proper nutrition. That
cannot be denied. One girl, whose life was in a mess with drugs, even restarted her periods when her nutrition was improved. None of that is denied.
But, the overall scheme and its results must be scrutinized.
A Closer Look
Firstly, the population used was a closed one – prison. We must also
take into account that these people were, literally, a ‘control’ group. Nutrition
made them feel better physically and probably mentally. I know that if I do not
eat when I need to, I have headaches and feel sick. If I do not get food when
like this, my thinking is affected, because my blood-sugar is low. But, it does
not cause me to go out and steal, rob a bank, or kick an old lady in the face!
No external factors can make a person commit a crime! And even if
certain physical factors are present, the behaviour is not somehow
acceptable. For example, a person with epilepsy might suffer furore-type
behaviour, when violence erupts during the fit, unknown to the sufferer. In that
case, normal behaviour is interrupted by an ‘electrical storm’ in the brain. The
person is, then, not responsible at the time of the fit. But, this does not make
the behaviour acceptable; medication or even surgery must be used, to
prevent damage to others and to self.
Thus, we must learn to separate causation and results. The epilepsy
caused violence, but the result cannot be accepted on its own merit. It has to
be altered because it is antisocial.
Secondly, the Hawthorne Effect is a very powerful influence,
particularly amongst those who have no social status or acceptance to begin
with. I have seen remarkable results in my own work, when I simply took
notice of a person who has not hitherto experienced any kind of appreciation
or support. This single factor alone is sufficient to bring about changes in
character and behaviour.
Thirdly, unless diagnosed physical problems are present, no person
can claim that his condition causes his behaviour. We have already noted that
there are just too many possible influences in a person’s life. So (posing an
hypothesis, not a fact), even if a person had a gene that predisposed him to
be gay, it does not mean that the predisposition will ‘force’ him (or her) to act
out the gayness.
A man who goes to court for losing his temper might argue that it was
part of his personality, and he cannot help it. But the court might send him to
99
anger-management classes, so that he can learn to control the temper,
whether or not he wishes to attend! Is this a denial of his human rights? No, it
is a rejection of his desire to hit out, and it is a positive prevention of further
harm to others!
Homosexual Imbalance
This is why homosexuality should not be accepted by society. It harms
society as a whole by being sterile (preventing reproduction of the human race
and retaining an imbalance in relationships, leading to unhappiness and even
alcoholism. I note that nearly all homosexuals I have met are heavy drinkers),
by spreading disease (as do heterosexuals of course: the same strictures
should also apply to them), and freedom of speech is harmed or stopped
altogether by gay propaganda.
Remember, correlation is not the same as causation. Go back to
LeVay’s work et al. He thought they were equal, but they are not. Like so
many other (gay and pro-gay) researchers, he tried to build his argument on
correlations (or none at all) and not on causation.
Should we be surprised that so many researchers and scientists are so
blinded? Not really. Homosexuals have been deceiving society (and
themselves) for so many years, it seems to have worked, even amongst those
whose background should enable them to think more clearly. Even then,
nothing can excuse researchers, who should be far more professional.
I am labouring this fact (that no-one can ever establish a causative link
between genes and behaviour), because it is of vital importance to our
understanding of research, and the human condition. Unless we are braindamaged/mentally unbalanced, we ‘do’ social behaviours because we wish to.
Simple as that. The incidents and influences that lead up to the decision may
not be that simple, but the choice to finally do it is very simple indeed.
People “cause themselves to behave”…“the feeling that we consciously
will action - that an act is ours - ordinarily arises whenever conscious
intentions precede behaviour”…”We tend to see ourselves as the authors of
an act primarily when we have experienced relevant thoughts about the act at
an appropriate interval in advance.” (59)
I might be pushed to my limit by the unreasonable behaviour of others.
I can either ignore it, or get it sorted out by legal means, or I can get a gun
and shoot them in the head. Each choice is my own to make. It is true that
sudden shock and instant harm to us can lead to an equally instant response
that might eventually be to our own detriment, but such an incident is very
rare. In the main, we have time to make choices. The choice to act
homosexually is made after a long period of gestation, when murky fantasy is
allowed to take over. The trouble is, governments worldwide actually believe
the fantasy! No proof, just brain’s sucked-out by aliens!
Slaves to Desire
Because sex is the easiest of desires to satisfy, we can see why it is
also the most mused-over. One can think all day of sexual objects and lustful
situations without spending a cent! And because there are plenty of people
conditioned by society’s growing hedonism, there are also plenty of people
who will help satisfy sexual lusts. Some for money and others for their own
pleasures.
100
Gays do not become gay overnight. They think about it for some time.
They mull over gay situations and wonder what they will be like. The fantasies
build-up over time until pressure-cooker level is reached, a point of mental
imbalance. That is when they put their thoughts into action. At every single
step, they have to make a choice, to continue or not, to think or not, to act or
not. That is, their behaviour is a product of their own thoughts and choices. No
genes to blame or to seek solace from. Just sexual thoughts allowed to take
hold. And that is what gays themselves admit to, as we saw earlier.
As for personality, this is never fixed. Personality can change over time,
or even instantly. This is well known in Christianity, for example, as well as in
world religions and even after therapies. Also, personality can change from
bad to good, as well as from good to bad. It is a fallacy to say that a change in
personality is always the sign of mental disturbance!
We can say, though, that when a personality changes ‘downward’ and
deteriorates, it brings with it emotional and other sad defects. This is what I
find amongst gays. When they are together they bolster each other with a
false sense of jocular security. This I why some towns, unfortunately, host
thousands of gays. But alone, things are different. They are unable to tolerate
any kind of opposition to their lifestyle, which proves instability, and they
exhibit plenty of neuroses.
Gays Know We Are Right!
This is found in other areas of instability, too. In one ‘therapy’ class I
participated in as a member of psychiatric staff, I felt that the therapist was
being rather childish. I do not take kindly to running around in my socks
holding cushions, pretending it is therapeutic. So I ‘sat out’ the session.
Eventually, one man came up to me and growled “I’m a black-belt in karate,
and if you don’t join in I’ll throw you through that window!” (He was a blackbelt and he really was angry!).
Anyone who works in a mental hospital will know that such threats can
be very real. I tried to reason with the man and asked him why he felt that
way. His answer was honest and revealing: “Because by not joining in you
make me feel uncomfortable. It makes me doubt the validity of the therapy! So
you must join in, or else!”
This is exactly the kind of thing said to me by irate gays! Is it not
strange that an unbalanced inpatient says the same things as gays? Gays
hate anyone who stands in their way, because it highlights the invalidity of
their lifestyle. Gays know people like me are right! That’s all it is.
Gays cannot function unless they firstly debilitate and destroy all who
oppose them. What does this tell you about the validity of their argument? For
myself, I can accept anyone giving their view in public (so long as it is not
filthy, inviting violence, or attempting to subvert youngsters). My only demand
is for the same freedom of speech.
But, gays do not allow this, because theirs is a fascist agenda
and, above all, rational argument would destroy their basis for
propaganda. (This fact is found in the gay agenda).
Gays know rational argument would destroy every argument they
can put forward. Like good fascists, they can’t win legitimately, so they
just shoot their opponents! ALL citizens, including those who are progay… beware. You will probably be next.
101
Respect?
The aim of homosexuals is to shut up objections and to propagate their
lifestyle. In doing so they will be quiet, so long as they do not come across
opposition. Then, they resort to dubious or fascist/Marxist techniques. This is
what is behind legislation, too. In return for this package of force, repression,
suppression and heterophobia, gays expect those they attack to show
‘respect’. Respect for what exactly?
I respect all gays as human beings. An intelligent examination of the
facts leads me to reject respect for their lifestyle. There is nothing at all they
can do about that, except to get me dismissed from my job on a pretext
(something they do in the UK)!
No homosexual can demand respect. I do not respect anything that
opposes God and the well-being of society. That is my prerogative and right.
My opposition amounts to intelligent discussion, of which public
announcement is part of the process, because gays make everything public.
To deny me this right, gays have to employ bad, vicious, and fascist
excuses. They try to suppress and repress anything and anyone who stands
in their way. In which way is this equitable? In which way does it deserve
respect?
If people wish to follow an homosexual path, that is up to them, but
once they try to force others to follow that same path, they become fascistMarxist and outside societal norms. As a Christian I object to any form of
wrongness, but I do not thereby force my view on others by law or by physical
intimidation. Nor do I try to get gay views suppressed in the media. This is
rather different from the actions of gays and that is why their ideas deserve no
respect. Can gays maintain their lifestyle without fascism? No, they cannot.
The U.S. Secretary of State urged Americans to ‘show respect for
same-sex couples who wished to marry’ (NewsMax.com, 15th June, 2006).
She said “This is an issue that can be debated and can be discussed in our
country with respect for every human being.” Oh Yeah? Anyone who dares to
question the issue, with or without respect, will come in for severe attacks
from gays! Gays don’t want ‘discussion’, they just want their own way.
She was speaking to the Southern Baptist Convention, whose new
president opposes homosexuality. Many U.S. states have banned same-sex
marriage, unlike the puppy-dog country called the UK, where the Prime
Minister obeys every E.U. rule even before it is made law!
What is Ms Rice thinking? That those who flagrantly flout everything
that is moral and decent should be shown ‘respect’? For what? For destroying
lives, spreading disease and attacking everyone who will not accept their way
of life? For destroying freedom of speech? For denying academics freedom of
expression and the right to earn a living? I ask Ms Rice to define what she
means by ‘respect’, when gays do not respect anyone else! If she means we
should respect every person as a created being, that’s fine. But we cannot
respect what we find repugnant!
Gay Behaviourism
By default, gays are behaviourist in thinking. Most just lust after sex,
but they are still behaviourist, nevertheless. Why do I say this? Because the
theory of behaviourism says we can study behaviour scientifically, without
102
recourse to the ‘mind’, mental conditions, or any other non-physical element,
including morality.
In itself, the approach is materialism personified, hence hedonism is
typical of homosexuals as a group (but not of some individuals). Interestingly,
it is this psychological theory that led to extensive use of pharmacology to
control certain behaviours. I have already shown that gays do not face the
logical progression and ramifications of their own claims.
Here, too, the logical progression of their claim to having a genetic or
biological cause for their condition should demand, reasonably, a
pharmacological intervention to control their behaviour! But, they would reject
that, too, whilst still demanding a cause for their gayness. That is, they insist
on one aspect of their theory but cannot countenance the full theory because
it would do their ‘cause’ harm, i.e. stop their behaviour (and save millions of
lives) by imposing drug regimes!
Of course, the failure of researchers to find a genetic cause for
homosexuality drives gays to find other biological causes. In this they are
determined, because without such a fixed cause their claims to being special
and requiring legal protection are groundless, being based as they are on
false theories. Before too long they will run out of all other biological
possibilities. Maybe, then, the cause of homosexuality will be found to be the
smell of roast potatoes, or the moon shining on a mirror. Or, those aliens.
“Self-injurious behaviour… refers to any behaviour than can cause
tissue damage…” (60). Is this not what gays do? What, otherwise, is AIDS?
What are the cancers arising from their activities? What of the multitude of
STD’s? Do they do it because injuring themselves produces betaendorphines, giving pleasure? Or, do they indulge in dangerous sexual
activities (such as anal sex) because of over-arousal leading to self-injury
(deliberate acquisition of HIV)? Or, is it self-stimulatory stereotypic
behaviour… that is, repetitive, ritualistic behaviour providing sensory
stimulation? Certainly, homosexuals seem unwilling, by their own repetitive
behaviour and desires, to resist continuous sexual encounters, even when
death is the sure result.
Social theorists suggest possible reasons for these destructive
behaviours. For example, a need to gain attention, or to avoid a task or path
of action, i.e. morality and avoidance of deviant behaviour. The answer to
behaviourist problems is conditioning, to reduce and get rid of a behaviour.
But, this wouldn’t help gays, because their behaviour is not just an accrual of
bad choices, it is reflective of their inner desires, which are extreme.
Homosexuality is obsessive-compulsive in character, for gays cannot
stop thinking of their sexual choices. They go a stage further, by inventing a
‘gay community’ to support and encourage their lifestyle. It is like a morbidly
fat person buying a shop so that he can sell himself food! Or grown men who
love to play cowboys, so they build a pretend western town.
It has already been argued that gays are initially very anxious and
fearful of acting out their obsessive sexual fantasies. With any obsessivecompulsive person, there is an overpowering desire to fight the inner desire,
but it does not involve the actual cause of their compulsion (their thoughts and
immoral acts). Instead, they will experience compulsive thoughts or rituals.
This can even be an increase in sexual habits and sexual encounters.
103
The overtly maniacal way many gays constantly fight society and insist
on their own path suggests a strong obsessive-compulsive tendency. And why
not? After all, researchers say gay people do not suffer any more incidents of
emotional disorders than any other member of society.
Suicide
Inevitably, gays (because it suits their cause) blame society at large for
gay suicides. But this is simplistic and unfounded. “The risk factors for suicidal
behaviour are complex and the mechanisms of their interaction are not well
understood.” (61)
A number of factors can influence a person, gay or not, to commit
suicide. For example, they may be predisposed to the action, by, say, a
‘mental’ illness or personality deficit; they might experience precipitating
factors, such as a crisis, loss of a partner, or conflict with society. It is well
known that gays, male and female, experience a hyped-mood change and
become hysterical, vicious, or depressed… and that is ‘normal’ for them,
because anything that is abnormal in behaviour must also affect the
personality. (All the gays, make and female, I have ever known have
displayed these hyped emotions. ‘X’ has found the same thing).
Sexual identity problems can assist both contributory factors. To say
that this is caused by society is not acceptable. Gays are acting out a sexual
fantasy that harms them and that the majority of people do not accept.
Therefore, the problem is not with society but with the person who made the
bad choice in the first place. It’s about time gays grew up and accepted
responsibility for the mess they have themselves created.
The Gay Agenda
What we see happening around the world to ‘free’ gays from mythical
‘oppression’ is not coincidental. It is an ongoing strategy. Gay behaviour is a
well-orchestrated affair. In their book (62) Kirk and Madsen detail how gays
would force the world to change. So far, gays have followed the plan perfectly!
(The latest devastating example is legislation in the UK called the
‘Sexual Orientation’ Regulation, 2003, to become law in October 2006. From
my reading of this awful law, anyone can be disciplined and even dismissed
for opposing gays. Worse, those who do not accept gay propaganda can be
dismissed if they do not actively promote homosexuality, support gays in what
they do, and be positive. And even worse than that, they can even be
dismissed if they remain silent and say nothing, because this will be taken to
mean disapproval! This is definitely fascism and Marxism rolled into one!)
The book outlines the ‘propaganda campaign’ to ‘normalise
homosexuality’ as an ‘acceptable lifestyle through planned brainwashing on a
massive scale’ (63)…”This invasive ‘marketing’ strategy describes tactics to
use the media, to desensitise, to jam and ridicule opposition; to make gays
appear victims and to seek high-profile media, political and legal office.”
The authors openly say, “Our campaign should not demand explicit
support for homosexual practices, but should instead take anti-discrimination
as its theme.”
Look at the above again – this is exactly what we are finding around
the world today! To the letter! It is all a scam, a marketing ploy, a great
104
confidence trick! Gay behaviour is gaining in intensity and public display,
because these two men have been successful in their ‘strategy’.
Gays and lesbians everywhere must use these subversive tactics,
because they know their lives have ‘gone bad’ and they have no reasonable
argument to put forward. They are like children who cheat at exams: they love
the initial victory, but in their hearts they know they are cheats and liars, and
the victory is only superficial, hollow, without genuine merit. Meantime they do
society immense damage.
Marketing Homosexuality & Deception
Today’s homosexuality is a product and, as with any successful
product, it has been marketed to perfection. Just like cigarettes, which have
no inherent worth and they kill you… but they are nicely packaged!
Let’s get back to Kirk and Madsen. They see homosexuality as a
‘product brand’ needing a new approach. But “the critical thing is not to let the
public know how it is (to be) done.” (62). That is, through deception.
They go on to say that they had to make homosexuality acceptable by
using a “carefully planned and calculated public relations propaganda
campaign.” (64). This has occurred for at least two decades, even before the
book was published!
“To desensitise, jam and convert society, Kirk and Madsen envisioned
a society that could be conditioned to arrive at a conclusion and acceptance of
homosexuality it thinks is its own.” (65). Their aim was to “re-shape American
law and society”, and, in turn, ‘the rest of Western culture.’
These two ‘movers and shakers’ had one aim – to make the world
accept homosexuality, by any means they could muster. The public had to be
duped at any cost, so that they did not know the truth behind homosexuality.
To effect this, they sought to use propaganda to 1. Re-create a new
homosexual identity, 2. Avoid behavioural issues by replacing them with
‘rights’ and 3. Present homosexuals in a favourable light. (62)
Why do you think TV and films usually have homosexuals in their
scripts? (Even though, statistically, there are very few homosexuals in any
one social setting. In many there are none at all!). And why do even radio
serials have ‘obligatory gays’, even though few, if any, would ever be found in
genuine villages, or settings?
Why do you think they are always portrayed as right and good and
true? Or, if they have to look bad, they come out okay after a bit of trouble,
showing that they were only victims of society, etc? Why is the paedophile link
never discussed or shown? Why is the AIDS situation not given its proper and
full meaning? Why is the public not being told the facts about financing this
terrible disease, brought on by sexual immorality? It’s because homosexual
propaganda has been successful! As the authors tell gays, they must avoid
talk of morality at all costs, because it would destroy their arguments!
This same propaganda is not based on truth or reality, but on a
carefully choreographed decision by gays to pretend everything is okay. To
help do this, Kirk and Madsen went on “to paint gay men and lesbians as
superior pillars of society… to use historical figures… firstly because they are
already dead” and so “In no position to deny the truth… moreover school
history books have already set them in incontrovertible cement.”
105
“Famous historical figures are considered especially useful to us; not
only do they bring prestige, they’re also invariably dead as a door nail, hence
in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel.” (66). Public, you have been
well and truly duped! (Notice the number of historical figures who, suddenly,
are deemed to have been gay? Now you know why… it is all invented).
This parody of truth and genuine morality is further corrupted: The two
who began this fall into the pit add that gays must subject the public to “a
continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive
fashion possible. If straights can’t turn off the shower, they may at least get
used to being wet”! (67). Sure enough… gay commercials are creeping into
TV, often in a ‘fun’ setting, so that ‘gay’ = ‘nice’.
“The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes
thoroughly tiresome (68)… If you can get the (straight public) to think
homosexuality is just another thing… meriting no more than a shrug of the
shoulders… then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.” (69).
What is the next step, once gay acceptance has been achieved? Then
comes the really bad stuff! “First you get the foot in the door, by being as
similar as possible; then, and only then - when your one little difference
(sexual orientation) is finally accepted - can you start dragging in your other
peculiarities, one by one.” (70). YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
I repeat another warning: when gays have throttled society dead with
their claims to ‘rights’, they will then move in on kids, demanding sex at very
early ages. This has already begun in Holland. If you don’t stop gay
legislation, they will soon have your children. They admit to this openly. Yes,
you should be afraid, and with every good reason!
Have you noticed how gays are constantly bleating about their rights,
and that this has been closely followed by transvestism, ‘gender issues’,
change-of-sex operations on public tax funds? Next comes paedophilia, mark
my words! Read gay material properly! If you don’t fight back now, this
deception will continue and destroy everyone.
Kirk and Madsen had a very cunning way of dealing with critics who
simply will not accept their ploys. “demonise them”! I know a lot about that
one! So does ‘X’. “Depict homophobic and homo-hating bigots as loud-mouths
and xxx’s.” (Obscene language replaced by xxx). (71)
“Identifying homosexual behaviour as a choice must clearly be
avoided as ‘this would… open a can of worms labelled moral choice and
sin, and give the religious right intransigents a stick to beat us with’.”
(72). This is a gay admission that choice is indeed the key to it all.
Homosexuals choose their sexual deviance, and are therefore
responsible for all and any problems arising from it, as well as the AIDS crisis
created by their sexual immorality (gutter behaviour produces gutter results).
You will also notice that gays identify Christianity and other religious views as
their true enemies… because, it seems, they alone have not had their brains
sucked-out by aliens. Only these know that gayness is a choice, and this
makes all gays responsible for their AIDS, immorality and corruption of youth!
Deliberate Avoidance of Morality
It is significant to note that if you read the professional journals
(medical, nursing, etc) you will find no reference to morality when discussing
AIDS. It is extremely puzzling, until you understand that those who are
106
deceiving the public have also deceived the professionals. Yet, the answers
are there, right under their noses!
Why talk about helping Africa (and others) to get rid of AIDS, using
huge amounts of world funding, and yet not talk about what actually causes
AIDS - immorality and sexual deviance! Why give sympathy and money to
treat western homosexuals with HIV and AIDS, when they have no intention of
stopping the very behaviour that caused their disease in the first place?
It does not make sense and is almost too scary to contemplate, that
those who should know better, the ‘professionals’, are completely ignoring the
one thing that can halt this vile disease in its tracks, sexual morality. But, they
are owned by gay propaganda, and remain silent puppets whilst millions die!
They are, then, just as culpable as gays.
So you will not listen to reason and logic? Then listen to a lesbian
leader who says: “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.” (73). To repeat, this is a lesbian admitting the truth, as other
homosexuals do, throughout this book!
Simon LeVay admits psychiatry would not have altered its definition of
homosexuality as abnormal unless gay activists had not threatened and
intimidated psychiatrists. This is the only reason gays have advanced thus far
– intimidation and threats. See how they use disruption and violence in
countries around the world, to get their own way!
Kirk and Madsen ‘wanted to direct attention away from behaviour and
to advertise that homosexuality was “no longer a choice…(but)…an innate
and immutable sexual orientation’. Therefore…’unchangeable, even healthy
and deserving protection as a right‘.” Thus, LeVay said “people who think that
gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay
rights.” See, now, why gays have to keep pushing the illusion that their
behaviour is natural and ‘because they are born that way’?
The idea of ‘sexual orientation’ is a farce! It divides up human
responses and desires into parts it does not have. Even those with
intelligence use the term as though it meant something real! Every single
person ever born can ‘orientate’ themselves toward anything they wish,
because it is a choice, whether it is the colour green, eating snails, enjoying
Bach, or indulging in immorality such as homosexuality and/or paedophilia.
The truth is, those who are heterosexual are so by nature/creation.
They do not have to ‘choose’ it, or have an ‘orientation’ toward it. But
homosexuals have to ‘orientate’ themselves toward perversity, because what
they do is not natural. So, if ‘orientation’ only applies to one section of people,
its use as a word is superfluous.
Going back to homosexual hatred for the truth, Kirk and Madsen loathe
people who refuse to be blinded by their obviously wicked abuse of the public,
and the immoral nature of what homosexuals desire.
They said: “(some intransigents) still feel compelled to adhere
rigidly to an authoritarian belief structure (e.g. orthodox religion) that
condemns homosexuality. Our prime objective regarding die-hard
homo-haters of this sort is to cow and silence them as far as possible,
107
not to convert or even desensitise them…The ambivalent sceptics are
our most promising target. If we can win them over, produce a major realignment solidly in favour of gay rights, the intransigents (like the
racists of 20 years ago) will eventually be effectively silenced by both
law and polite society.” (74)
Note that, if you support gays! You are, in their words, ‘ambivalent
sceptics’, because you have put your brains on hold. You don’t think, so
you are easy targets for gay propaganda. That’s why we have so many
gay laws and rights today. Well done!
So, there you have it, the majority of society, (including stupid
employers and politicians) the ‘ambivalent sceptics’, have been won over by
lies and deceit. They have the distinction of being gay puppets, unable to see
past the slick marketing of homosexual immorality. As one of the ‘die-hard’
people who can see what is going on, I experienced this new wave of activity
way back in the 1980’s, when it was already effective. Even so, they need not
win. YOU can turn the tide.
You will note the ‘old chestnut’ of equalling race and homosexuality.
Don’t be fooled by that one. One’s race is fixed. We are born into a race and
that is an obvious fact. But homosexuality is just a sexual choice, an immoral
activity bringing shame and illness. Race and homosexuality cannot be
compared and are not equal in any sense whatever, and it is an insult to racial
groups to pretend they are.
Corruption of Youth by Gays
To make greater strides, homosexuals must get youth on their side:
“avoid(ing) free and open debate, and to target an un-bigoted youthful
audience.” (75). As we have seen, homosexuals have a penchant for younger
and younger prey. There is a good reason for this: youth have no real idea
about life at all, so they can be moulded, or at least led. And today, youth are
fed on sexual immorality anyway, so one more step into it will make very little
difference to them. Also, they do not yet have HIV.
Kirk and Madsen admit that what they are doing is a ‘conspiracy’
involving pushing up the percentage who are supposedly gay. Hence
the debunked Kinsey figure of between 10% and 37%!! (One leading
lesbian admitted the original 10% figure was ‘plucked out of the air,
because it sounded good’).
Note that even in 2005, the UK’s Labour government (or should we call
it the slave-to-homosexuality government?) tried to say this figure is accurate!
I could not believe it when I read the news-piece. You will not need to look too
hard to see the methodological flaws and pro-gay ideas. Such figures were a
hoax, and this was admitted-to by 31 homosexual activists in a court of law!
So, why rehash them again? Does the Labour government really wish to look
stupid? (This won’t happen: like gays, they just threaten everyone who
disagrees, with the police and anti-terrorism laws!).
‘Kirk and Madsen further emphasised the need to cover up male
promiscuity and the predation toward youth and boys, and promote a picture
of “faultless victims of bigotry”. ‘
Referring to AIDS, these ‘fathers of modern homosexuality’ accept
that AIDS originated within the gay ‘community’ but that “it could be
used to advantage and to present the homosexual community, not so
108
much as high-risk, but as a victimised minority… deserving of special
protection and care.” (76). You will note this in all AIDS information and
literature, even though it is blatantly irrational and unwarranted.
From the start gays played-down and quickly defied the truth, by saying
AIDS was the ‘problem of us all’. What an outright lie! In effect, in order to
cover-up their part as perpetrators, gays were willing to kill off millions of their
own, rather than face the truth and let their propaganda campaign lose
momentum.
Gay Claims Backfire!
Perhaps, though these two made a mistake in their desire to smear
critics. One of the ploys is to say that those of us who will not bow down to
their demands, are “hysterical backwoods preachers”. Or, linking us with Nazi
horrors and “Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and
gassed.” Oh yes?
Go back to chapter one, and you will see, very plainly, and eloquently
portrayed by gays themselves, that most Nazis’ were… gays! And that the
Nazi guards who killed and destroyed gays were… gays!
Gays should understand that when they put-down those of us who fight
back, they help to bring about their own eventual downfall, for if we are
already crushed and socially shunned, nothing else can be done to us! No
other acts of hatred by gays will do anything. The only way for people like
us… is up. My message to gays is that one day the public will discover the
truth, and when it does, your invented world will be seen for what it is.
And this is one reason for the book you are now reading… I couldn’t
care less what gays think about it, or what they call me. This is because they
avoid the truth and proper debate. Though they laugh, gays and lesbians
must now face the music… this book gives the truth. And most of it comes
from the lips of gays themselves.
Truth -Tellers Silenced
Dr N of the UK remembers, back in the 1980’s, that only one UK
government minister gave the real facts concerning AIDS and mysteriously
said that ‘if the public knew the truth, there would be a tremendous back-lash
against gays’. The statement was conveniently hushed-up and, after that, no
more was said by anyone in government, as gay propaganda took control of
all media pronouncements. Despite the fact that all cases of AIDS in the first
several years were attributable only to gay men, the (gay) tactic was to spread
‘blame’ to all members of society.
This had the effect of misusing public funds by misdirecting information
and prevention to areas that, at the time, had no connection with the disease.
Dr N warned that this would increase deaths by AIDS amongst gays, but such
warning was ignored.
It seems Dr N was right after all; I checked out the facts and figures!
The result is clear in the above statistics, with many millions dying of AIDS.
This, however, does not matter to ardent gay activists, who, in line with their
Nazi counterparts will kill their own kind in order to retain and satisfy their
sexual desires. I have also shown that an increasing number of gays
deliberately contract HIV just for sexual fun!
109
It is about time gays and others took notice and prepared a true
analysis of what is really happening. A good start would be to cease wasting
time and effort trying to prove what one cannot prove. Homosexuality is a
personal choice of sexual object, a choice that is not shared by the majority of
society and not approved. The silence of the majority does not constitute
approval, but is the result of fear of retribution by gays, who are only too
willing to viciously attack all who stand in their way.
Homosexuals are just ordinary men and women, who, because they
accrue many dark and nasty inward secrets, happen to have made a mistaken
choice of sexuality. Saying this does not make me ‘homophobic’ in any sense,
nor does it mean that I can be forced against my will to accept what science
and my own intellect and reasoning (and beliefs) cannot accept.
I do not make personal attacks on homosexuals, nor do I cause my
view to create a barrier to everyday care. Indeed, I challenge anyone reading
this to charge me with hatred! So, what is the real problem? Why are
homosexuals so heterophobic? It is because they know their sexuality is a
personal choice, and a dangerous one at that.
Bart’s Defence
Bart Simpson is a very naughty boy, but he comes from a very
dysfunctional family. One day he managed to convince the whole country to
copy his excuse: “I didn’t do it!”
Because everyone thought it was hilarious, they all repeated the
excuse themselves, whenever they did something wrong.
But, eventually it all went sour and the excuses were shunned.
110
Chapter 6
Homosexual Paedophilia
‘ “Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm
what they choose. They can say that what they
want is to find the best way to love…With boldness
they can say, ‘I believe this is in fact part of God’s
will’.” (81). I am quite sure that parents of children
abused or murdered by paedophiles will happily agree
with this high ideal!’
‘the ‘Homosexual Activist Agenda, Abridged
Summary’ calls for the “repeal of all laws governing
the age of sexual consent” ’
“…the homosexual activist’s primary aim remains
elementary school children and ‘youths confused
about their sexuality’….If gay liberation is to be
embraced, how soon shall pedastry be reinstated
and
paedophilia
normalised?
While
most
homosexual activists denounce paedophilia, there
remains a growing segment of the gay ‘community’
that makes no secret of their interest in youth.”
“if it were not for their initiation as ‘minors’
(molestation), they would not now enjoy their
homosexual orientation”
“For over 15 years homosexual advocates, in union
with academia, have continued to present articles
claiming that ‘sex with children constitutes a
common aspect of gay and lesbian lifestyle’.”
'homosexual development notably does not result
in androphilia but in homosexual paedophilia'.
“…despite efforts by homosexual activists to
distance the gay lifestyle from paedophilia, there
remains a disturbing connection between the two.
This is because, by definition, male homosexuals
are sexually attracted to other males. While many
homosexuals may not seek young sexual partners,
the evidence indicates that disproportionate
numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or
boys as sexual partners.”
111
“academic and scientific studies confirm a strong
bias toward paedophilia from men identifying as
homosexual.”
For countless years, in an effort to deflect criticism from their sexual
choices, gays have pointed the finger at Christians. With no attempt at
reconciliation of ideas, they accuse Christians of starting wars, encouraging
violence, binding society, and so on. No proof, just a lot of hot air.
So, I return the favour now by asking if some, or most, of paedophilia is
really another aspect of homosexuality? This will no doubt cause a furore, but
so what? It has to be mentioned. (Before we go any further, read this again,
because I’m not saying all homosexuals are paedophiles, only that
paedophilia is a very strong ‘branch’ of homosexuality. It is gays themselves and statistics - who say most homosexuals are paedophile by nature!). Let’s
start with the clerics of Rome…
Clerical Scandals
Everyone is familiar with the widespread paedophilia conducted by
Roman Catholic priests. We are not talking about a few cases, but huge
numbers that keep on coming. The late pope refused to act against these
personnel, so he must shoulder some blame, too. (77)
“…most of the thousands of priestly abuse cases involved pubescent,
or post-pubescent, early-teenage boys, rather than infants. Noting this fact,
some traditionalist Catholic commentators conclude that the crisis stems from
homosexuality in the priesthood.” (77)
Now, here is the question. At what point does ‘homosexuality’ blend
with ‘paedophilia’, or, when does a sexual act stop being homosexual and
start to be paedophile? At what age does a sexual act become ‘paedophile’?
It is reasonable to say that if nearly all the thousands of crimes
perpetrated by over 4,400 priests in the USA involved young teenage boys,
then those crimes were homosexual. Why not voice this concern, when
deaths of AIDS were four times higher amongst Roman Catholic priests than
in the general population! One recent report says a staggering 75% of all
American Catholic seminarians are gay! (78)
This leads to yet another question: Do priests use gay sex because of
frustration caused by Roman Catholic rules governing celibacy? Or, do gay
men join the priesthood so that they can access young boys and teenagers? I
would go for the latter explanation, because if they were not ‘gay’ to start with,
why choose young boys? Why not choose girls?
Cure or No Cure?
As a related aside, let us look at the following query: “…thanks to
progressive ‘enlightenment’, homosexuality has not only been declassified
(Ed. as a mental illness), but also decriminalised – at least in most of the
western world. However, some of us still struggle with these changes for
different reasons… recently I learned that people in one or two European
countries adopt a rather more relaxed attitude towards paedophilia… than we
do here in the UK…(as a father I want to know)…how quickly we as a society
and profession are likely to become ‘enlightened’ enough to declassify or
decriminalise paedophilia?” (80)
112
What this letter is saying is that we became ‘enlightened’ about a
lifestyle that was once considered to be criminal or/and immoral
(homosexuality). Are we now being softened-up to make other sexual
lifestyles equally acceptable, such as paedophilia? The answer is yes, and it
is confirmed by gay activists, who are paedophile as part of their homosexual
condition.
You might notice that not so long ago paedophiles hid behind their dirty
raincoats (like gays and ‘flashers’). Today, however, they are becoming bold,
and speaking openly about their sexual choices, despite the many cases
brought to court of murders of children who have been molested.
This is found in paedophile publications. “Paedophiles can boldly and
courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to
find the best way to love… With boldness they can say, ‘I believe this is in fact
part of God’s will’.” (81).
I am quite sure that parents of children abused by paedophiles will
happily agree with this high ideal! I must admit to amazement that such views
are given any kind of public airing and that authorities do not investigate those
who make them. Yet, a man who rejects homosexuality is targeted by law!
Notice how this is the same excuse used by homosexuals who seek
younger and younger participants. I go back to the opening remarks: at what
age does a criminal case of paedophilia become a legal case of
homosexuality? Is the sexualisation of an early-teenage boy an homosexual
conquest, or a paedophile’s criminal act? Indeed, what is the difference
anyway? Whether the male is young or older, the acts undertaken are still
homosexual and abnormal.
So, are men who do these things homosexuals? Yes, of course they
are! If they have sexual relations with boys, they are homosexual encounters.
That is, many paedophile encounters are, then, homosexual. Of the many
thousands of cases amongst Roman Catholic priests, the majority were, and
are, homosexual encounters. (Note: Many lesbians also admit to being guilty
of paedophilia).
In Catholic clerical circles, at least, paedophilia is mainly an
homosexual activity. Is it not therefore reasonable to project this finding onto
the general population?
That means we should not consider fostering or adoption by gay
couples, which would pose a great risk, given the statistics of abuse.
This is not a categorical claim that all homosexuals are paedophiles,
only that there is a preponderance of paedophiles amongst gays, and
this should make us err toward caution.
Same Excuses
Homosexuals have been trying for almost two centuries to find an
excuse for their condition. (Remember this: They don’t really care about a
‘cause’, because they know it is just their choice. The only reason they want
the label is because it protects them from criticism and legal action. It is
nothing but a smoke-screen to cover up the fact that homosexuality is all
about immoral sexual lust and perversion).
Today, as we know, gays are trying to convince the public that the
cause is biological, even though all research thus far has failed to find such a
113
cause, and there is no scientific way to prove such a cause. (It is just a ploy to
detract us from the truth; gays know there is no gay gene).
Gay paedophiles use exactly the same excuses, but we ought to
expect this as both groups arise from homosexuality. Paidika asked USA
psychologists what their view was. They replied that they did not consider
paedophilia to have a genetic cause, but “Like homosexuality, we believe it’s
learned at a young age.” They added that though it was a learned behaviour,
in other words, a personal choice, those who practised it had a “subjective
reality” that they had “always been this way”. Note: a subjective reality, not an
objective truth. The psychologists interviewed stated there was proof in
abundance that this was so.
Ralph Underwager (a pro-homosexual/paedophile) commented:
“…there has been no convincing research that suggests there is a hormonal
component, a hormonal involvement in sexual orientation. There’s also
nothing we know of that suggests there’s a genetic component. As
psychologists, we’re more persuaded that behaviour patterns are learned,
rather than influenced by genes.” He also said he thought heterosexual
behaviour was learned. Well, he would! (Note the word ‘thought’).
His colleague said people can learn to improve on their sexual
dysfunction, and homosexuals can learn to turn to heterosexuality. Also,
“I’m not saying the person should want to change. I’m only saying that
there is an element of choice. A person can determine their own sexual
direction…” Underwager said “To say that my sexual responses at some
level are learned, is also to say that I am responsible for them.”
Homosexuality & Paedophilia the Same?
The psychologists interviewed agreed that both paedophiles and
homosexuals appeared to have the same early influences leading to their
‘sexual dysfunction’. Underwager’s colleague, Hollida Wakefield, then links
homosexuals with paedophilia, by saying that when a young boy reaches a
certain age (16 or 17) the paedophile loses interest and looks for someone
younger (about 11 or 12). Gays admitting homosexuality is a dysfunction!
It does not take much logic to see this as an homosexual encounter,
where the so-called ‘love’ a man has for a young boy disappears when the
youngster is able to think properly for himself. Then the homosexual becomes
paedophile, and looks again for a ‘ripe’ youngster he can ‘groom’.
We can say, then, that paedophilia is the ‘younger end’ of
homosexuality, and that the homosexual can move from one condition to the
other fluently.
Wakefield says this is what happens in reality: men have a range of
‘lovers’ from age about 11 right up to 40 or more: they stop continual sexual
activity with a boy when he grows to mid-teenage, but retain him to a much
older age, whilst adding more youngsters all the time, like a male harem. Very
clearly, then, paedophiles of same sex victims (because ‘victims’ is what they
are) are homosexuals.
As Wakefield said, “…if the sex continued (when the boy had reached
mid-teens), we would have to call that male homosexuality, not paedophilia.”
He applies the same definition to relationships continuing into the 20’s, 30’s,
40’s, etc. There is, then, little room for doubt in this matter. Homosexuals hate
being publicly linked with paedophiles, but they would, because (for now)
114
paedophilia is a crime! Yet, gay paedophiles of male victims are homosexuals!
Female paedophiles of female victims are homosexuals! I can assure you that
if homosexuals gain acceptance for paedophilia, the numbers of cases of child
molestation and child homosexuality will rocket beyond imagination, just as
adult homosexuality increased when homosexuality became legal.
Groups of paedophiles/homosexuals do not just wait around for victims,
but they actively go out seeking them. They even join naturist groups, so they
can be near a ready source of naked children. (82). They walk naked amongst
them and take photographs, quite openly.
Victims of these nudist gatherings speak of naturists claiming that
whole families are naturist out of choice, and that children enjoy the
experience. This does not appear to be the case, when fathers coerce their
youngsters to strip and be naked for their own pleasures. One such victim
vividly speaks of her father’s sexual desires, including use of pornographic
child molestation magazines. One of her father’s constant excuses was that
naturism was natural and got rid of ‘harmful inhibitions’!
Very clearly, the Roman Catholic hierarchy agreed that the USA
paedophilia crimes committed by its own priests were homosexual by nature
(83). That is, male paedophilia=homosexuality. (Note that lesbians have their
own form of paedophilia, with girls).
Homosexual Agenda
The last point of the ‘Homosexual Activist Agenda, Abridged Summary’
calls for the “repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent” (84).
Now, ask yourself why this is so important to gays? Is it not because by
removing the age of consent they can seduce or molest children when they
wish? Of course it is! (85)
Thus the goals of homosexuals and paedophiles are the same. Is this
because both persons are the same? Still not convinced? Then listen to this:
“Despite the high profile portrayal of homosexuality in the media,
successes within/by government legislation, private corporations, and
even in mainstream churches, the homosexual activist’s primary aim
remains elementary school children and ‘youths confused about their
sexuality’… If gay liberation is to be embraced, how soon shall pedastry
be reinstated and paedophilia normalised? While most homosexual
activists denounce paedophilia, there remains a growing segment of the
gay ‘community’ that makes no secret of their interest in youth.”
Truth About Paedophilia
This interest is openly spoken of and exploited by gays in the
media… we can see and hear it every day! They openly demand access
to our schools. What is wrong with our government, educationalists,
parents and police? Are they mad? Gays aren’t interested in education,
only in obtaining younger and younger prey!
Many men are gay today because they were approached as children
by homosexuals. “if it were not for their initiation as ‘minors’ (molestation),
they would not now enjoy their homosexual orientation” (86)
“Notwithstanding, David Thorsted (NAMBLA) sees the need to
down-play paedophilia to ‘sanitise the homosexual image’ and facilitate
acceptance.” Reader – why are you allowing gays to manipulate you!
115
One gay author put it this way: “Whoever captures the kids owns the
future.” NAMBLA (North American Man/Boy Love Association!) blatantly says,
“Capture the kids before (they are) eight or it’s too late!” How much more
obvious need homosexual depravity be, before governments take notice and
delegislate? There is now also a ‘women’s auxiliary’ of NAMBLA, who, linked
with PAIDIKA, “celebrates erotic relationships between women and young
girls.” So, lesbians are not at the ‘softer’ end of homosexuality at all! (The
ones I have met are hard as nails and wicked).
Are you still willing to deny that most homosexuals are also
paedophiles? “Academic and scientific studies confirm a strong bias
toward paedophilia from men identifying as homosexual.” (87)
Homosexuals try to claim (pointing to Roman Catholic cases of
paedophilia, for example) that heterosexual paedophilia is much more
prevalent. This, however, is not what the statistics prove: that a
“disproportionately high number of homosexually orientated men are
directly involved: 6 - 20 times greater than for heterosexual males.”
“For over 15 years homosexual advocates, in union with
academia, have continued to present articles claiming that ‘sex with
children constitutes a common aspect of gay and lesbian lifestyle’.”
Thus, Prof John DeCocco, editor of the Journal of Homosexuality, published
articles such as ‘Male Intergenerational Intimacy’, suggesting “parents should
view a paedophile as one who loves their son as a partner in the boy’s
upbringing, and welcome him.”! I am sure parents agree wholeheartedly.
The U.N. hosted gay groups such as NAMBLA and ILGA to hold
‘workshops’ promoting paedophilia, where it was demanded that the age of
consent should be abolished altogether, because “individuals regardless of
age have a right to explore and develop his/her sexuality.”
For goodness sake, how much more explicit must these people
become before governments and others are moved to bring the gay
movement to a halt? Do we love our children that little, that we allow such
evils to be openly propagated, and hosted by international organisations?
Normalising Paedophilia
The same people who removed gays from the category of mental
illness are also trying to remove paedophiles from the same category. This is
all part of the same overall strategy. As with homosexuality, this will then lead
to normalisation and government ‘rights’ for paedophiles to act as they wish.
Like homosexuals who insist on being called ‘gay’, paedophiles are
trying to change their name to ‘minor attracted adults’. You have been
warned. Ignore all this hard evidence at your peril. No doubt the UK Labour
Party will embrace these ideas soon and imprison those who think otherwise!
NAMBLA has said “Homo-eroticism is an ubiquitous feature of human
experience, and efforts to repress it merely confirm that a man and a youth
have always been attracted to each other, and, like homosexuality in general,
their love is irrepressible.” In that statement is a plain declaration that
paedophilia and homosexuality are one and the same.
Note that John Money, already quoted in this book, is pro-paedophilia.
He says homosexuality arises from ‘juvenile sexual rehearsal’. In other words,
involvement with older gays who use them as sex fodder. Just about all
homosexuals deplore and try to humiliate Christian, Judaic and Muslim
116
teachings against homosexuality, because they know that these groups will
not tolerate their false claims.
Schools everywhere are being targeted for reprogramming by gays. In
the USA this is already well advanced. UK schools are following like lambs to
the slaughter. I can only warn and urge parents to refuse to send their children
to sex education classes, or anything that resembles them. Kick up an
almighty fuss about it! Write to the press! Get together with other parents who
love their kids. Throw out gay propaganda! As a big group you can do it!
Same Thing, with ‘Bolt-Ons’
It is becoming very clear that paedophilia is the next heinous lifestyle to
be made ‘normal’ and acceptable within society. It is just one of many sexual
‘bolt-on’ parts to deviance. Though even I speak of ‘homosexuality’ as a
separate entity, in reality, it is just one ‘bolt-on’.
Really, we ought to speak of generalised ‘deviant sexual activity’ as a
whole, with many ‘bolt-on’ parts. Thus, anything deviant is just one aspect of
the same problem, whether it is homosexuality, paedophilia, necrophilia (sex
with the dead), zoophilia (sex with beasts)...you name it and people have
delved into its depths, proving their mental instability.
By looking at sexual deviance in this way, we would not be surprised
when an homosexual is discovered to be a paedophile, or a zoophile (another
word that’s been changed to make it sound more exotic: Let’s just call it what
it really is - bestiality!). Each is merely one aspect of the same predilection for
deviance. That is why homosexuals want total sexual freedom to do anything
they wish, not just as a lust, but by law!
Any person who enters into the murky world of sexual deviance can
move easily from one aspect to another, one bolt-on to another bolt-on,
adding to his or her sexual CV without discretion or conscience. And each
bolt-on will be systematically portrayed as ‘good’ and ‘natural’. With every new
step the person is further desensitised to morality and strengthened in his or
her hatred of society as a whole. This isn’t ‘freedom’. It’s slavery to lust.
As we have seen, the first step is to cross the taboo line. Once it has
been crossed, after much suspension of logic, intellect and conscience, the
path to all other deviances is made easier. Like Alice, who walked through the
looking-glass to enter a parallel universe, those who enter into sexual
deviance are in a new, abnormal world.
This new world only has contextual validity, but the inhabitants pretend
it has universal validity. Thus, they beaver with great vexation and selfdelusion, to force others to accept their version of normality. It is precisely
because their version is only contextually-valid that homosexuals, et al, have
to resort to force and law.
If there was worth in their claims, society might slowly turn toward them
naturally and accept them. But, when a claim is invalid, it remains in the small,
self-limiting, dark world of contextual validity. In other words, it is invalid in
reality. The homosexual/paedophile world is of mythical validity, and those
who accept it enter into that world without credence.
Banning Homosexual Websites
Two homosexual websites were banned by Singapore authorities (and
referred to the police) because they “violated ‘Part 4’ of the Code, which
117
includes depictions of ‘nudity or genitalia in a manner calculated to titillate’,
and material advocating homosexuality or paedophilia.” (88). You will note
that these two gay websites contained both homosexual and paedophile
material. No connection? Gay material use filthy language & images.
The two sites also contained advertisements for under-age boys “for
sex or nude photography”. No connection with paedophilia? “Said Mr Lee,
‘people have the right to their choice of lifestyle and I don’t have a problem
with that. But the way the sites glamorise a promiscuous gay lifestyle and try
to entice young boys to join this lifestyle is very wrong.” No connection?
Both sites were owned by the same people, and are described as
‘typical’ of gay online magazines. If this is the case, then all gay websites
should be perused for their content, and complaints made to the
relevant authorities. Not all homosexuals are paedophiles, but enough are,
to make homosexuality highly suspect, especially for parents. At the very least
when homosexuals talk about sexual matters, they tend to be extreme and
gutter-like in language and descriptions.
A writer who commented on this action in Singapore, asked “What is
the motive” of the complainants? Is the writer real, or what? The motive is
anger at the way homosexuals use public media to force their sexual exploits
on the world! They know young boys and other children trawl websites, hence
the advertisements seeking boys! No connection between homosexuality and
paedophilia?
Let gays have their websites, but once they display pornography
or paedophile material, get them closed down! The same should apply to
all pornographic material. If the media used is public, it should maintain a
proper content. Proper by whose standards? By the normal standards of the
vast majority of society. These may, or may not, include Christian standards.
I often hear the pathetic retort “What’s normal?” I find it unbelievable
that intelligent people should ask such a stupid question! (No, I apologise: I
forgot aliens have sucked-out their brains!). Everyone with savvy knows what
‘normal’ is, even if they can’t talk fluently about it, so I won’t apologise for
calling the question ‘stupid’. The majority of people know homosexuality is
wrong. It is inbuilt into our consciences, because homosexuality is abnormal.
Yes, there are many ‘abnormal’ and deviant sexual practices in the
world. That is the nature of men and women who cannot be bothered to listen
to conscience, truth and morality.
Though I am presently writing about specific types of sexual
dysfunction, I am more than aware there are many others lurking in dark
corners of the human mind. But, these are not my current concern; this book
is about purulent forms that try to force society into their own immoral mould.
If gays did not try to force everyone to do their bidding, and did not stop
freedom of speech, this book would not be written!
Some muddy the waters by saying homosexuality and paedophilia are
‘not about sex, but about power and control’. Who cares! Either way these
activities are harmful to society and to children! Who cares if a little boy is
molested by a gay to satisfy a power thing, or a sex thing? This is a red
herring that does not affect the real issues.
118
Australian Truth
The link between homosexualty and paedophilia was made by the New
South Wales parliament, Australia, re the Hon Franca Arena. The following
statements indicate clearly that homosexuals were trying to silence reports of
links between gays and paedophilia, evidenced by their holding-back of their
secret activities:
“I want to put on the record my concern about information I have
received from various sources, that the radical fringe of the gay community is
out to discredit me, in order to silence me and others on the issue of
paedophilia.
The radical fringe… is concerned that the campaign against
paedophilia is harming the gay community, because the general public cannot
separate the issue of homosexuality and paedophilia…” (89). This is because
the ‘general public’ know the truth and, even without detailed arguments, they
know what is wrong, what is immoral, and what harms their children!
Hon. Arena adds that he has said paedophilia exists in both
heterosexual and homosexual circles. This is very true. But it does not
absolve homosexuals, whose members slip very easily between both
homosexual and paedophile activities in large numbers.
He continues, “They (homosexuals) affirm… that Justice Yeldham was
only a ‘poor homosexual’ who, because of the law and attitudes of his time,
was obliged to look for solace and comfort in public toilets.” Yeah, right!
‘Solace and comfort’ should read like what it really is – deviant sexual thrills!
Arena says, “They should remember that this man was a judge of the
Supreme Court of New South Wales. Further, the fact that he exposed himself
to an 11-year old boy….” No connection between homosexuality and
paedophilia? We see that even a high-ranking official who should know better,
cannot control his own desires, because he has crossed the taboo line.
All homosexual paedophiles admit they will offend again, because they
are driven to seek sex with young boys. Do not underestimate the power of a
broken taboo on the lives of deviants. Paedophiles have sunk so low they
inevitably continue in their crimes throughout their lives. It is why they should
be locked up for the whole of their lives, without parole.
The same member of parliament refers to the homosexual agenda (see
earlier section): “Its agenda, amongst other things, includes the lowering of
the age of consent for boys as young as 10, as flagged in the model criminal
code – a discussion paper for the various attorneys-general, and a disgraceful
piece of work paid for by taxpayers without their knowledge; homosexual
marriages, the adoption of children, and God only knows what else. The
radical gay fringe sees the paedophilia issue as a setback to their agenda.”
Obviously, Arena is trying to calm the waters by implying that the
‘fringe’ is separate from the main homosexual body. This is a mistake.
Homosexuals, as we have already noted, slide between adult and child sex,
because it is all part of the same scene. They are just bolt-ons designed for
the same ‘machine’.
There is no qualitative difference between sex with a ten year old boy
and sex with a fifteen year old. Both are children, and both adult perpetrators
are homosexual. The sexual acts are, then, both paedophile and homosexual.
I urge all readers not to be deceived by gay argumentation and loud protests.
119
Paedophilia as a Hate Crime
Some go much farther in describing paedophilia: “The seduction of
children is literally the rape of children. It is carried out by clever,
mentally (& spiritually) deranged persons called paedophiles.
Paedophilia is an attack on a child’s spirit. Actually, the paedophile is
guilty of committing murder on a spiritual level. This is not to mention
the physical damage done to the child. Paedophiles have plagued the
planet from the beginning. There is no crime, no sin greater, than the
destruction of children by paedophiles.” (90)
With lucid language the writer goes on to describe paedophilia as one
aspect of homosexuality: “Homosexuality is like a huge house with many
rooms. Each room has a sign or indicator on the door, as to the contents or
activities of that room. The labels on the rooms could read, for example,
sadist, masochist, coprophiliac, necrophiliac, zoophiliac (bestiality),
scopophilia, transvestite, erotomaniac, bi-sexual, homosexual rage, psychodynamics of latent homosexuality.
These are specific rooms under the roof of homosexuality. One of the
rooms in the house is labelled pederast. This is the portion of the house
reserved for the paedophile… the compulsion to have sex with children stems
from a severe spiritual deformity - spiritual corruption… Make no mistake,
children do not seduce adults, adults seduce children… the aim of the
homosexual paedophile is to destroy the child’s innocence.”
He adds: “political correctness is intended to create chaos and
insanity amongst otherwise sane, right-thinking, populations.” And he is
quite right. Strongly worded, the site contains some interesting comparisons
and details. I do not, however, accept his claim that heterosexuals do not
become paedophiles, because some heterosexual men do prey on little girls.
As is usual amongst gays, because of their plans for the world, it is
customary to label critics of homosexuality as irrational, or stupid, or bigots.
This is part of their agenda. In the recent UK case of intimidation by police of
Lynette Burrows (see relevant section), she claimed it was unwise to let two
gay men adopt a little boy. Obviously, she linked homosexuality with
paedophilia. One response was “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can
effectively call gay parents paedo’s and get away with it. Good on the person
who reported her! If people say what they think, it shows up the idiots.” Yes,
that’s true.
We can say, from the statistics, that it is dangerous to let gays
adopt little boys, because, as has been shown, there is a very strong link
between homosexuality and paedophilia!
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech per se, but with
straightforward facts of life! Note, however, that the critic (91) is saying
freedom of speech excludes telling the truth about gays, but it is perfectly
alright to call the opposition ‘idiots’. As I say throughout this book, pro-gay
voices are fascist in style and in spirit. Everyone but them must shut up. Other
critics called Burrows, a ‘moron’, a ‘vile human being’.
The same page of the forum adds “Perhaps (Burrows) should refrain
from implying there is some connection between homosexuality and
paedophilia. Such an implication is both without foundation and grossly
offensive.” Evidently, these critics know nothing about the subject, apart from
what is supplied by homosexual propaganda! Or, they are gays covering-up.
120
In this chapter there is sufficient evidence that homosexuality equals, or
at least heavily incorporates, paedophilia. And much of the evidence is
provided by gays and paedophiles themselves. Why, then, ‘refrain’ from
saying it? This is just a polite way of trying to shut someone up. It is also
indicative of how well-trained the gullible public are becoming.
Another respondent asks a reasonable question: “If we insist that we
should not link homosexuals with paedophilia, and any such claim is
‘investigated’ by police, does this mean that adoption agencies will therefore
be too afraid of the gay backlash and possible ‘investigation’ if they ask
awkward questions?”
In light of what is already contained in this book, the answer must be
‘yes’. Therefore, we can expect young boys to be offered on a plate, as a
delicacy, to gay couples. (Note the recent case in the UK of two gays who
abused several fostered boys in their ‘care’).
Another question: how do the authorities know if a child they give to
same sex couples will not be abused? How do they know the real intent of the
couple, seeing as how so many gays are also paedophiles? How could they
tell if a child is being abused, when gays are so good at grooming them?
I would add another serious note to this question. How can a member
of the public trust an investigating police officer who is also gay (or pro-gay)?
Would he or she likely make much of the complaint, to make sure the victim of
their gay prejudice is ‘put down’ or punished? Would such an officer collude
with others to isolate and criminalise the person? It is already happening!
Collusion has happened to me and others… it can happen to you, too! Gay
police officers should never be used to investigate supposed gay crimes, not
even so-called ‘hate crimes’.
Even Alpha!
I oppose on theological grounds the evangelical Alpha Course. Others
oppose it for different reasons. For example, John Rose, (93), a gay, opposes
it because of the founder’s views on homosexuality. (Nicky Gumbel).
I do not agree with Gumbel in the matter of the Alpha Course, but his
equation of homosexuality with paedophilia is correct, as the above
information clearly indicates. In Gumbel’s book, ‘Searching Issues’,
homosexuality is referred to as a ‘sin’; he sees AIDS as a ‘judgement from
God’ upon gays. I must agree with that So do many leading gay writers. They
may not refer to ‘God’ as the Mover of the disease, but they certainly say that
AIDS is the fault of their own behaviour.
Peculiarly, Rose glosses over the biological truth by insisting that
Gumbel is ignorant: “He starts by ignoring biological facts, and asserts for
sure, ‘He (God) did not design our bodies for homosexual intercourse’.”
What absolute garbage! The anus is a prime target for HIV. This is
because the anal canal moves in one direction - downward; its use is to expel
faeces; its membrane is unusually sensitive and thin and is torn by anal
penetration, allowing HIV to spread easily. In what way is this ‘natural’? The
biological facts prove beyond doubt that anal sex is both stupid and wrong,
damaging tissue easily, whether it is engaged in by gays or by heterosexuals.
Thus, our bodies are not designed for homosexual intercourse!
Rose goes on to say that Gumbel’s assertions, that gays are still the
main perpetrators of AIDS, are ‘confused’, and a ‘loaded statement’ not based
121
on facts. In which way is this true? Look at all the figures in this book, the very
latest figures given by official sources. Look at the frank admissions of gay
leaders. Look at the whole plethora of facts, and you will conclude, as the
facts conclude, that gays are the major source of HIV and AIDS!
Rose’s plan is very simple. It is to propagate the gay agenda! Part of
this is to “remove the idea that AIDS is a gay plague.” Of course gays want to
be rid of this accusation, but it is true nevertheless. The statistics and
admissions of gays prove it.
He then goes on to say that Gumbel’s statement, that homosexuality is
learned or acquired, is wrong. Who says so? Homosexuals, of course! (Or,
rather, a large number of them: as we have seen, some gay leaders also say
homosexuality is learned). There is plenty of evidence in this book to destroy
Rose’s foolish statements.
Rose then claims the Alpha course calls on homosexuals to ‘suppress’
their urges. I do not advocate suppressing any urge that is immoral or wrong
(though it is a start). The urge must be literally cut-out by the person’s own
desire to change, so that it no longer has any kind of hold on the psyche.
Other gay critics are ‘incensed’ that Alpha is ‘infiltrating’ university
campuses with its teachings. (93) Note: it is alright for gays to infiltrate
campuses with gay propaganda, but not Alpha! I don’t like Alpha either, but I
uphold its right to freedom of speech! John Rose tried to prevent Alpha from
entering Derwent College, UK. Others, from York University. That’s fascism.
Readers must understand what is at stake here. Students and ‘experts’
are trying to prevent freedom of speech for others, but demand it for their own
gay agenda! They openly admit to trying to ‘halt (Alpha) courses’ in colleges.
They object to Alpha’s reference to homosexuality as the “unpleasant bits”.
Why? Gay behaviour brings many illnesses, neuroses, breakdown of society,
paedophilia, and a strong fascist attitude to the world. In which way are these
things better than the message of Christianity? There is just no comparison!
Of course, as is usual, gay groups referred to all this under the tired old
invented gay-agenda word, ‘homophobia’, and condemn university authorities
for allowing ‘hatred towards homosexuals.’ In which way is Alpha’s message
‘hatred toward homosexuals’?
It is about time gays matured and grew up in the real world. Opposition
to the gay lifestyle does not mean hatred for gays! But, in order to regain their
majority, gays will resort to a twisting of the facts and a re-labelling of terms, in
an attempt to discredit reasonable criticism.
It all goes back to the worldwide agenda, so proudly and publicly put
forward by gays. Well, those of us who want freedom of speech and a purer
lifestyle do not like their agenda, and dislike their lifestyle intensely, because it
harms society and gays alike. And there is nothing gays can do about what is
in our heads. Or is lobotomy on their agenda, too? (Every other kind of
enforced repression and suppression is, so it wouldn’t surprise me).
What About This?
The following notes were made by a doctor who happens to be
Christian. Does this make his study and research any the less valid? Of
course not.
122
The short article is about the lowering of the age of consent for
homosexual sex. In the article the writer, Trevor Stammers, makes it quite
clear that homosexuality and paedophilia are linked.
“Homosexual Age of Consent (pp4-6)
Equality is not always just. For example, should insurance companies
treat smokers and non-smokers equally when it comes to assessing risk?
Perhaps the fact that those same insurance companies always ask about
homosexuality in assessing premiums confirms that homosexual and
heterosexual intercourse do not pose equal risk.
There are three principal reasons why I believe the age of homosexual
consent should not be lowered to 16:
Three Truths to Affirm
1. The health risks of homosexual practice are higher than
heterosexual practice
Exclusively monogamous gay relationships are extremely rare (95) and
90% or more of gay men engage in anal intercourse. (96). These two patterns
of behaviour lead to an increased risk of four types of physical disease: STIs,
enteric infections, anal trauma and cancer, AIDS. (97). In the UK 64% of HIV
infections are acquired as a result of gay sex. (98)
2. Homosexual orientation is often a transient phase of adolescent
development
Although the British Medical Association claims that sexual orientation
is fixed by the age of sixteen, the Wellings survey and other studies clearly
contradict this. Wellings concludes: 'The difference in prevalence between
lifetime and current homosexual experience points to the likelihood that
homosexual experience is often a relatively isolated or passing event'. (99)
Another large study shows that sexual orientation is uncertain in many
boys in their lower teens with an increasing number being more certain with
increasing age. (100)
3. Homosexuality and paedophilia are linked
Freund and Watson, though careful to point out that their study should
not be interpreted as indicating that gay men are more likely to be
paedophiles, nonetheless conclude: 'homosexual development notably does
not result in androphilia but in homosexual paedophilia'. (101). Freund's data
also show that a) around 80% of the victims of paedophilia are boys
molested by adult males and b) although most gay men are not
paedophiles, 35% of paedophiles are homosexual whilst only 2% of adult men
overall are homosexual. (102)
I also take issue with the three usual reasons given in favour of
lowering the age of consent:
123
Three Fallacies to Dispute
1. Men aged 16-18 are not in need of special protection from being
'recruited' into homosexuality
Few people realise that the absolute heterosexual age of consent
(when there is no legal defence possible for the man) is actually thirteen, not
sixteen, under current law. If equality is given for homosexual acts then older
boys and men will be able, with impunity, to have sex with boys as young as
thirteen. (Ed. How many people are aware of this? Does it not add urgency to
the need for protest?)
As one gay writer chillingly puts it, 'what will happen when the limit is
reduced to 16? Won't there be a few precocious individuals of 14 or 15 who
are tempted to experiment? Is it not likely that they too will escape prosecution
for the very reason that 16 or 17 year olds escape it now? So the ratchet of
permissiveness is given another deadly twist.' (103)
2. The risk posed by predatory older men is just as great whether
the victim is a man or a woman
The comments on paedophilia above show that this is not so.
3. An unequal age of consent prevents the provision of safe-sex
advice to those most at risk
This is the most astonishing argument of all! I regularly give sex
education classes to 12-14 year olds and can give safe-sex advice without
hindrance. Since the Gillick judgement doctors have been freely able to give
both contraceptives and confidential advice to under 16 year olds who request
it. A whole host of gay helplines and widely available leaflets already give
explicit advice perfectly legally. Furthermore, some leading gay writers are
disparaging about safe-sex education anyway.
'The implicit goal of eradicating unsafe sex is unrealistic. It is neither a
sustainable strategy nor an epidemiological necessity, but rather an
unnecessary restriction on desire and action.' (104)
Finally, lack of knowledge is not really the issue in any case. Nonuse of condoms is not because of lack of knowledge about HIV. As one
AIDS specialist laments: 'What makes me despair is that 30% of my
patients...went into a relationship knowing that their partner was
positive. If people will do that, will have sex without a condom with
someone who's openly positive, then how the hell are we going to
persuade two people who are probably negative to use a condom "just
in case"?' (105)”
(Ed. This supports what I have already said, that gays do not care
about safety, of themselves or others. They are just plain stupid).
A Deaf Government
A brave minority of gay men do recognise the dangers of lowering the age
of consent. One gay wrote: 'As far as I'm concerned, 18 is a perfectly
reasonable age of consent. Many teenagers who think they're gay turn out not
to be and there should be clear guidelines to protect anyone who is young,
124
unhappy and confused from those who would exploit the situation.'
Governments, however, seems as deaf to their plea as to mine.
The Truth
The following information is found on the Traditional Values website. Of
course, gays retort, it is bound to be biased. Yes, but in favour of truth and
good relationships. A bias can come from truth or lies, deceit or ignorance.
The bias in this site is based on truth. The fact that the site is maintained by
people who cherish traditional family values is irrelevant to the truth, for truth
stands on its own.
A summary of facts (later supported by referenced data) is presented:
1. Paedophiles are Invariably Males: Almost all sex crimes against
children are committed by men.
2. Significant numbers of victims are males: Up to one-third of all sex
crimes against children are committed against boys (as opposed to
girls).
3. Homosexuals are over-represented in child sex offences: Individuals
from the 1% to 2% of the population that is sexually attracted to the
same sex are committing up to one-third of sex crimes against children.
4. Some homosexual activists defend the historic connection between
homosexuality and paedophilia: Such activists consider the defense of
‘boy lovers’ to be a legitimate gay rights issue.
5. Paedophilia themes abound in homosexual literature culture: Gay
fiction as well as serious academic treatises promote ‘intergenerational
intimacy’.
You can read the facts on the site for yourself; they adequately and
fully support what I have said throughout this book, and properly link
paedophilia with homosexuality. Also note these additional facts:
“Homosexuals claim that ‘heterosexuals’ molest most children,
but statistics show that homosexuals molest at far higher rates than do
heterosexuals.” (Some studies put this figure at 18 times more likely!).
This latter fact is, of course, hotly denied by gays and pro-gays, for
obvious reasons. They also try, using complex reasoning, to convince the
public that paedophilia is not ‘homosexual’ and about sex, but about power,
etc., etc., etc…ad infinitum. I don’t think a distraught parent bothers with the
subtle distinctions set out as excuses for homosexual behaviour! We have
seen that ‘homosexual’ behaviour slides from older people right down to
younger, including children.
To suggest that homosexuality stops suddenly because a ‘desired
object’ (e.g. a boy) is of a particular age, is just laughable. Do homosexuals
think we are fools? A man who is interested only in males, can elect to have
males of any age – what’s the real difference to him? None at all.
Homosexual Paedophile Recidivism
“Of the three groups of sexual offenders… non-incest child
molesters were found to sexually recidivate at the highest rate, at 19.5%.
Moreover, long term follow up of these offenders has shown that they
are at risk of re-offending throughout their lives. Among the non-incest
125
child molesters, the highest rate of recidivism was found for offenders
who had prior sexual offence convictions, victimised boys and were
never married.” (106)
That is, the highest rate of sex offences occurred amongst homosexual
paedophiles, and all of them were likely to re-offend throughout their lives.
This is also true of heterosexual paedophiles, as we can readily observe from
news items in all countries.
“…despite efforts by homosexual activists to distance the gay
lifestyle from paedophilia, there remains a disturbing connection
between the two. This is because, by definition, male homosexuals are
sexually attracted to other males. While many homosexuals may not
seek young sexual partners, the evidence indicates that
disproportionate numbers of gay men seek adolescent males or boys as
sexual partners.” (107)
The vast majority of sex offences against boys are committed by
males. In the UK, there were 3000 male sex offenders in prison compared to
just 12 females. (108)
“The large majority of sexual perpetrators appear to be males (Herman
& Hirschman, 1981; Lindholm & Willey, 1983).” (109). This is a claim repeated
by the American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, and the
Journal of Child Psychiatry. The Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy found
that “one-third of these sexual offenders directed their sexual activity against
males.” (Study of 457 male sex offenders against children). You will notice
that paedophilia is given ‘treatment’ because it is considered to be a
mental aberration, whereas homosexuality, from which the majority of
paedophilia arises, is not! There is a very big gap in logic here!
The Journal of Child Psychiatry believes the actual figures are very
much higher because of ‘under reporting’ of incidents. In an internet survey, of
564 respondents, 86.35% thought that an homosexual paedophile ring was
operating in Washington DC. (110). Indeed, paedophiles tend to be closely in
touch, to ‘share’ their ‘conquests’ and lusts.
Half a million Canadians signed a petition to the government to be rid
of child pornography, and over 40,000 sent letters to the Justice Minister, to
raise the age of consent from 14 to 18. Before that, the Canadian Police
Association had asked for the same thing.
They all agreed that homosexual paedophiles must be prosecuted, to
show that their acts were criminal. “Laws and sentences must reflect the
need of society to protect children from these perverts.” (111). The
Attorneys General have all called for an increase in the age of consent
because so many paedophiles travel to Canada to exploit the younger age of
consent. As most paedophile activities are by homosexuals, the aim is to
protect against that group of paedophiles.
“Homosexual paedophiles often target teenage boys, plying them with
gifts, pornography and alcohol or drugs, in order to ‘groom’ them to accept
homosexual activity. Increasing the age of consent for homosexual activity to
18 would provide an important protection for such boys.” (112)
“…the majority of paedophile cases are homosexual in
nature…men who have an overpowering attraction to…boys (are not)
actually attracted to women anyway. Homosexual paedophiles are
seriously disturbed men who have given themselves over to evil.” (113).
126
As it has been reported by gays that over 70% of all male homosexuals
have had sexual relations with boys, what does this statement make of gays
as a whole? The conclusion is obvious. (Note that gay paedophiles are called
‘perverts’, but not homosexuals. Yet, one is the other! Logically, then,
homosexuals are perverts, too, so let’s not beat about the bush!).
Islamic Objections
“There is an old maxim – attributed to the Jesuits – that if you school a
child for the first six or seven years of its life, it doesn’t matter who has it for
the rest. The age of consent in Britain is now 16… The Labour government,
heavily influenced by both homosexuals in its own upper echelons and the
homosexual lobby in general, was intent on lowering the age of consent to 16,
on the grounds that not to do so would be to perpetuate homophobia. It did so
in spite of a revolt in the Lords led by Baroness Young.” (114).
Yes, we should note just how many gays are in power in the present
government, because they heavily influence how this country is going morally.
Remember what you have already read: the lowering of the age of consent is
a major strategy of homosexuals, because of their prevalent paedophile
activities; lowering the age of consent amounts to a vast untapped ‘market’ of
youth for their unnatural desires.
In other words, when governments lower the age of consent, they offer
the country’s children to homosexual molesters and seducers, on a plate! As
will be seen in the Christian section, Romans chapter one, it is not just
homosexual paedophiles who have “given themselves over to evil”.
Homosexuals themselves, paedophile or not, are already ‘evil’ in their minds
and hearts. Paedophilia is just a ‘bonus evil’.
Parents everywhere must stand up and shout out their protests. Gays
shout all the time; that’s how they get their tawdry ways. Now it is up to you to
do the same thing. If a very small minority such as homosexuals can get their
demands met, what would the parents of any country achieve as a large
group, by countering the sexual deviances of gays? It must be done, or your
children will be lost.
“Because homosexuals cannot breed, they must recruit in order
to perpetuate their perversion, and the younger their victims are the
better…It is acknowledged that in Britain at least, the paedophile
movement has its roots firmly in the gay movement.” (114).
Muslim thinking on this concurs with Christian thinking when it says,
“…there is no such thing as gay youth; there are no ‘homosexual teenagers’.
Even for those who succumb to their inner demons and experiment with, or
engage in, homosexual practices there is hope. The young who stray…can be
reformed, the same way souls can be saved.”
I repeat, time and again, there is no such condition as ‘homosexual’,
only practices that are homosexual. Being gay is as transient as one wishes it
to be! Homosexual acts are deviant and immoral. Because they are choices,
the one doing them can choose not to do them, at any time. This might
become more difficult with time, just as any habit continually enacted is hard
to break, but it can be done, as many prove. Also, statistics show that most
homosexuals go back to normal sex, sometimes many times, and sometimes
permanently.
127
When we consider that homosexuals are ten times more likely to
contract syphilis than heterosexuals, and homosexual men are responsible for
over half of all syphilis cases in the USA, it is about time governments stopped
fooling about with gays, and immediately prevented the promotion of their
maniacal, lethal lifestyles, especially officially.
There is enough information to fill this chapter many times over, but we
will finish with a straightforward quote from an American journalist: “That
word - homophobia - has always seemed a misnomer. Many people
don’t fear the gay culture; they simply and unapologetically hate it. The
idea of same-sex sex gives them the creeps.” (115)
Never let anyone tell you that homosexuality is natural, because it
plainly is not. Your children are at serious risk, not just of homosexual
seduction, but of the same diseases. Do you want your boy to die of AIDS,
because a gay has introduced him to perverse sex acts? Do you want your
child to be ‘loved’ by a gay until he gets HIV? Then do something - now!
Oppose all gay adoptions and fostering, too. The law has already
been passed in the UK, to allow for this awful and bizarre legal
precedent, but do not give in to it. Get the law changed. If over 70% of
homosexuals have paedophile desires, this must also translate into
those who wish to adopt! That is sheer logic! We must question why
homosexuals wish to have young children in their control!
Homosexual paedophiles get themselves into positions where they can
abuse children. We know this from countless police reports and from the
terrible cases brought against priests. It is plain as day that one of the best
ways to get hold of youngsters is simply to adopt them. Is this what is behind
gay adoptions? You must settle that question in your own mind after reading
the facts in this book! And there are enough questions to cause sane people
and sane governments to stop gay adoptions, or even to reverse the
decisions already made.
22nd June 2006
Two UK gays were put in prison today for sexually abusing their
foster children. If we allow gays (male or female) to adopt or foster, this
will be a repeated crime, over and over again. LET THIS BE A WARNING!
DON’T FALL FOR THE GAY PERSONA ON TV AND IN FILMS.
DON’T FALL FOR THE LYING PUBLIC MARKETING PLOYS THEY USE, AS
THEY TRY DESPERATELY TO GET OTHERS TO SUPPORT THEIR
AWFUL LIFESTYLES. EVEN IF YOU HAVE GAY FRIENDS, DON’T THINK
THAT WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT REALLY GOES ON! IF YOU DO, THEN
YOU ARE WELL AND TRULY DUPED!
128
Chapter 7
Gay Puppets
(Law, Police, Employers, Councils, et al)
‘By capitulating to gay demands, the cowardly
businessman has now dismissed an innocent man
or woman. He has appeased a raging tiger for the
sake of his business interests. By doing that, he
has tied himself forever to gay demands…in doing
so, he has shackled himself to the gay cause.’
“After months of pressure from the gay community
and Labour movement, and a threat of legal action
by Ken Livingstone, Bromley council has reversed
its decision to ban civil partnership ceremonies…”
‘The whole scene is surreal and very bizarre.
Concerning the situation in the USA: “This
homosexual urban legend is used by homosexuals
to lobby for state and federal crime laws that
provide enhanced penalties for crimes committed
against homosexuals. These laws, in effect, make
heterosexuals second-class citizens under the law,
because they are not a protected class. A person
who assaults a homosexual will receive a stiffer
penalty than a person who assaults a heterosexual
for the same crime.” ’
“Political scientist Ronald J Pestritto, a professor at
St Vincent College, observed that hate crime
legislation is a political fad that ‘seeks to
criminalize all feelings, thoughts, or attitudes that
run contrary to the trends of the day.”
‘Civil rights’ of homosexuals is coming about via
political correctness as a means of silencing
opposition. Thus the term ‘civil rights’ translates as
the rights of homosexuals and not anyone else.
Freedom of speech, then, is not compatible with
civil rights.
“What is going on? Has Britain, regarded around
the world as the home of free speech, become a
country in which people can no longer say what
they think? Have ancient freedoms of movement
and self-expression vanished? And why do the
129
police have these new powers? The answers lie in
the government’s slippery reaction to two distinct
strains of zealotry: Islamic terrorism and political
correctness.”
In the 1980’s, when AIDS and HIV first grabbed the headlines in the
UK, naturally, there was a spate of Christian preaching about the evils of
homosexuality. What did gay activists do? They did not counter with rational
arguments. Instead, donning masks, and wielding baseball bats, they entered
churches and halls and smashed up everything they could find, attacking
preachers, and their listeners, too. Intimidation is quicker than being rational!
Now cast your mind back to the first chapter. Recognise this kind of
thing? Yes – fascism in action! Is this the rational way to win an argument? Of
course not. Do you know why people respond with violence, intimidation and
lies, rather than argument? Because they have no argument. In school, did a
bully ever listen to rational argument or even pleading? No, they just like to
kick lumps out of people!
(Note: As always, gays are now trying again to reverse the facts, by
saying Christians are intimidating them! What garbage! They are even
accusing Christians of stopping their free speech, when it is gays who are
forcing all countries to silence Christians and anyone else who opposes them!
Look at the facts!)
I want to ask police and lawmakers what makes one form of attack
more worthy of attention than another? For example, for a very long time gays
have attacked Christians. Verbal and literary abuse occurs all the time. Why
are these not listed as ‘hate crimes’? Why do the police not take action?
Note: According to the Hate Crime manual issued by Chiefs of
Police in the UK, Christians CAN call these ‘hate crimes’ and can
demand police take action! So, take every opportunity to do so… that is
exactly what gays are doing!
Over the past 40 years I have come across many gays, and as persons
they vary considerably, just as people do in any society. But, sadly, when a
gay ‘feels’ (it does not have to be actual) opinion is against him/her, he or she
will strike out in fury. I experienced this fury from work colleagues, who, until
that time, were friendly toward me… or so I thought. It is as if being gay adds
a nasty element to the character. (This was taught way back, in the Bible,
Romans chapter one). Others in the UK have found the same thing; where
gays are fine until they know you reject their lifestyle. Then they rant and
scream and plunge a dagger into your heart.
Are all gays fascist? Not initially. However, look at people who inject
drugs. They begin with lesser drugs, and claim they can control their intake.
But they can’t, and progress to less amenable drugs until they hit the hard
stuff. Then, they lose dignity, respect, job, home and loved ones. To maintain
their habit they become criminals and will readily kill to get their ‘fix’, if it
becomes necessary.
Now look at gays. At first, they shyly meet with other gays. But, as time
goes on, their attitudes harden. Like others with a sex problem, gays must get
their ‘fix’. Yes, they will enter gay bars and look through gay ads in gay
magazines. But, as with any addiction, gays will strive for more and more, in
their minds if not in activity. If anything, or anyone, tries to stop it, or brings
130
attention to it as a bad choice, they become tigers, ready to rip the hearts out
of their opponents.
Gay Misuse of Law
As for gays using law to prevent proper argumentation, this is
becoming far more prevalent. Recently they used law to force a man out of his
job, even though he treated gays with kindness, friendship, courtesy and
professionalism! (This kind of gay/lesbian viciousness is now common).
This is indicative not just of the inadequacy and insecurity of gays, but
also of their misuse of the law as a blunt instrument, and their willingness to
resort to fascist techniques to get their own way. The aim is to silence all
objections. But this is counterproductive, because society resents being
dictated-to by those who make what is, to them, a bizarre sexual choice. Law
can never change attitudes!
Besides this, the law already contains, within its pages, sufficient legal
protection for all members of society. Why, then, is homosexuality (a choice)
given such an unique position in legal precedent? It does not make any sense
at all! When one examines the theories put out by pro-gay groups, he sees
very quickly that it is all a smoke-screen, designed to disorientate those who
get too close to the truth. But – gays can’t fool all of the people all of the time!
A Bad Habit
Homosexuality is just a nasty bad habit, and it can be stopped. There is
no such thing as a ‘gay’, as I have already shown. A man or woman will
indulge in sex with someone of the same gender, but, in doing so, that person
does not somehow, magically, become another kind of human being! He or
she is simply a man or woman who has made an unnatural choice, that’s all!
This means there is no such thing as a ‘gay community’ either. The
most recent figure for homosexuality is about 1%-2% of the whole population.
But, the figure is misleading. This is because, out of that figure, many will
switch to the opposite sex, maybe many times, if not permanently (see earlier
statistics). Thus, the base figure of 1%-2% is by no means fixed or even
realistic. The figure is more likely to be well below 1%, in the fractions.
Gays meet together to boost their own lifestyle. Art lovers, for example,
might join with other art lovers for special meetings or exhibitions, but this
does not make them a separate ‘community’ in any fixed or genetic sense.
Members of a club change all the time. Some leave and others join. When
they leave they are no longer members. Logical, really. So, why is it that
governments are supporting gays as a community, when there is no
‘community’ and the whole thing is a fiction, a myth?
Sexual choices range from natural and good to extremely weird,
disgusting and harmful. A person can choose any sex object he or she
wishes, at any time. This does not indicate a ‘community’, but a sexual
shopping spree!
Gays also meet together to find more sexual objects, so that they can
perpetuate (and extend) their choices. As has already been noted, sex is one
of the easiest desires to satisfy, even when alone. Once a person has crossed
the natural barrier of a taboo, it becomes much easier to break that taboo
again and again, becoming more strident and confident as time goes by.
131
Is this ‘taboo’ solely of Christian origin? No. Though homosexuality
exists in every part of the world, many countries frown upon the habit. Some
will put gays to death. Even in countries where Christian influence is negligible
or non-existent, individuals have a natural revulsion against homosexuality.
This can only be because the habit is perceived to be unnatural or
unpalatable. It is a natural revulsion. And when, in the final section, you see a
few of the disgusting things homosexuals do, you will not just be repulsed, you
might even vomit!
In my own case, well before I read or heard anything at all about
homosexuality, I had a natural barrier against it, an inner disgust. How can
this be, when I knew almost nothing about it, and never heard anyone brand it
as ‘bad’? It is because the revulsion is natural, inbuilt.
In the USA and UK, as in many other western countries, but more
rapidly, homosexuality has made immense inroads into society. Few speak
their mind, because of the fear of attack from gays. They know gays are like a
secret army, with networks everywhere, ready to jump at anyone who dares to
speak against their lifestyle.
Gays control newspapers both sides of the Atlantic, even letters’
pages, which now insist on printing your name and address. Guess who
manipulated this one? Yes – gays. Why? Because they can find the poor
letter-writer and intimidate him. Or, as they now do in the USA, they will
publish their names on a website, so that everyone can intimidate him!
Therefore, no-one writes anything opposing gays in newspapers. A very
simple but effective way of silencing people. Very fascist.
Everyone (including myself) worked with gays without saying a word
against homosexuality. The gays themselves spoke openly about their
relationships and gay lives, but heterosexuals said nothing. Why? Because of
the fear of losing their job or some kind of retribution. I can assure those gays,
that many in their workplace and outside despise their gay lifestyle! They do
not say anything in front of you, but they certainly despise you behind your
backs!
A young gay started work with heterosexuals and immediately started
to talk about his ‘lover’ and what they got up to, in graphic detail. No-one said
anything because they feared a backlash, though his conversation was
obnoxious. One day he said of a young couple holding hands, “That’s
disgusting!” and went on about how heterosexuality was awful. He was free to
say whatever he liked, but everyone else had to shut up!
I respect persons because they have been given life as human beings.
If they warrant it by their lives, I can also respect them as people. Put in very
basic terms, to respect another human being is simply to accept that they are
born and may live, just as I may live, so long as they do not harm others or act
godlessly. But, I must admit, that respect for gays, even on this most basic of
levels, is very hard to maintain.
To be respected as people, however, they must contribute to the
general good of society. If they act and live against that good and harm
others, then they deserve no respect as people. Thus, I put up with gays in
the workplace because the law says I have to, and for no other reason.
Many employers, a growing number, have no moral stance (or, they
are cowards), and so adopt pro-gay laws without a sound. If a gay starts to
whinge, the employer will do anything to prevent the whinge getting louder.
132
The employer will even cringe and lay on his face, crawling in reverence to
gays, and obey their every demand, dismissing good, loyal employees for the
sake of peace and quiet. Then, gays pat them on the head: ‘Good dogs’.
By doing this an employer becomes a puppet of sexual deviance. Far
from laying a grumble to rest, he promotes further grumbles. Gays now know
he is willing to crumble at the first hint of trouble. So, they can manipulate him
time and again. He is their puppet, who has lost his personal integrity and
ability to think for himself. He is also likely to become a mecca for gay
workers. Such employers are fools… haven’t they ever watched those old
films about shop-keepers who pay protection money?
But this is also the case for police, lawmakers, local councils, schools
and colleges – just about anybody who caves-in to gay lies and intimidation.
Chicken Legs
Why do I keep insisting that a genetic cause for homosexuality will
never be found? For the same reason a genetic cause will never be found for
any other choice!
Did you ever play that Christmas trick with a chicken leg? You know,
pull the tendon and make the claws move?
Well, when you pulled the tendon the claws opened and shut, yes?
This was proof that the tendon was connected to the claws, right? The tendon
was the mechanism by which the claws could move. (Of course, other
mechanisms in the brain had to make the tendons move, too, when the
chicken was alive).
Now, where is that magical mechanism in homosexuality? There is
none! To prove a genetic cause, the researcher must ‘pull the chicken
tendon’! He must prove beyond any doubt that when he does this, or that, to a
gene, it actively causes a person to make a particular choice, or, causes him
or her to do whatever it is. Furthermore, that same laboratory experiment must
give the same result time after time after time. That’s a scientific process
called replication and falsification. But, that will never happen with
homosexuality! Know why?
Because no-one has yet shown that a physical element (e.g. a gene)
has any influence at all on what a person actually does. Pull the chicken
tendon and the claws move. That’s okay and it’s simple, because there is an
obvious and direct correlation between the two.
The reason a gene cannot ever prove a correlation with an action is
also simple: actions, unless they are autonomous (like breathing), are based
on two things; the ability to do them, and the choice to do so. For example, we
might have the ability, physically, to jump off a cliff: that’s just a combination of
physical factors and chemical reactions in the brain. But, to actually jump is
down to a choice to do so, not the ability to do so.
When it comes to homosexuality, we all have the ability to indulge in it,
but very few do. Why? Because we choose not to. Thus, there is no chicken
leg to pull! And that means there is no mechanism on earth to facilitate it.
So, how can governments make laws in favour of a particular sexual
deviation, when there are no known mechanisms to prove the deviation has a
‘right’ to special status? How can police warn people, or arrest them, on the
strength of hearsay and gay propaganda; police who, under normal
circumstances, require not just evidence but final proof before they lay down
133
the law? Why do employers cave-in, becoming good dogs immediately a gay
whinges, when there is nothing on which to base their unreasonable
reactions?
Contextual & Universal Validity
In discussions, on many occasions, I come across stubborn adherence
to a theory or position in the other person, even when he or she is faced with
the most conclusive proof of the invalidity of his arguments.
I also find this when discussing homosexuality with gays and pro-gays.
I point out, for example, the debunked nature of LeVay’s work, and people still
continue to quote from it, exhibiting it as proof (even though LeVay admits he
did not give such proof)!! Duh! The lights are on but nobody is in!
Most gays outwardly (because inwardly they know I am telling the truth)
avoid anything said against their lifestyle, even though they know it is wrong.
Like anyone who is habitually hooked, they will maintain a strong front, even if
it makes them look stupid… which it usually does.
What has happened is that gays, through effective propaganda, have
created their own environs. Pro-gay sympathisers join them in these environs.
The trouble is, the environs are like an exotic hot-house in the middle of the
Arctic. Whatever is in the hot-house must stay there, or die. Open the door
just a crack, and the ice-wind will destroy everything within its walls.
This is ‘Contextual Validity’. Something that is contextually valid is only
valid inside its own territory. When exposed to ideas outside itself, it cannot
sustain its validity, and so it dies. Therefore, logically, it remains within itself,
creating its own life-support system. That is where the idea of a ‘community’
comes into the picture. Gays cannot sustain a reason for their own existence
as a group except from within the group!
Why is this? Because what gays claim cannot be justified by reason,
morality, law, or any other possible measure. So, gays invent their own ‘town’
with theories and reasons, and recycle them within their own ‘community’,
though they are, intellectually and morally, untenable (if not moronic at times).
Gay themes are a bit like those water features in gardens, where the same
stale water constantly recycles via a pump.
By staying in their ‘community’ gays can say or do whatever they wish,
and they will only get praise and support. This is because no opposing views
are allowed entry. If they somehow appear at the gate of their citadel, they will
be kicked out.
Universal Validity is something quite different. It is the destroyer of
myths. It is the lion that eats the flesh of false contextual validity! (There can
be a valid contextual validity, but it does not mind examination and constantly
interacts with universal validity. It is but a part of the whole).
This form of validity looks at everything within its circle, including the
variety of diverse contextual validities, whether religious, moral, political,
societal, and so on. It is a great falsification machine. Gays dare not face this
machine or allow its small environs to be invaded by universal examination by
all-comers. It will only allow into its confined space, those who agree. This is
why they carefully hand-pick those non-gays they want as allies, those they
know they can manipulate and be good dogs.
Universal validity includes Christian criticism of ideas, whether or not
people like it. If Christian thought is invalid, then it is just as valid as any other
134
invalidity! That is, all comers can criticise, and their criticism may be accepted
or rejected on their own merits, by those who examine what is said. This is the
healthy way to entertain theories and claims.
But, gays do not like it this way and hide behind their own doors. They
only come out to harm, and to kill opposition and seek legal protection. They
cannot survive in the wider arena of universal validity. Thus, they prove their
own invalidity! They do not need protection because they are shy victims, but
because they are vipers waiting to strike!
Governments, police, employers, councils, et al, live and work in the
realm of Universal Validity, but they ignore this source of truth, and are
continually dragged into the smaller and more confined space known as
Contextual Validity. Like youngsters brain-washed by cults, they sit obediently
in a claustrophobic room to receive teachings from the gurus of sexual
deviance, and eventually are released to their own environs, to spread the
mantra… ’gay is good’, ‘gay is safe’, and ‘do harm to all who disagree’!
Surely I am being abusive toward the authorities? Am I? What do you
say about people who criminalise or attack citizens and good workers, on the
basis of lies and deception? Or, on the basis of half-baked and unproved
science? What do you call them if they create laws to silence right-thinking
people who go about their lives quietly and without bother? What do you say
to authorities and employers who bring bogus law against people for
expressing a legitimate view? Are they not fascist? Are they not obeying the
demands of an unqualified minority (1% or even less)? Are they not stupid?
Absolutes Don’t Exist?
Another favourite retort by gays, is that there is no absolute, and thus
no absolute moral standard. Absolutes, they say, belong to religious belief,
and if they don’t believe in religion, then the absolute dies with it. Is this true?
Well, it certainly is, if you live in the mythical country known as ‘Gay
Contextual Validity’.
When a man says “There are no absolutes”, he is making an absolute
statement! When a gay says I am wrong, he is making an absolute statement.
Now, how do we know which absolute statement is correct? His or mine?
Why not examine them both? (Hey, that’s a novel idea!) This normal
process will at least give a clue. The result of my absolute is peace of mind,
safety, no risk of death by sexual disease, no abnormal relationships, no
sexual abuse and misuse of the young, no violence, and no fascism. The
result of the gay ‘absolute’ is disease, death, imbalance, sterility, immorality,
violence and fascism. No such thing as morality? Please, do not insult
anyone’s intelligence! Is it right to steal? Is it right to murder? These are moral
matters.
Why do I talk of what is ‘normal’ when what is normal depends on
individual belief? That is an old chestnut of an argument, and it belongs in
kindergarten! It is obvious to just about everyone on this earth what is
‘normal’. And what is abnormal is usually very obvious, too.
Gays want to fudge the issue and spread out lies so that they mingle
with truth. Like a man dressed in a military uniform hired from a fancy dress
shop, gays pretend to be normal and moral by mixing with genuine soldiers.
Though their gall and pretence becomes obvious quickly, the real army,
135
deceived by the commands of pro-gays higher-up, is allowing them to remain
where they are, of no use to anyone.
None of this makes sense! Pro-gay laws make no sense! Government
decisions make no sense! The whole matter of pro-gay laws and employment
rules makes no sense! They are bizarre and solely rooted in gay claims;
claims that have no shred of evidence in their favour, whether scientific,
medical, social, psychological, religious, etc. In the UK, Dr N tells me no-one
properly collected the views of the public before making pro-gay laws. The
only ‘views’ collected were those from gay and pro-gay groups! And that was
after gays and pro-gays formulated the laws in the first place!
This is an excellent and glaring example of the ‘gay agenda’ in action.
Remember what the gay authors said? The public must never know how progay laws get there, or why! Just flatter and fawn over educated people in
positions of authority, and they will do your bidding. And the same is
happening in the USA. In other words, those nasty little aliens have suckedout their brains. (Don’t like me saying that all the time? Then prove you are
intelligent by examining the real facts!)
On Being ‘PC’
As one who believes in conscience and freedom of speech, the idea of
being ‘PC’ (‘politically correct’) horrifies me. It is the putting-down of individual
freedom and conscience. On the part of authorities and employers it is nothing
but gay thuggery because they are afraid of gays. On the part of gays it is
deception and fascism.
The burgeoning of laws to ‘protect’ gays means harm to others. A UK
employee experienced the hatred of gays, expressed through her employer.
Gays where she worked exploited the new ‘orientation’ regulations (even
though it would not be actual law for another year), using outright lies and
deception, and the employer was easily manipulated by gays. Without doubt,
it was bullying, in favour of gay freedom to do whatever they like. Is this
equitable? No it is not!
Dismissed for Christian Beliefs
New York: A businessman obeyed gays without question and to please
them he wagged his tail whenever they came near. He is ignorant of
homosexual facts yet he condemned a Christian employee to loss of job, on
the say-so of gays. This is happening everywhere in the western world, to the
shame of employers, whose intelligence and morality must be severely
questioned.
This kind of gay behaviour does employers no favours, for it shows
them to be brutishly childish. But, they were following the ‘gay agenda’ to the
letter.
What we have plainly displayed here is hatred spread by gays, who
find it easy to apply fascist-style pressure through an employer to anyone who
dissents. How? By knowing an employer is too scared of losing income. They
do not care that wages or career are lost! Gays have no qualms in destroying
those who reject gay propaganda. And employers care even less for truth and
good, so long as they continue to get their profits. Gays use this greed-factor
in their favour.
136
In the UK the Sexual Orientation Regulations (encouraged by gays and
formulated by pro-gays) will come into force October 2006. These will be used
by gays without mercy, and they will force employers to use them against the
most innocent of workers, until they get a completely silent workplace, devoid
of integrity and honesty. I predict there is going to be widespread mischiefmaking by gays… watch for the news items, because they will prove beyond
doubt that what I am saying is true!
Problem for Employers
Employers naturally try to protect their business, which they have
worked so hard to build up. I understand that. But, their perception of this is
warped by adherence to the ‘PC’ code. And their submission to gay demands
is foolish in the extreme. Like businesses who submit to Mafia ‘protection’
rackets! Companies that obey gay demands will often end up as gay meccas,
where gays abound and carefully restructure the company and its policies so
that it does what they want it to do.
This is happening everywhere. Employers, scared by gay threats of
court action, will immediately capitulate to gay pressure. It does not matter
that an employer is loyal and gives all his effort to the company. If he says
what everyone knows, that homosexuality is not acceptable, he is dead-meat!
Once gays threaten, all reason flies out the window! Indeed, gays don’t
even have to threaten; employers know how appalling their behaviour is
toward non-PC organisations, so they make sure they are ‘PC’ before
anything happens!
Thus, employers will be the most PC of them all. (The UK is leading the
field at the moment). Rather than face the possibility of huge gay publicity
actions (because gays have a network of influential people in their midst), they
will immediately victimise the good worker, though all she has done is to
oppose gay propaganda outside the workplace. Nothing illegal or against the
company, just a view that gays do not like and wish to get rid of. They ‘feel
uncomfortable’, but the one they victimise loses her job, income and maybe
even her home. (“I feel uncomfortable” is now the stupid gay’s mantra!).
Equality? Hardly! Yet, there is a ‘sister’ law in the UK, the Religious
Beliefs Regulations. It pre-dates the sexual orientation regulations. In theory
the wordings are almost identical, supposedly giving protection to those who
object to something because of beliefs. It should, then, counter any claims
made by gays.
But will it? Of course not! It will be silenced, like everything else! I
can only suggest that UK Christians use this sister-law to oppose gay
fascism. Use it as often as you can, just as gays are going to use law to
‘smash’ Christians! Complain to your employer as often as possible. If
they don’t listen, go to your union. If they don’t listen, go to your MP,
and to the newspapers.
So, the good employee is dismissed or forced to leave, and gays get
their own way. All is now quiet. Or is it? No, it does not end there, because it
is only the beginning. Like a deadly virus, it will keep on multiplying.
By capitulating to gay demands, the cowardly amoral businessman has
now dismissed an innocent man or woman. One who, in all probability, has
given years of excellent service. He has appeased a raging tiger for the sake
137
of his business interests. By doing that, he has tied himself forever to gay
demands. This is now rampant in the USA.
From now on he will instantly jump to the gay tune and dance like a
puppet to their demands. He has given in to gays and is now owned by them.
So, employers who cave-in when faced with mythical gay power
become pawns of the gay machine. (The power is mythical, but becomes
reality when people think it is real! That’s how all bullies gain power). Gays
have won! In this way employers who are ‘PC’ are henchmen of the gay
movement, doing their bidding. If you are an employer, beware, for in
capitulating to gay pressure you become their property and lose your selfrespect (if you ever had it). You will certainly lose the respect of your other
employees… including the gays you so readily appease.
I urge employers to read the whole of this book, because homosexuals
will otherwise win the day. They choose their own lifestyle and sexual objects.
Because this is true, any laws they demand are false and should be repealed.
It is gays who bring trouble to your door, not honest employees.
Women’s Equality
“The government is working to put an end to all forms of discrimination,
whether based on age, disability, gender, race, religion or sexual orientation.”
(118). Any law student could rip this statement to shreds!
You will note there is a mixture here: the first four groups have nothing
to do with choices (though a small number of disabilities may indeed be
acquired by sheer stupidity or dangerous activities). The latter two are
personal choices. It should concern all who are interested in how legal
systems define their subjects. Why is it that what is fixed by birth is not made
distinct from what is enforced by uninvited accident or disease; and this
separated from what results from stupidity or dangerous activity; and these
are not all distinguished from conditions deliberately chosen (and which, by
definition, can be retracted or abandoned by the same process of choice)?
In other words, I am saying that the drive to create a band of legal
elites is not balanced, and is certainly sloppy legislature. In all categories of
legal argumentation, lawyers will debate single words. Why on earth, then, is
the law so sloppy when it comes to ‘sexual orientation’? Even the word
‘orientation’ can be debated!!
I can see there are issues on pay, conditions, and so on. But what are
the issues when it comes to ‘sexual orientation’? Orientation is just another
word for sexual choice. If the law is saying people may not be discriminated
against because they choose a particular sexual outlet, well, that is far too
broad and undisciplined to allow as a legal explanation.
An ‘orientation’ is a personal matter. It is a choice. It is also a choice to
reject the lifestyle choices of others. How can one lifestyle choice be given
precedence over another lifestyle choice in law? It is not possible to define in
law which lifestyle choices are better than others. Is a red coat better than a
blue one? Is a saloon car better than a compact? How does a lawyer
differentiate in law? He cannot, because it is all a matter of personal choice.
If this is so, then how can the law set up one lifestyle choice as better
than, or equal to, another lifestyle choice? More pertinently, how can the law
say that one choice deserves to be protected and others do not?
138
And here comes another problem: heterosexuality is the natural sexual
mode. Homosexuality is a diversion from that natural mode. That is, a person
has to make deliberate choices to deviate from what is natural and to adopt
what is unnatural. Thus, heterosexuality is not a ‘choice’ but homosexuality is.
It can be likened to, say, robotics. It is natural to have a skull containing
a brain, with all its functions. But, what if a man somehow cut off his head and
replaced it with a robotic one, containing computerised systems? The robotic
head is not natural. Nor is it equal to an human head. It might perform certain
functions ‘normal’ heads can do, but it is not human, not natural, and not
equal. The human head is a given. The robotic head is a choice.
So, when we talk about sexual choices, it is those who deviate from
what is natural who make sexual ‘orientation’ choices, not heterosexuals.
All the above, and more, show a very real need to look hard at sexual
orientation laws. They have no intellectual, or actual, basis on which to
operate properly, and so are incomplete, ill-conceived and ill-defined. This is
certainly not ‘PC’ but it is logical!
Note: Watch out for the emotive titles given to campaigns by
unions and others: they say they will ‘smash’ so-called ‘homophobia’.
The term is used often by many others. It is violent and… fascist.
Fascist Counties and Councils
Many U.S. counties, and local councils around Britain, can only be
described as ‘fascist’. To quote: “After months of pressure from the gay
community (Ed. Remember – there is no gay ‘community’!) and Labour
movement, and a threat of legal action by Ken Livingstone, Bromley council
has reversed its decision to ban civil partnership ceremonies…” (119)
This is nothing less than blatant dictatorship. It is intimidation by
fascism. What local council would dare to stand against this kind of
outrageous action by the Labour party and gay activists? None! In this way
local councils are forced to agree gay plans whether or not they wish to
participate.
Percolating down, it means that all people living in the council area are
forced to pay for same-sex ‘rights’ through their local taxes, whether or not
they agree to it. And if councils do not capitulate, they will be attacked
mercilessly by gays. There will be no discussion and the right to disagree,
only gay fascism.
In U.S. counties and in councils around the UK, there are mini-Hitlers
with ultra-PC minds who, wishing to appear to be good dogs, demand gay
rights because they rule by fear and intimidation. They force schools to stop
Christmas shows but insist on teachings about homosexuality; they demand
same sex ceremonies and dismiss anyone who disagrees. Once again, this
is fascism.
In an attempt to legitimise what they are doing, the UK Labour Party
refers to rejection of same-sex ceremonies, etc., as ‘homophobia’. This
nonsense word should be scrapped. Even in a few years this invented word
has been transformed from ‘fear of homosexuality’ to ‘hatred of homosexuals’!
I often wonder if these people are on the same planet.
Why is it ‘homophobic’ to reject the gay lifestyle? It is my prerogative to
do so, and no socialist or gay group can force me to think otherwise. Indeed,
the more they push the less likely it is that people will listen to anything at all
139
they say! Do they not realise that the more people are forced the more likely it
is that resistance will follow and turn upon the enforcer. It is only a matter of
time, and gays should remember that. As we have seen, gays themselves
warn about a coming backlash.
Even if a local council is forced by ridiculous pro-gay laws to obey gay
demands for same-sex ceremonies, it need not adopt the actual ethos of it. I
see nothing wrong with a council allowing the ceremonies but, at the same
time, declaring that it does not necessarily agree with them. Or will gays then
smash up the council offices in revenge? Yes, most likely.
In any place I have worked I have had to work alongside gays. That’s
life. When they work, that is fine. When they start to talk about their ‘partners’
and their sex life, that is not acceptable. I do not wish to know about their life
together, or anything else about homosexuality. If they insist on talking about
it, they are invading my privacy and discriminating against me because of my
beliefs. I don’t force my beliefs on them, so I don’t expect them to force their
lifestyle upon me in talk or actions. This is not ‘homophobia’, it is rejection of
an unnatural lifestyle for very good scientific and Christian reasons.
Included in the website of the Labour Campaign as a derogatory
statement, I now include it as praise for the person who said it: ”An aide to
Tory MP Andrew Rosindell said that gay partnerships were ‘inferior’ to
heterosexual ones, that they were ‘deeply offensive to religious people’,
and that they should be ‘tolerated but not encouraged’.” Well said! I have
already shown that, for a variety of reasons, homosexuality is not natural and
therefore is not equal to heterosexuality. The MP’s aide was correct in his
statement. It is to Labour’s shame that they say otherwise.
First Change Words
It is usual for vested-interest groups to amend meanings of words, in
order to confuse and to bring about change. You have already seen how
gays have changed their own word, ‘homophobia’ (which was meaningless
even when first coined), from one thing to another. They are trying to change
other words in many ways, in an effort to change the views of society.
Thus ‘sodomy’ became ‘queer’, and this became ‘homosexuality’, and
then ‘gay and lesbian’. Nowadays, ‘gay’ is becoming ‘male-with-male sex’…
and so the changes continue. It makes no real difference, because the
underlying condition remains the same, an unnatural choice of sex object,
involving disgusting sexual practices.
We find this subtle change in encyclopaedias, too. The web-based
Wikipedia, for example, is obviously pro-gay by its various pronouncements
(though a true encyclopaedia does not side with anyone). In a section on
AIDS it changes fact into fiction by saying “When the AIDS virus first became
widespread… it was called the ‘gay cancer’… because it appeared to be
largely restricted to gay men.”
The words ‘appeared’ and ‘largely’ changes emphasis. AIDS did not
‘appear’ to be restricted to gay men – it was restricted to them! AIDS was
wholly attributable to gays (not just ‘largely’) in both the USA and the UK and,
by using retrospective methods of examining statistics from Africa, we can
reasonably say that in that country, too, gays were probably the source of
AIDS. Whether or not this can be traced back to monkeys or any other animal
140
(as some suggest) is irrelevant. But, like almost everyone else,
encyclopaedias are being ‘PC’. In so doing, they mislead the public.
In the USA, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention were
forced by gay pressure to change ‘GRID’ (Gay Related Immune Deficiency) to
‘AIDS’, thus hiding the true nature of the disease.
When they saw how the medical facts were building up against them,
gays started to ‘fight back’ with all kinds of ‘education’ initiatives. Until that
time it was mainstream to consider homosexuality as a dangerous and
unnatural lifestyle, a point highlighted by AIDS. Thus gays managed to
successfully hide their part in what has become a pandemic.
As I watched this go on from the 1980’s, I have observed how gays
have, again successfully, spread blame for AIDS amongst the general
population. They did this in both the USA and the UK even when all cases of
AIDS were attributable to gays! That is why the UK government mis-spent
millions on ‘education’ and TV advertisements, saying that ‘everyone’ is at
risk, which was a lie. It is also why the campaign failed miserably.
Research findings proved homosexuality was the source of AIDS in the
USA and UK. So, why ‘blame’ all of society? It was nothing more than a gay
ploy, a dupe to throw the public off the scent. Vast sums were spent to tell the
public what was blatantly untrue. That is why I accuse western governments
of causing even more deaths by AIDS.
Who contracts AIDS? Those who are gay, or who have experienced
some kind of gay-related activity, e.g. sharing needles with gays or bisexuals,
etc. A few contracted it by ‘bad blood’ or by promiscuous men having sex with
their wives, etc. A virgin who only has sexual relationships with one other
virgin of the opposite sex, will never contract AIDS (except by accident). So,
why blame all those who are married and have never had sex with anyone
else? Why blame people who are not promiscuous?
In Africa, where AIDS is now out of control, no-one, including health
professionals, will bluntly say “Stop promiscuity and you will stop AIDS”! Not
one health professional will say clearly that AIDS is caused by promiscuity.
Not one. By being gutless, then, health professionals can be held responsible
for the spread of AIDS in Africa. That is how homosexuals can hide the cause
of AIDS. The disease is caused by a particular set of activities that can
ultimately be traced back to a particular lifestyle. Gays don’t want this to be
made known, so they intimidate professionals into not discussing the most
obvious ‘cure’ of all, sexual abstinence when single, faithfulness when
married, and only heterosexual sexual unions!
So, in Africa we have an absurd situation. AIDS is spread by
promiscuous men having sex with other men and female prostitutes, whose
‘clients’ go back to their wives and spread it further. These unsuspecting
wives passed it on to their children. Other gays spread AIDS by sharing
needles with non-gays. And so, by lives based on immorality and promiscuity,
AIDS spreads like a fire.
Knowing all this, why should I be ‘PC’ about homosexuality? Why
should I accept a deadly lifestyle choice? Even if AIDS did not exist,
Christians and others with morals cannot accept the gay lifestyle.
141
Changing Gender
The absurd UK ‘Gender Recognition Act’ cannot be more ‘PC’ or more
deluded. It ‘recognises’ that a person can change from one gender to another.
Yet, it does this without scientific proof!
If a person is born a man, he is a man, no matter what bits he has
removed or plastic bits added! You can put an elephant into a tutu, but this
doesn’t make it a ballet dancer! Appearance can be changed, but not gender.
There is no scientific research to prove gender can be changed. One
only has to witness, with scorn, the bizarre sight of blue-chinned transvestites
to see how absurd this all is. Even though a change of gender is not proved
and never can be, the law has been altered. Why is this?
Again, such laws are enforced, which is against everything citizens
have come to value. We are fast losing our freedom of speech and now, so it
seems, sanity and freedom of choice, too. And if we naturally laugh in scorn at
a pathetic man dressed in a skirt and wearing tottering high-heels, we can be
arrested! Gays are given legal rights to choose their unnatural lifestyles, but
those of us who reject it are not allowed the same rights of choice.
Gay now tend to make a big thing of news stories that will further their
cause. For example, a gay was murdered, supposedly by someone who hated
gays. Though many people are now murdered every day, gays attempt to
steal the limelight, using their dead peer to help ‘stamp out homophobia’. Yet,
almost no gay is murdered because of his gayness! Look at the figures!
The very words ‘stamp out’ and ‘smash’ say it all! It is, I repeat, nothing
but fascism plus Marxism. I invite all journalists to examine what they are
doing. Look at the way you construct your arguments. Why are you focusing
on gays? And their ‘rights’? Look at your avowed ‘code’ to present the truth
and not lies, facts and not fiction. Why are you promoting gay rights at the
expense of the rights of everyone else in society?
Why do you continue to accuse non-gays of ‘prejudice’ and ‘bigotry’
when all they are doing is expressing their personal views? In this book I go a
step further, and express scientific views, also. Why are such views not
covered by the media? Why are they denigrated, when they have an equal
right to be heard? Why are you being ‘PC’ and not factual? Why do you
continue quoting from debunked research and not from the whole spectrum of
research and falsifications? At the very least, if you insist on quoting from
them, add the words ‘other valid views exist’! Or even the truth: “This is trash!”
Supposed ‘Hate Crimes’
Part of the gay agenda is to promote the idea there is widespread ‘hate
crime’ committed against gays. But, is this true? Like just about everything
claimed by gays, it is not. It is a lie spread to support their spurious claim to
special protection by police and law.
There is also the problem of how we define ‘hate crime’, which can, in
some cases, simply be making a gay ‘feel uncomfortable’! (Well, that’s what
they claim! In reality they know they can say it and police come running! It is
just a big game for gays). Christians ‘feel uncomfortable’ because of
continuous gay attacks on them, but they don’t go to the police!
The whole scene is surreal and very bizarre. Concerning the situation
in the USA: “This homosexual urban legend is used by homosexuals to lobby
for state and federal crime laws that provide enhanced penalties for crimes
142
committed against homosexuals. These laws, in effect, make heterosexuals
second-class citizens under the law, because they are not a protected class.
A person who assaults a homosexual will receive a stiffer penalty than a
person who assaults a heterosexual for the same crime.” (120). Don’t you
find this disturbing? Don’t you find this grossly weird? Let’s continue:
“FBI statistics show that there are actually very few ‘hate crimes’
committed against homosexuals in the United States. Yet, homosexuals
claim they need federal legislation passed to protect them from what
they maintain is an epidemic of hate against them.”
Why? Do those who create legislation bother to examine the facts? Do
they not look at official statistics? They obviously do not, otherwise the laws
they invent would not be brought in at all! This is incredible.
According to 1997 FBI figures, for example, of 20,000 murders, only 9
were thought to be ‘hate crimes’. Out of 20,000 rapes, only 2 were ‘hate
crimes’. And out of 20,000 aggravated assaults, just 24 were ‘hate crimes’.
Why, then, are laws brought in to support gays in particular? If we go by the
facts, it is heterosexuals who need the extra protection, not gays! It is all too
unreal for words. In 1998, of 16,914 murders, just four were of homosexuals.
As you might suspect, most of the so-called ‘hate crimes’ are as
ridiculous as ‘name calling’, reputedly causing the ‘victim’ to ‘feel
uncomfortable’!! When an employer got rid of someone I know, he did so on
the word of gay colleagues who (using an argument advised by gay activists)
“felt uncomfortable” because my friend expressed rejection of the gay lifestyle
on a website! What kind of ‘hate crime’ is that, for goodness sake? What if I
raise one eyebrow? Is that a hate crime, too? (Think that’s over the top? Then
read the abysmal UK universities’ ‘sexual orientation’ policies soon to be
unleashed on students and staff!).
A Russian dissident said in one of his books that all it takes is for
someone in authority to say all men with red hair are criminals, for another
category of ‘crime’ to exist, even when it does not. (121)
In 1999, there were 1317 so-called ‘hate crimes’ in the UK, consisting
mainly of non-violence, such as name-calling. Let’s be blunt, the sight of two
males acting and sounding like silly schoolgirls is bound to attract names from
full-blooded heterosexuals! I am not advocating name-calling, only that I can
understand why men do it. If homosexuals are determined to act in a
peculiarly provocative way, they can expect a particular reaction. But, to class
being called a name with murder? Please, is there any reality left?
‘Hate crimes’ also include something as innocuous as quoting a Bible
verse to an homosexual, or the true facts of science. This is not genuine lawmaking, but obedience to the current social ayatollahs:
“Political scientist Ronald J Pestritto, a professor at St Vincent
College, observed that hate crime legislation is a political fad that ‘seeks
to criminalize all feelings, thoughts, or attitudes that run contrary to the
trends of the day’.” Whilst this is certainly true, we should not minimise the
damage being done to all of society by just 1% - 2% of people who demand
what they cannot have: true social acceptance for a deviant lifestyle.
Nor should we minimise the actual damage done to those of us who
protest about gay intrusions into our lives with legal force. By their behaviour
toward everyone, gays do not deserve special treatment, only social disgust. If
gays wish to ruin their lives with a deviant form of sexuality, that is up to them,
143
but they have stepped over the barrier by imposing their lifestyle on all of
society by legal force. Their behaviour is, without doubt, unacceptable.
And it is, without doubt, fascist.
Police Warning Over a View
I received this report (shortened): “Last year a friend of mine was in
great distress, and really afraid. The head of a gay police association told her
she was being ‘investigated’ for being ‘homophobic’. She is nothing of the
sort.”
I keep repeating – the only reason gays intimidate and force the
public to do what they say, is that they have no proper argument to
offer!
“I wrote to the police association and complained about what was really
a fascist-style attack on a defenceless woman, who was only expressing a
legitimate view. I also complained to a higher police authority, after the same
police threatened me, too, for supporting my friend. A high-ranking police
officer told me they don’t investigate such matters. Yet, here is a (gay) police
officer doing just that!”
More and more scared UK local councils are heeding gay threats of
action against them, supported by the Labour Party. Councils are in charge of
local police, so police are roped in to do the bidding of gays. The same is
happening here in the USA. (The UK should get rid of its socialist
government!).
After UK author and broadcaster, Lynette Burrows, said on a radio
programme that gays should not be allowed to adopt children, she was visited
by a police officer and warned!! (Even though the statistics justify her view).
Lynette said that placing a boy with two homosexual men was an
obvious risk, just as it would be risky to place a little girl with two heterosexual
men. Strangely, adoption authorities would not, of course, place a little girl
with two men. So why place boys with gays? In what way is this ‘equality’? In
what way is it moral or right? (Note the high incidences of paedophilia
amongst gays).
A member of the public (gay of course!) complained that Lynette’s
comments were ‘homophobic’, and so an officer was sent around to
‘investigate’. That what she said was based solidly on fact was on no
consequence. Lynette was “astounded”. She told the officer: “this is a free
country, and we are allowed to express opinions on matters of public interest.”
The officer told her that although it was not a crime, she nevertheless had to
record the incident and warn her! (122)
Now, tell me, why is a police officer writing a report about a matter that
was not a crime? Lynette was called ‘sinister’ for merely expressing a
legitimate view. So what do we call sending a police officer to a citizen, to
intimidate, investigate and report on, something that is not even a crime? Go
on, take a guess… yes, that’s right – fascism!
Remember a quote from chapter one, in which a gay writer says gays
are the best fascists, because they have no qualms about violence and
hatred! Certainly this is evident in this case! Lynette adds, “They were leaning
on me, letting me know that the police had an interest in my views. I think it is
sinister and completely unacceptable.”
144
She is perfectly correct! It is not just sinister, it should also be illegal,
because it is harassment of a citizen who has done nothing wrong. Really,
she should have taken her case to the Human Rights gurus in the EU.
Scotland Yard, commenting on the incident, weakly said such an action
is meant to “reassure the public”. Really? In which way does harassment of a
law-abiding person give ‘assurance’? In which way does gay abuse of
citizens, bolstered by police, reassure anyone? When police obey gay
demands and use gay intimidation against people who have done nothing
wrong, how does this ‘reassure’? A number of journalists questioned that one,
but were not answered! That’s how socialism works.
We must nip this pro-gay intimidation in the bud right now! The action
taken against Lynette was just plain nasty, a threat to us all, no matter what
country we live in. The report may indeed have been dropped, but it is
indicative of the way an irate gay can put fear into ordinary men and women,
simply because they do not uphold the gay lifestyle.
I also repeat – gays everywhere say whatever they wish against
Christians in the strongest (and foulest) of language. Why are they
allowed freedom to do this? Will police investigate these, too? Why are
they allowed to harass and police people just because they can’t accept
homosexuality?
Why are police officers being used to forward the gay agenda? Why
are citizens being visited and their views recorded, when they have done
nothing illegal? This latter activity is found in pre-war and wartime Germany. It
was how Hitler gained power! Is this the way the UK is now going?
If any police officer can justify what they are doing on behalf of gays, I
would appreciate it if they can tell me! We must not allow our police to dictate
what we have in our heads! Lynette expressed a view that I also hold, and is
held by countless concerned UK citizens. Will the police arrest us all? Or
collect ominous records on everything we say?
I strongly suggest that police peruse gay websites and listen to
what gays say in the streets and bars, because their views against nongays are extreme and vicious. Then go to their homes and take notes!
Well, will police give me a straight answer? (Excuse the pun).
Gay Behaviour Normal says Psychiatry?
Much is made of the fact that homosexuality was removed from the
APA’s (American Psychiatric Association) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM-II), in 1973. In reality, the APA fell victim to the power
of PC and open intimidation.
Gays continue to claim the APA did this on the strength of scientific
discoveries. Is this true? No, it is not. It is yet another gay ‘urban legend’,
without true substance or validity. Now for the truth…
This is what a pro-homosexual psychiatrist wrote about that period:
“The first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in
1970, when this organisation held its convention in San Francisco.
Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting
speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed
homosexuality as a mental disorder.
In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay
Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA’s convention. At
145
the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled,
‘Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of
extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against
you.’ “ (123). Yep – that certainly sounds like a scientific approach!
In fact, it sounds just like another psychiatric disturbance – paranoid
schizophrenia! Is the schizophrenic right in his judgement? No. Likewise with
gays! Psychiatrists do not bow to the demands of schizophrenics, so why bow
to the demands of gays? After all, both are equally mentally unbalanced.
The critic adds that gays ‘forged APA credentials and gained access to
exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that
homosexuals needed to be cured.’ Now, that’s more like the gays I have come
to love and admire! Fascist to the core!
Let’s continue: “Kameny had found an ally inside the APA named Kent
Robinson (Ed. by force, threats and intimidation? Or because he was gay?),
who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality
be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists
were permitted to set up a display booth…” (Big mistake! Never give an inch!)
“Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists
who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality
from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation,
not scientific discoveries.” There you have the truth! Gays who say
otherwise are liars. (This is how today’s gays get committees to obey
them. Intimidation is their usual format).
Psychiatrists tried to band together in protest, to reverse the decision,
but, in the end, intimidation and threats won the day. Why should gays be
happy with this? They are like students who ‘pass’ exams by cheating. How
can they say it is okay, knowing they ‘won’ by being abusive and threatening?
In reality they are immoral so they don’t care.
When a committee met in 1973 to discuss removal of homosexuality
from the DSM list, opponents were given only 15 minutes to present their
case! (Similar techniques are used today. Pro-gay policies are pushed
through with no time given to opposing views). Later, to ratify the decision, it
had to be presented to the full conference.
Guess what? The Gay activists obtained an address list of all the
attendees, and sent letters to ‘persuade’ them to vote homosexuality off the
DSM list! They made out that the letter was official, but it was paid for and
distributed by the gays themselves! Liars! Cheats! Usurpers! Deceivers!
Thugs! There is a lot more to this story.
Evidence of Dr Socarides
Dr Charles Socarides, who tried to oppose gay activists getting
homosexuality removed from the DSM, tells us that the removal of
homosexuality from the category of mental illness was done without any
valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered
behaviour.
“To declare a condition a ‘non-condition,’ a group of practitioners
had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The
action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved
an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of
hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and
146
reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of
psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy
years…” (124)
“For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan
horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social
change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on
numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of
normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status.
To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling
reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost –
a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science,
we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the
propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to
the rest of the medical profession, and to the earned rab sciences.”
Why is the DSM Important?
The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is
the most widely used diagnostic reference book utilized by mental health
professionals in the United States.
Well over threequarters of a million doctors in the USA refer to it when
making diagnoses and planning treatments, because it contains all the
diagnostic codes. By removing homosexuality from its list, the DSM has
virtually disabled doctors from diagnosing and treating homosexuality properly
for the past 30 years. They have been virtually banned from diagnosing
homosexuality as aberrant behaviour, though that is exactly what it is, as
many practitioners know; it is very close to being sociopathic, too.
Before the disastrous changes, homosexuality was treated as a mental
disorder under ‘section 302. Sexual Deviations’ in the DSM-II. If you gather
together all the descriptors of homosexual behaviour in this book, you will
come to the very definite conclusion that homosexuality really is a mental
disorder of great magnitude. The final section of this book should persuade
you quite easily.
Section 302 said: “This category is for individuals whose sexual
interests are directed primarily toward objects other than people of the
opposite sex, toward sexual acts … performed under bizarre circumstances.
… Even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to
substitute normal sexual behavior for them.”
Homosexuality was listed as the first sexual deviation under 302. Once
that diagnostic code for homosexuality was removed, physicians, including
psychiatrists, have been prevented from diagnosing homosexuality as a
mental disorder for more than three decades. EVEN THOUGH IT IS SO
OBVIOUSLY A DISORDER! It is about time that so-called ‘intelligent’ people
discovered that the king’s new clothes really are an illusion!
It is rather clear that the decision to remove homosexuality from the
DSM was not just a disaster, it was intellectual suicide. Psychiatrists,
threatened and intimidated by gays, did the unforgivable and rejected the
evidence of over 70 years study by countless experts and replaced it with…
what? Pro-gay garbage, without any evidence whatever! Meticulous research
was replaced by pro-gay hypotheses with very bad suppositions.
147
Until 1973 homosexuality was called a sexual deviation. Then, again
through gay intimidation, the word ‘homosexual’ was replaced in the DSM by
the term ‘sexual orientation disturbance’. Many renowned psychiatrists
vehemently opposed these changes (125)
By 1987 even the diagnosis ‘ego-dystonic homosexuality’ was removed
from DSM 11 IR. This diagnosis described homosexuals who were unhappy
with their sexual choices. Gay activists had this removed because they
wanted the public to think homosexuality was a fixed condition. To suggest
that many homosexuals were unhappy in their state could prove a very big
barrier to this. BUT – MANY CHANGE BACK TO NORMALITY!
And so, by a simple vote, a ‘deviation’ suddenly became a ‘lifestyle’!
Very clever, but a sad day for society as a whole. Even though homosexuality
has been removed from the DSM, many psychiatric and psychological texts
still refer to homosexuality as a mentally unstable condition. In my own work I
can testify that homosexuals are very unstable individuals.
“There is a general consensus among psychiatrists that
homosexuality is an emotional tendency that is learned” (126)
“It is said that sexual orientation, once established, is immutable.
However, there is growing evidence that many individuals change their sexual
preference at different stages of their lives. Slater and Roth have written that
‘It is unwise to assume that exclusive homosexual behaviour has been
established until the age of 25 has been passed’. “ (127). Even this statement
can be challenged, as people over age 25 are known to revert back to
normality by choice.
Many becoming homosexual at a younger age and referred to as
‘mentally immature adults’, have fallen under the influence of homosexuals
who have convinced them their condition is fixed and final. Even a pro-gay
author says “At adolescence many people are confused by their sexuality and
it takes a number of years to resolve things fully.” (128). This is, however, a
very general statement that cannot be proved or substantiated. It is more
accurate to say that homosexuals, looking for new ‘flesh’, convince
youngsters (through grooming) they are ‘confused’, when they are not!
The suicides and depression amongst gays, often blamed on the rest
of society, is caused by the homosexuality itself: “Homosexual relationships
tend to be more impermanent and may be promiscuous. The tendency to
depression and suicide shown in a number of studies (e.g. Lambert, 1954)
may be related to this impermanence of relationship.” (129). Of course, it is in
homosexuals’ best interests to blame society for its own ills, because they
want to appear to be victims.
“Homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous in their relationships…
than heterosexuals… The lack of stability… with advancing age… make the
plight of the ageing homosexual a pathetic and difficult one. Some of the
psychiatric disturbances, particularly alcoholism, depression and suicide (130)
which are common in homosexuals may be related to such factors.” (131).
‘Pathetic’ is the right word to use.
Whether or not any of this is pertinent does not alter the fact that
homosexuality is far from natural and healthy, and even farther from normal.
This is echoed by Islamic scholars: “removal of homosexuality from the DSM
does not answer the question of whether or not homosexuality is ‘moral’ or
whether it is ‘healthy’ for society.” (132)
148
Homosexuals are virulent in their hyped attempts at normalisation.
They will kick down any barriers that stand in their way, and yet are still
unbalanced in their lives. There are now gay psychiatrists! Have the inmates
finally taken over the asylum? How can those who choose what is abnormal
for their own lives possibly advise people properly, especially in matters of
sexual dysfunction?
Let me remind readers: I do not think homosexuality is a mental illness,
or a condition that will respond fully to psychiatric or psychological input.
Homosexuality is a choice of sexual object, a sexual habit, a very bad choice.
Any mental or emotional disturbances linked with homosexuality are a result
of that bad choice... and the disturbances are plenty. Just watch a ‘Gay Pride’
march and you will witness extreme behaviours!
My point in relating the incidents that led to a change in the DSM is that
gays used subterfuge, deception and intimidation to effect the change, and
psychiatrists (not all, by any stretch of the imagination) were in collusion,
because they feared gay reprisals. They became ‘PC’ because of the volatile
nature of the situation, not because of science.
So, though homosexuality is not a mental illness as such, it is heavily
associated with a variety of mental disturbances that prove, yet again, the
harmful and unsafe nature of homosexuality itself. We can expect problems of
this type, because homosexuality is not normal. We can say ‘not normal’
because something that is not natural for mankind is, by definition, not normal.
Academic Lunacy
“Who are the players in the free speech game? Opponents of free
speech are, among others, those professors (Ed. like Prof Wright, UK?) and
other intellectuals (Ed. or who pretend to be) who are in favour of political
correctness, and the civil rights establishment. Defenders of free speech
include those professors whose views would be censored if political
correctness became mandated in universities, and their allies in the media.”
(133)
“The attack by some professors on the free speech of others is a
puzzle. Since academics make their living through debate, it would appear
that their interests would be in relatively free discussion. Moreover, a debater
becomes more valuable when he has an opponent. Thus, there appears to be
an economic interest among academics in unregulated speech, a notion that
has received support in economic theory and public choice theory of the First
Amendment in particular. Thus, the current popularity of political correctness
on campuses is an enigma.”
“Jonathan Macey (1992) argues that politicians have an interest in free
political speech because this increases their incomes through formation of
additional interest groups which would lead to increased political donations.
Richard Posner (1992: 621) suggests that the First Amendment is a “form of
protective legislation on behalf of an interest group consisting of intellectuals,
publishers, journalists, pamphleteers, and others who derive pecuniary and
non-pecuniary income from publication and advocacy’’ (see also Posner 1987:
7). Fred McChesney (1988) indicates that the number of intellectuals who
would profit from regulation is always smaller than the number of those who
would lose, so that intellectuals would always oppose regulation of speech.”
149
What the author is saying is that political correctness does not bring
about a better situation for academics, but reduces their ability to earn an
income, because their attitudes are cutting off many other sources of finance!
The other effect is to ‘dumb-down’ academics and reduce their sources of
intellectual and financial rewards.
Academics in the UK are certainly being ordered to dumb-down, too, as
‘sexual orientation officers’ (or similar titles: when will this kind of stupidity
end?) command them not to oppose or even pass comment on
homosexuality. On top of that they will have to actually commend
homosexuality and promote it, even if their personal beliefs reject
homosexuality, by order of tin-pot Hitlers on university staff! I have never
known such blatant fascism in academia.
And it doesn’t stop there, because even silence will not be tolerated.
Academics must either openly commend homosexuality or face disciplinary
procedures, and even dismissal. Silence will be taken as an insult! This is not
a joke; UK universities already have these fascist dictators on staff, ready to
jump and crush freedom of thought and expression! (Behind them is, of
course, the mighty gay propaganda machine. Heterosexual views are not
accepted. Only gays and pro-gays are allowed to formulate policies).
Believe it or not, ‘sexual orientation officers’ (the title changes) often
have degrees, and even PhD’s. Did they buy them from a degree mill? Or
have they buried their intellects? Or is it just an easy way to earn big bucks
before retirement? Or is it the aliens again?
I ask a serious question of all who have these ridiculous posts in
universities: Do you think you have intellectual capacity? Then why do you
support homosexuality when there are no scientific or moral reasons to do so?
Why do you agree with reports that have been debunked? No doubt you
would not pass a student who presented you with a paper filled with
inaccuracies and bad research. So, what do you think we ought to do with
YOU, as one who is doing exactly the same thing?
“Ronald Coase (1974: 390) writes that demand for the product of
intellectuals is increased if there is open competition between differing
schools: ‘the public is commonly more interested in the struggle between truth
and falsehood than it is in the truth itself.’’ (133). There is, then, no logic
whatever, academically or financially, for academics to insist on political
correctness! Indeed, PC academics are self-destructive.
“Given this view, what is puzzling is that one branch of the current
attack on the First Amendment and on free speech is being led by a subset of
the academic and intellectual coalition and that the limits to free speech that
are sought go well beyond what Breton and Wintrobe mention in their
discussion. There is a group of professors who are themselves major players
in the campaign to limit production of ideas – an anomaly in interest group
theory. Moreover, the liberal professoriate has a set of allies in the attack on
free speech. The civil rights establishment, including members of the women’s
movement, is also associated with attempts toward reducing free speech.”
(133).
I can assure future students of universities that these policies will be to
their detriment as staff are dumbed-down and commanded to censure their
own thinking, as well as yours. If you want a degree from such universities, I
pity you. PC is about dumbing-down, so your intelligence doesn’t count.
150
Of course, the loosely-termed ‘women’s movement’ includes many who
are lesbian. Even if there were no lesbians in the women’s movement, the
author is saying that those at the forefront of political correctness are the very
ones who are calling for ‘civil rights’! This is borne out by the homosexual
movement, that wants total clamp-down on free speech, so that it can have its
own way, without interference from free speech advocates!
‘Civil rights’ of homosexuals is coming about via political correctness as
a means of silencing opposition. Thus the term ‘civil rights’ translates as the
rights of homosexuals and no-one else. Freedom of speech, then, is not
compatible with civil rights.
“The greatest threat… is free speech, as protected by academic
freedom and by the First Amendment. In some cases, the First
Amendment has so far held. Thus, the Supreme Court has overturned
speech codes at some state universities because these codes violate
the First Amendment. However, private universities have less protection,
and many have adopted speech codes that would clearly violate the
First Amendment if adopted by public institutions. While these codes
often claim to offer protection to academic freedom, the line is thin and
many academics are intimidated by the nature of the intellectual
environment at many universities.
By labelling any persons who disagree with them as racist, sexist (or
homophobic), defenders of the current liberal paradigm are able to protect it.
Disagreement is not only viewed as a sign of intellectual dissension; it is
characterized as an indicator of low moral value. Because of the theoretical
weakness of the paradigm this argument carries particular weight. Ambitious
scholars would attack the paradigm if it were not protected by morality. The
effort to convert intellectual disputes into moral disputes may be a more
general method of attack; McCarthyism proceeded by accusing those with
certain sets of beliefs as being not only misguided, but also as being traitors.”
(133)
“If the hypothesis above is correct, then there should be other
challenges to free speech in addition to challenges in the academic
environment. Indeed, there are. Free speech has also been attacked in nonacademic workplaces. This challenge to free speech has been much less
documented but has been more successful (Browne 1991). Essentially,
government has eliminated most free speech protection in the workplace.”
(133). This also applies to the UK – workplaces, local councils, police, etc.
“The process by which free speech in the general workplace has been
limited is interesting because it demonstrates techniques used to successfully
subvert what appears to be a clear constitutional right. While protection of
academic speech has more or less persisted, the case of workplace speech
for non-academics is very different. Here, there has been a total elimination of
first amendment rights with respect to speech that the courts will call racist or
sexist. The civil rights establishment has led the attack, for essentially the
reasons addressed above.” (133)
“The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can
indicate what rules it believes should govern. A private employer can
then adopt these rules to avoid entanglement with the EEOC. The result
is that [fn4]EEOC, a creature of Congress (and thus supposedly covered
by the First Amendment) can implicitly coerce employers to censor the
151
speech of employees.” (133). This is identical to what is happening in
the UK, too.
“Recent initiatives by academics and by the civil rights and feminist
hierarchies to limit speech in the workplace have been successful, and for all
practical purposes an entire class of speech has been denied protection.
Constitutional protections have held up only where an economically interested
group has spent real resources defending these protections.” (133)
The corpus of the article points to a similar situation in the UK and
elsewhere. It refers to political correctness as a major enemy of free speech
and therefore the biggest force bringing about the degeneration of truth and
cessation of the spread of opposing ideas. Though it might now seem
tiresome, because I have repeated it many times – this is fascism.
Police – Pawns in the Game
“What is going on? Has Britain, regarded around the world as the home
of free speech, become a country in which people can no longer say what
they think? Have ancient freedoms of movement and self-expression
vanished? And why do the police have these new powers? The answers lie in
the government’s slippery reaction to two distinct strains of zealotry: Islamic
terrorism and political correctness.” (134)
“…it has turned the police into creatures of the PC lobby, by putting
them in the front line against ‘wrong thinking’.”
A police officer told me that all the ‘news’ on the police intranet
(internal internet) concerning so-called ‘hate crimes’ are trivial to the point of
sheer stupidity, but they are posted to maintain the illusion that there really are
‘hate crimes’ to come down hard on! We should be thankful that most older
police officers talk amongst themselves and loathe the way they are being
used by gay activists to bring about their dubious demands. Younger officers
do not seem to have sense or reason. They just accept gay garbage.
Every Chief of Police supposedly has the prerogative to act as he
wishes. Why, then, do almost all of them succumb to gay pressure and obey
their demands, by bringing in ‘hate crime’ registers and warning the public
over the most trivial of things? I tried asking Chiefs of Police, but none replied!
(I wonder why?).
In the UK: “Three years ago Tony Blair presented himself as a friend of
free speech. ‘I pass protesters every day at Downing Street and, believe me,
you name it, they protest about it. I may not like what they call me, but I thank
God they can. That’s called freedom’. “ (134).
It seems Blair changes his mind as he wishes, because it’s his
government and Labour local councils that swing the PC axe against all who
dare to say the most ordinary things against homosexuality! Again I ask, what
makes homosexuals so special? I can tell you – their mouths! They shout and
scream (usually with foul language) until, like a parent without parenting skills,
the government caves in and does anything for peace and quiet!
U.S. citizens are free to widen their eyes: The UK Serious Organised
Crime and Police Act, 2005, was introduced to get rid of a lone protester
sitting on a plastic chair and holding a sign, in 2001! Until last month he was
still there, in London. Then the government used another law to get rid of him!
As David Blunkett joked, it was a “sledge hammer to crack a nut.” Only I don’t
152
see it as very funny, given that the same law is now being used to attack
anyone who stands in the way of homosexual stupidity and lies.
It is also being used in the UK courts to attack a poor woman (Maya
Evans) whose only ‘crime’ was to read out names, near Downing Street, of
UK people killed in Iraq. Another 19 cases like that are planned! What on
earth is happening? Free speech is almost lost in the UK. Bring back the
Inquisition, all is forgiven! To add insult to injury, Maya Evans was fined £100
costs, for being ‘arrested for her own safety’. Eh?
One lawyer, Lucy Moorman, says, correctly, that this new law is not
about helping to keep parliament clear of potentially violent protesters, but
about stopping any form of dissent. (134).
“Moorman believes the police ‘think they are under pressure to make
an example of people… It’s not just arresting officers who should exercise
discretion. The Crown prosecution Service should do that too’.” (134).
Even a Labour MP agrees that his own Party is wrong: “Freedom of
speech has never been under such attack in the UK, and it is shameful this is
happening under a Labour government. We need a concerted campaign in
parliament and, if necessary, in the courts, to counter this attack on our
centuries-old democratic rights.” (135). It is good to see not all Labour MP’s
are foolish!
David Cameron, now leader of the UK Conservative Party, said: “We
need people from diverse backgrounds to inform everything we do, to give us
the benefit of their diverse experience, to ensure that we stay in touch with the
reality of life in Britain today.” I think perhaps he is lying.
I want to know what he means by this. Why is it that homosexual
activists ‘advise’ government on gay issues when there are only a maximum
of about 1% homosexuals in the country at any one time, and probably far
less? Why are Christian groups – or Muslims and others – not asked to
advise, when they have a legitimate reason to do so, and they form a much
bigger percentage of the population? And why are genuine scientific reports
never mentioned? In other words, why is the ‘advice’ of 1% of the population
counted to be worthier than the advice and wishes of the other 99%?
Why are scientists who disagree and debunk gay ‘research’ not
advising government? It is insulting for David Cameron to say he wants
diversity when he only allows diversity from one source – gays! Dr N sent him
an invitation to read the full facts given in this book, but he did not even
respond! So much for wanting to know the facts from those with diverse
experience! Today, ‘diverse’ inevitably means ‘gay’ or other deviance.
Cameron says grandly that only by taking in the full spectrum of views
can “our party develop ideas that benefit the whole country.” Really? How
does the gay agenda benefit the whole country? How does kowtowing to gay
activists and their gay demands benefit the whole country? In which way does
HIV and AIDS (etc) benefit the whole country? Maybe I’m missing something?
Cameron says his Party is looking for the ‘brightest and the best’ to
become MP’s. I don’t think so! They want applicants who will toe the PC line
and not cause waves. A Muslim Tory candidate was fielded for a city 250
miles from where he lives, just because he is Muslim and it was the ‘PC’ thing
to do. All other ‘bright’ local candidates were shunned.
Cameron is the leader who, thinking only of his own votes from gays
(remember, they form less than 1% of the electorate), has openly stood
153
against the President of Poland for being ‘non-PC’ in opposing homosexuality!
So much for Cameron’s integrity. And so much for his credibility as a thinking
man. If he knew the truth about gays, he should not only side with Poland, but
must also speak out against gay duplicity and lies!
One UK journalist asks why Sikhs were allowed to drive police
motorbikes wearing a turban, when others were forced to wear crash helmets.
The point being made was that whilst the majority have to obey the law,
‘special concessions’ are made to anyone who shouts long enough.
The writer adds that because of this law, white bikers objected and this
made racial relations even worse. (137). Now substitute ‘gay’ for ‘Sikh’ and we
see the same problem: police are being used to ‘protect’ gays when there is
nothing to protect, and this creates anger amongst normal people.
“Sensitivity training, hate-crime laws, political correctness… all of
these alien constructs are psycho-political manifestations of
evolutionary humanism, the malevolent system of warped morals and
anti-human philosophy that is making war upon America’s founding
Christian-Judeo worldview.” (138)
It is highly noticeable that the vitriol of gays is directed mainly at
Christians and religions that oppose their lifestyle choices. They will go to any
lengths to demonise them and use police action against them, usually for no
good reason known to man or decency. This is part of their ‘agenda’. Read it!
What is happening is communistic with a fascist slant! “Psychopolitics
is the art and science of asserting and maintaining physical and mental
dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus, and
the masses, thereby conquering nations through ‘mental healing’. “ (139). The
person who wrote that was head of the Soviet Secret Service Police and
Stalin’s right-hand man.
This is exactly what gays are doing through police forces everywhere.
So, why are police chiefs doing it? Why are they becoming ‘nice little
doggies’? Why are they assisting a nasty minority of people to dominate all
others, though gays are very few in number and have no genuine problems
with society at large? Why are police acting like jack-booted tyrants? Why are
they acting out Soviet-style tyranny? I invite answers from them!
One World Order
“(Julian Huxley’s book) was a blueprint for a New World Order that
called for one religion, one language, and one way of thinking. He believed a
global order could be brought about through the universal, albeit secretive,
implementation of Hegel’s Dialectic process.” (140)
There is no doubt in my mind that the gay agenda affects every country
in the world. The aim is to discipline and intimidate people to obey the gay
agenda, which is, in essence a One World agenda, where perverse sexual
promiscuity becomes the ‘norm’, along with all its mental, social and political
aberrations. You will note this was the aim and task of UNESCO from the
start. (Interesting note for non-Christians: the bible prophesied this would
happen; a one-world order would arise before the end of the world!
Coincidence? Yes, of course it is). It also appears to be the aim of the EU,
whose monolithic law machine demands total obedience to immorality and the
gay death-style.
154
Dialecticism is a form of evolutionism, where two opposing theses
(thesis and antithesis) are combined to forge a new synthesis, which then
becomes the new thesis or operational order of things, the very basis of
Marxism. This is what gays are now doing: they are trying to combine their
obnoxious habits with normality, so that society as a whole will accept it as the
‘new way’ of sexual function.
But, what they cannot do is to make people change their inward
consciences. And, just as the old communist system collapsed when the
masses tore down the Berlin Wall, so the masses will tear down the gay
agenda, when they can tolerate no more of its horrific parody on real life.
This is the basic theme behind moral relativism, which is what the gay
agenda is trying to achieve (and what the late pope fought against). “By the
traditional rules of conduct, if thesis is correct (Ed. e.g. morality) then it follows
logically that antithesis (Ed. e.g. immorality) is incorrect. George Hegel, an
Enlightenment shock-trooper of evil, discarded the rules and turned the
concept upside-down by equalising thesis and antithesis, which resulted in
moral relativity. New ‘truth’ is now found in something called ‘synthesis’.“
(138).
To put it another way, ‘synthesis’ is what it suggests – an invented
realism based on combining what is true with what is false. It makes out that
lies are the same value as truth, and wrong is equal to right!
One writer says Dialectics is the “black magic of imposture and
unravelling” and “Hegel’s form of dialectics is itself an imposter. It effectively
unravels truth and norms and then replaces it with a ‘new truth’, which is yet
another imposter.” (141). It amazes me that intelligent people in governments,
police, health, et al, cannot see this very transparent scheme behind the gay
agenda! What on earth is wrong with their minds? Why are they willingly
accepting the moral relativism enforced by gays, when it is so obviously
incorrect and damaging? (The aliens again?).
Moral relativism presupposes, without any kind of substantive
reasoning, that there can be two ‘truths’, when thesis and antithesis clearly
proves this to be nonsense! One is right and the other is wrong! As Kimball
says, the antithesis version is an imposter, as is its new thesis. Therefore,
whatever proceeds from the imposter must itself be an imposter – the gay
agenda. Do we have anyone left who can think intellectually? Forget
‘intellectually’ – is anyone left with an ounce of common-sense?
The act of changing lies into the ‘new truth’ is called ‘consensus’. I urge
all who still have the ability to think outside the PC mode to consider what this
section is truly saying, because it is a warning. “There are three steps to the
consensus process. They are called “Unfreezing the present level (Ed. the
thesis), moving to the new level (Ed. after allowing thesis and antithesis to
merge), and freezing group life on the new level (Ed. the synthesis). In order
to speed-up the unfreezing phase, communists resorted to physical torture. In
America (Ed. and other western countries), emotional pain precipitated
through vicious psychological bullying (character assassination, labelling,
spreading lies, etc) is the preferred method.” (138).
In this we see exactly what gays are doing. Gays put out continual
manic howls of allegations and false charges, bringing down individuals and
groups whilst being backed by false laws and unthinking ‘little-Hitler’
authorities.
155
Kimball identified four stages to a successful ‘consensus process’
operation: “1. Multicultural and/or diverse groups, fuelled by resentment and
envy (necessary for causing social conflict), 2. A social issue around which
social conflict can be created (e.g. Christmas, which is labelled ‘exclusionary,
insensitive, and hurtful’ to diverse groups), 3. The dialoguing to consensus
process (psychological manipulation leading to abandonment of principles and
positions), 4. A predetermined outcome (e.g. Christmas parades successfully
recast as ‘Festival of Lights’, or ‘Winter Holiday’ parades that are inclusive of
gay pride celebrants).”
Can you not see the gay agenda in all this? It is exactly how gays
operate in society. Read it again and again, and before you know it, you will
be seeing local and national and international movements of gays in a brand
new light… the light of truth! We call on you to fight back and remove gay
agendas and to be careful not to let them infiltrate your life again, making you
a pawn, a ‘good doggie’, a puppet, in their tasks of changing society to one of
perversity and deception.
Then we come to statements I can personally recognise, because it
has happened to me: “The consensus process is yet another example of
Budziszewski’s ‘black magic spells of imposture and unravelling’. It’s been so
successful that Christianity has been banned from government on all levels,
from schools, and increasingly from public areas. Christians have lost their
jobs, been jailed, and their children harassed and even suspended, for daring
to express their Christian beliefs in any way.” (138).
‘Gay’ means ‘Hatred for Christians’
I have already said gays are especially hateful toward Christians. To
hide this hatred, they constantly mix their agenda with the racist slant. This is
very clever, because it makes people think the two are equal, when, in reality,
they have nothing at all in common. Indeed, it is an insult to racial groups to
allow this attempt at equality, for they are being linked with promiscuity and
sexual perversion! Racial groups should bear this in mind and get rid of any
attempt to link their race issues with homosexuality.
“We have battled in America since the century’s turn (Ed. 1900) to
bring to nothing… all Christian influences and we are succeeding. You
must work until officials of city, county, and state, will not think twice
before they pounce upon religious groups as public enemies. (There
must be) a… foaming hatred of religion… a belief that Christian practice
is vicious, bad, insanity-causing, publicly hated and intolerable.” (139)
This is what we see time and again, against all logic and reason. As I
have said before, there is nothing in Christian belief to harm anyone, only a
desire to improve and make better! Of course, Christian belief does not help
the pervert or the immoral or the criminally-minded. Which is why whole
segments of society are being turned against Christians. Think about it, hard!
There is no logic or reason behind what is happening. And once all Christians
are got rid of, there will be no-one left to show kindness, truth, or purity.
The secrecy underpinning the gay agenda is paramount, because if
societies knew what was being done to them behind their backs, there would
be an uprising against all gays. READ THE GAY AGENDA! The next quote
shows just how cynically gays abuse everyone in society:
156
“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is
mass psychology. Its importance has been… increased by the growth of
modern methods of propaganda (Ed. note the two founders of the ‘gay
agenda’ and their use of this method!). Although this science will be
diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The
populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were
generated.” (142) YOU ARE BEING KEPT IN THE DARK, MANIPULATED!
Ask anyone of the ‘populace’ and they will not know how the gay
situation has been arrived at! Yet, they will, one after another, succumb to the
gay agenda and start to believe the new synthesis! They have no known
reason to obey it, yet they do, out of ignorance or fear, not from knowledge.
This book attempts to define what is happening. Now the public must remove
gay influences and change back to being free people again!
Don’t be the ‘morons’ and puppets gays make you out to be. You are
intelligent beings, so use your own minds.
Referring to mindless obedience to the gay agenda and the theme of
being PC, John Gibson of Eugene, USA, asked a city manager why he had
banned Christmas trees. His reply was a pathetic, “Because they’re Christian”.
The poor man didn’t know why a ‘Christian’ symbol should be something to be
banned but he did it anyway, because everyone else had been conditioned to
hate anything Christian!
What an indictment on that man’s intelligence. And what a big sign of
lost freedoms. As Gibson adds, “they now serve their new masters’ desires,
by mindlessly destroying the source of both their liberties and their human
worth – Christianity.” (The same conclusion I have come to with regard to
employers who capitulate to gays).
“ ‘Oh, but Christianity has nothing to do with either the founding of our
nation, or with our rights and freedoms’, exclaim mind-conditioned scoffers
and sceptics. The truth has been ‘hiding’ in full view, but because their minds
have been darkened by black magic spells, and their eyes made sightless by
black magic dust, the mind-conditioned can neither see or hear the truth.
Right there in Huxley’s words is the truth, for in speaking of his blueprint, he
inadvertently ‘confessed’ to it, when he said of the two opposing philosophies,
‘You may categorise the two philosophies as…Christianity versus Marxism.’ ”
(138)
Oh Dear – Sin’s Back!
Political Correctness is the opposite of freedom of speech. It is also the
outcome of something very old fashioned, that has been successfully hidden
by gays – sin. Gays do whatever they can to stop this word being used.
A Christian pastor in Fort Wayne, USA, says “There are many who
believe ‘sin’ is simply a buzz-word… to explain away our actions (such as “I
don’t know what made me do it”)… ’Sin’ is passé. Yet truth always exists. If
sin is not alive and well, our jails would be empty, adult night-clubs would not
exist, police would be unemployed, and our homes would be left unlocked
around the clock. The fact that all of these are mere pipe dreams, proves that
sin is alive and doing exceedingly well in today’s world.” (143)
I agree. When scientists are beavering away, trying to find that elusive
(and non-existent) biological cause for homosexuality (encouraged by gays, of
course) Christians already have the answer to the situation: homosexuality is
157
the result of sin, that inborn resentment of God and desire to do what is
wrong. At all costs, gays must take the spotlight from Christian teaching and
the fact of sin, because it drives to the very heart of gay perversion, showing it
to be fundamentally evil and not just a ‘lifestyle choice’. (I use the term
‘lifestyle’, but in many instances I use it as a substitute for the word ‘sin’).
“Homosexuality was called a sin in Holy Scripture – there’s no
possibility of any other interpretation.” (144). The writer’s denomination
“accused Protestant denominations of ‘succumbing to secular values’ over the
issue.” (145). Note: Gays totally and deliberately misinterpret the Biblical
account of the destruction of Sodom, which occurred because of its
homosexual sin. This is examined in a later chapter. If this Christian teaching
is of no importance, why do you think homosexuals expend great effort to
contradict it? The reason is plain, the Sodom account accurately portrays
what homosexuality really is. They know it, but try to keep it from the public.
Wal-Mart Financial Stupidity!
Even high-flying financial wizards can have their brains sizzled. WalMart held a pro-gay seminar for its associates, at its headquarters. Basically, it
taught that there was a gay market to exploit, and the seminar would “provide
insight into the purchasing decisions of GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgender) customers.” (146). This is from a company that has always been
linked with family values.
To condone and recognise homosexuality in this way is a signal that
Wal-Mart has lost its bearings. Again, I point out that they are trying to win
over !% or less of the population. Thinking they can somehow gear their
advertising toward gays and still keep their staple market – the other 99% - is
ludicrous! Gays will buy anyway, so why pander to them? If Wal-Mart
continues this way, I suggest a widespread refusal to buy their goods.
A while ago, a national chain store allowed so-called ‘transvestites’ to
change in women’s changing rooms. My wife promptly refused to buy any
more clothing at that store, as did many others, who boycotted the entire
chain. So, was it worth it? Not financially, and not socially! (That store chain is
now defunct). Is Wal-Mart willing to risk its solid base for the illusory group
known as ‘homosexuals’? (Note for UK readers: Wal-Mart own ASDA stores).
Remember, you can affect Wal-Mart’s finances just as easily by
boycotting their stores, as can gays by being wooed by misguided marketing
ploys. Make your mark! And let’s put it this way, even if gays win the day, you
will have a clear conscience.
Chinese Are Right
I do not agree with communism or the way the Chinese government
acts. But, when its police raided an homosexual event and closed it down,
China proved to be right. (147). Of course, immediately they did so, gays ran
around like headless chickens, screaming and ranting with ready-made
protests and ready-made stock media statements! (You know the car game
for kids: How many red cars can you spot? Well, try ‘Look out for all the usual,
tired old clichés used in gay protest letters’! You will find the usual boring ones
plus the standard brainless words, like ‘bigot’, et al).
Of course, those who love to whinge said it was because they hated
gays. In reality, the Chinese are certainly ‘conservative’ and do not like
158
homosexuality at all. This does not equate with hatred, but with the inbuilt
disgust people have for homosexuality.
In true form, gays organising the event said it was wrong to deny
people the right to know what homosexuality was about. To me, this is not an
issue. Gays are trying to make out that the police were simply haters of gays!
Gay material, especially ‘films’, tend to be hard-core pornography. If there was
such a desire to inform the public, why don’t gays just hand out printed leaflets
with matter-of-fact information? They would not do that, because
homosexuality is all about sex and perversion, where visual titillation makes a
difference.
This section shows how authorities and employers are succumbing
very quickly to political correctness; and many are trying, like nasty little boys,
to be the very first to bring about social change…”Please, Sir, look what I did!
Please, Sir, let me tell on the boy next door!” Just like Stalinist days!
To be PC is to restrict truth or to deny it, and to demand freedom only
for your own ends. I have shown that this leads to a degeneration of society
as a whole and does immense damage to individuals.
PC denies freedom of speech, and is based on the aims of Marxism
and even UNESCO. It is also the routine way of fascism. Specifically it wants
to destroy Christianity, so gays attack Christians mercilessly. Why? Because
only true Christians will stand firmly against perverse claims and sexual
immorality. Muslims and others also take part in this, but it is Christians who
bear the brunt of attacks. One Christian, expert in causes of AIDS and
homosexuality, has received death threats and vicious letters for over 20
years! But who cares about that? No-one.
PC employers are shown to be fools in businessmen’s clothing. By
obeying gay demands, they think they are buying peace for their business.
But, what they are doing is buying protection from gays. Like any protection
racket the price is driven higher and higher until the end is reached, broken
legs and a burned-down business. Gays just want obedience! Employers who
allow gays to dictate the rules become willing slaves to gay perversity. They
are good dogs.
Police, thinking they can deflect attention from ineptitude, also obey
gays, and so they hound legitimate citizens, just because they voice an
opinion. Where is free speech? Hardly anywhere.
Politicians who side with gays on this issue are just vote-seekers, but
they forget that 99% of all people are not gay. One day that figure will come
back to haunt them for being so easy to move in their convictions. The ease
with which politicians give in to gays shows they have no idea what the truth is
all about: there are no scientific causes for homosexuality, so the case for
being ‘PC’ is lost.
Educationalists and schools also try to be PC, and so they invite a
huge number of paedophiles into their establishments. They are the new
dealers in homosexual victims, whose end is now a legalised prostitution.
What do we call those who trade in prostitution? Pimps? Sex lessons are a
cover-up in many places for homosexualisation of children. Beware!
159
Time to Delegislate!
Laws are usually based on some urgent need, backed by reason. But,
what are the reasons behind pro-gay legislation? Search and you will not find
anything solid or real, only fables and myths. If you look at what has been said
so far in this book, you will find that homosexuals as personalities are not
particularly stable. There is a self-acknowledged fascist mind, the willingness
and ability to hit out at anyone who disagrees with them, even to the point of
denying people the right to free speech, a job and income and a good name.
On top of that gays tend to be reckless in their habits and judgements,
bringing fatal illness upon millions. We have seen how some will overlook
what their fellow gays do, but are quick to come down hard on everyone else.
That is why the thought of deliberately employing gay police, for
example, leaves me very worried indeed. If the profile of a gay is as we see it
above, and as shown in previous chapters, then how can a gay police officer
act in the best interests of everyone? If he came across me, for example,
would I be reasonably confident that he would treat me properly, knowing that
I was opposed to his lifestyle? I am not convinced one little bit!
What if he arrested a fellow gay? Would his judgement be objective
enough? Given what we know thus far, I have to doubt it. What if he knew
someone he had to target was a gay? Would he send a warning to him?
Would he put as much effort into the arrest as he would into mine? I doubt it.
You have read how an influential gay police group intimidates sick
people who are unable to protect themselves. You have seen how the same
group attempted to intimidate someone just for trying to stand up for that sick
person. Yet, police forces place great store by that same group? After reading
this book, do you feel confident that the police deliberately try to recruit gays?
If ‘gay’ is not an issue, why single gays out for special recruitment?
We have to ask the simple question: why? It can only be that the police
are being ‘PC’ (excuse another pun!). They think gay propaganda is true, that
gays are born and not made. They haven’t bothered to find out if that
propaganda is factual, or a myth, a lie.
I have shown throughout this book that gay propaganda, and claims to
being ‘born that way’, are a lie. So, what on earth are police forces in the USA
and the UK doing? Without doubt, they are deliberately recruiting people
whose lifestyle is the equivalent of paedophiles, zoophiles and necrophiles! Is
that either healthy or wise? Does it not show to all, that these people have a
personality defect that is too far off the mark and too prejudiced to usefully
employ in a job involving the arrest and investigation of others?
Why am I equating gays with, say zoophiles (those who have sex with
animals)? Surely this is terrible? No, it is not. Both groups choose their sex
objects, so what is the qualitative difference? There is none, for both make
their choices.
This also places a very serious doubt over current moves to make
adoption widely available to gays. Have authorities gone mad? Read this book
and let me know just what part of being gay is so attractive as parent
material? After reading this book, crammed with information, and mostly from
gays, how do you justify handing over a small child to two people who make
such irrational, immoral and unhealthy choices… many of whom are
paedophile? There is no excuse! You have read the information!
160
And what of employing gay teachers who wish only to brainwash the
young into accepting this same irrational, immoral and unhealthy lifestyle?
Why does the government insist on forcing this onto parents and schools?
How can they say this is true education? It is merely indoctrination into
immorality, to the benefit of gays alone. Schools – stick to real education!
And if being gay is a free choice, why are governments trying to make
gays equal to heterosexuals in the matter of finance, law and pensions, for
example? Sadly, all these authorities are becoming as irrational as those they
choose to support and promote! Homosexuality is not natural or safe (which is
why insurance companies distinguish gays and heterosexuals), and those
who indulge in it become more and more incapable of making proper
judgements about all kinds of things.
See what gays themselves said about the full-blooded immorality of
gays who persist in having male sex with infected gays? They call it irrational
and criminal! If gays themselves say that, how can non-gays call the gay
lifestyle rational and good? None of it makes any sense!
We must start to dismantle the whole gay promotion and support
machine, or, offer the same kind of support to every other irrational and
immoral group. Indeed, this is why paedophile groups have the gall to make
their demands known publicly! They, too, are seeking equality. God help the
whole world, as this lunacy unfolds.
It is my view, which is probably not shared by all Christians or others,
that gays should have free speech. But, within limits. That is, they may
present their case to the public, but may not spread propaganda within
schools, colleges, by force or law, or by abuse and pornographic means in
public.
There is a proviso: that Christians and others must have the same right
of expression. Right now, the position is unethical, immoral and fascist. Gays
are given rights and privileges that are not available to any other member of
the public! Freedom of speech is vital for all societies, and many countries
fought hard to keep this freedom. Look at the Soviet Union and look at Hitler’s
Germany, because that is where the west is, right now.
Universities Fall to the Lie
I have already shown how universities and professors have fallen for
the PC lie. I have also shown, as have others, that to be ‘PC’ is to oppose
freedom of speech.
It is true that “Over one’s inner mind and self, no-one has coercive
power.” (148) It might be true, but it must not deter us from opposing political
correctness. PC destroys free speech and destroys the proper dissemination
of facts and opinion. This is disastrous for universities as well as for the public.
“Last January, when Harvard University President Lawrence Summers
raised the mere possibility of biological differences as an explanation for the
‘gender imbalance’ in science, a vicious PC backlash forced him to apologize
publicly no less than three times.” (152). In fact, he promised to give millions
of dollars toward coming women’s issues at the university!
But why? He said nothing inflammatory at all! This is another example
of the way universities, bastions of free speech and learning, are clamped-
161
down, monitored, and taken for a fool’s ride by PC groups… bear in mind that
PC destroys & hates freedom of speech. Universities – why are you gutless?
“The most important aspect of the sad episode is not whether the
explanation of biological differences is correct. It is that the idea cannot
be so much as suggested without the ‘offender’ paying a terrible price in
public humiliation and in his career… The cost to society is high;
creativity and intellectual progress wither. The cost to individuals is
higher; without competing ideas, people cannot adequately judge for
themselves what is true and false, right or wrong, moral and immoral.
For me, that private judgment is what constitutes a conscience, to which
every human being has an indispensable and inalienable right.” (152)
This “debacle was a high-profile example of a PC process that has
proceeded more quietly across North American campuses for decades. The
ability of students to judge for themselves is restricted by limiting the ideas
upon which those judgments would be passed. In turn, this impoverishes the
quality of conscience.” (152)
“Three common ways in which universities limit a student’s
access to ideas are speech codes, mandatory ‘diversity’ tests or
training, and ‘non-discrimination’ policies” (152 and see 153). (I am told
that UK universities are ready to implement these very things! This is to the
detriment of students, whose range of information will be severely curtailed,
giving them a very poor example to follow of diversity of ideas).
“Speech codes prohibit expression that could give offense on the basis
of gender, sexual orientation, race or other ‘historical disadvantage’. The
codes are used primarily to protect women, minorities and gays from words or
ideas that they might experience as insulting. The guidelines are often so
vague as to prohibit the open discussion of issues like affirmative action or
religious objections to homosexuality.” (152) (Ed. In reality gays will use these
codes with the preface ‘I feel uncomfortable’!! to bring down anyone they wish
to attack. This was done recently, when a fool of a professor said exactly that!
For goodness sake).
“Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania offers an example. In April
2003, the university defined harassment as any ‘unwanted conduct which
annoys, threatens, or alarms a person or group.’ ‘[E]very member of the
community” was required to adopt the administration’s guidelines not only in
his or her behaviors but also ‘in their attitudes.’ In 2004, the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued a preliminary injunction against
the university’s codes as unconstitutional and they were repealed.” (152)
If you work in an UK university note the above judgement and
bring it up in your establishment! If the USA codes were
unconstitutional, then surely it is against your human rights if pressure
is put to bear on your attitudes? Fight it, friends!
Mandatory diversity tests and training are being used to coerce
students to think along pro-gay lines, and to ‘correct’ their ‘unacceptable
political views’. It is being foisted on students under the banner of ‘cultural
competence’. It was a term first used in health care to mean: “services that
are respectful of and responsive to the cultural and linguistic needs of the
patient.” Then, the term was adopted in education, and was taken to mean
“(the ability) to teach children from diverse backgrounds.”
162
But, in colleges, it is now used as a blunt instrument to impose political
correctness. In other words, as a way of denying students their freedom of
speech and thought. As is usual, it is flanked on both sides by the sister
‘rights’ of ‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’. (154)
This movement is not open but is behind-the-scenes in college
administration. But, its impact on the education of children and teenagers is
dramatic, because it controls what is said and what is thought by educators
and those being educated. It also denies academics the right to think
individually, the very thing they are employed to do for the sake of good
education.
Cultural Competence
One professor put it this way: “‘Cultural competence’ is… a
bureaucratic weapon. ‘Cultural competence’, or rather, your (as an educator)
presumed lack thereof, is what you will be clobbered with if you are imprudent
enough to challenge or merely to have qualms about ‘affirmative action’,
‘diversity’ and ‘multiculturalism’, as those principles are now espoused by their
most fervent academic advocates.” (155)
In March 2005, Oregon state officials tried to make new teachers pass
a ‘cultural competence’ test before appointment, to ensure they were
politically correct. Thankfully, the government rejected the idea (156), but it
will be introduced very soon all over the USA.
I can predict that the term will undergo a radical overhaul in the hands
of the politically correct brigade, who will manipulate it to their own advantage.
And I can assure you that homosexuals will hold top place in any committees.
Gay infiltration of all areas of our lives is reaching saturation point, and
yet very few people realise it is happening. When the term (‘cultural
competence’) is fully implemented, gays will have total domination of
campuses and lecturers, and these will teach PC courses, weeding out any
student who will not be similarly ‘culturally competent’.
Importantly, it will not be sufficient that lecturers and students accept
the ‘right’ things; they must prove their attitudes are also right! This is very like
the way the Chinese communists brainwashed prisoners and changed their
beliefs by psychological force. Have Congress and US leaders forgotten how
their own soldiers were brainwashed in Vietnam and China? How can they
possibly endorse this terrifying clone of intellectual destruction? Does any of
this frighten you? It should! (Indeed, the gay agenda uses the very same Red
Chinese tactics of brainwashing. What a surprise).
Importance of Free Speech
“The First Amendment exists precisely to protect the most offensive
and controversial speech from government suppression. The best way to
counter obnoxious speech is with more speech. Persuasion, not coercion, is
the solution.” (157)
I consider homosexuality repugnant and its lies to be obnoxious. Gays
consider what I and others say against them as equally repugnant and
obnoxious. If both feel equally so, why is it that gays have protection to be
repugnant and obnoxious, and we have no say at all?
The answer is for both parties to have free speech. Perhaps gays
ought to look at what happens when free speech is curtailed: underground
163
movements arise. In the end these groups win the day and the oppressors are
removed. That’s history!
Strangely, freedom of speech is supported by the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights. I say ‘strangely’ because western countries are blatantly
ignoring it in an odd way. That is, freedom of speech is guaranteed for gays,
but not for those who oppose them! Therefore, there is no actual freedom of
speech, only dictatorship and fascism.
Why is it that gays can say whatever they like and oppose Christians
and others, using foul language and foul ideas? Why is it that gays can muster
police as their bully-boys? Why is it that gays can manipulate employers to be
their little doggies and puppets? It can only be because there is no free
speech! They could not get away with it if it truly existed. That is why a top gay
priority in any country is to get rid of free speech.
It is an observable fact that the most tolerant in society are those who
gays have denounced and viciously attacked, especially Christians and
Muslims. Gays are not tolerant, because they hate anyone who opposes
them, even in thought, and bring force against them to shut up.
The Right to be Wrong
I dislike using well-worn phrases, but in this case it is useful: “I
disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
(158). “The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree
with us, but freedom for the thought we hate.” (159).
Those who express disgusting things will always be with us. God
knows, and He will deal with it. Yes, we must take heed of legality and the
need to protect society in certain circumstances but, generally, free speech is
in the interest of everyone. The idea is simple: you say one thing, and I say
another. That’s how ideas flow and how genuine tolerance grows.
Otherwise, like Goebbels, we will only allow ‘free speech’ for views we
like. It would be great to only hear agreeable things, but life is not like that and
many men and women go off the rails, intellectually, emotionally and
spiritually. With it often comes ignorance, viciousness and even filth, but that’s
sinful human nature. “In a free state, tongues, too, should be free.” (160).
I do not advocate total freedom of speech any more than I advocate
total freedom of action, for anything given total freedom can be taken to
excess by those who have the desire. This is a ‘given’ in any country. My call
for ‘freedom of speech’, then, is meant in the ordinary, everyday sense.
China Again – Right to Crack-Down
I have already referred to the recent crack-down by police in China,
over the planned first gay and lesbian ‘festival’. They were right to do so. No
doubt gays will jump at this and shout “What about free speech?”
Whilst gays may tell others of their perversity, ‘festivals’ tend to be filled
with what amounts to pornography. It is just propaganda. One Canadian progay organisation said the Chinese crack-down was a ‘shame’ because the
festival could have “raised awareness”. But of what? The whole idea was to
recruit people into the gay lifestyle. It has nothing to do with ‘awareness’ in the
sense of a public good! There is no ‘good’ in knowing about homosexuality!
If it were not for ‘awareness’ campaigns by gays, the interest in
homosexuality would be very much less than it is now! There would therefore
164
be fewer cases of AIDS and fewer people entering into perversity. The public
can do without ‘awareness’ of homosexuality. Citizens need gay awareness
like they need a hole in the head!
The China case is not about raising awareness as information. The
declared intention of the ‘festival’ was nothing to do with giving facts to China,
it was just about being able to practice homosexuality without opposition.
(149).
“Nobody around the world is ready for gay people to come out.
We had to, eventually, as a community, in every piece of the world…to
start changing awareness and attitudes…” (149). How strange – a gay
telling the truth! Does it not tell us something, that ‘nobody around the world’ is
prepared for gays to ‘come out’? No, it does not say gays are repressed, only
that most people are normal and want something a bit more elevating to the
spirit than homosexuality!
That is, the public know homosexuality is wrong and so they oppose it
or at least inwardly treat it with contempt. In that quote we find an admission
that gays have set up a battle against the public, whether or not the public
want it. That is…fascism.
Tin-Pot Hitlers
The UK government is reportedly the topmost government in the EU to
put EU directives and laws into place before anyone else does! And many
local UK councils are just like those hated schoolboys who run to teacher with
the express intention of getting somebody else into trouble.
This is going on everywhere, especially in racial terms, when council
and local U.S. officials see ‘racism’ in every phrase and action. They are also
the same when it comes to so-called ‘gay rights’; they deny Christians and
others free speech whilst promoting the distasteful speech of gays.
“What kind of society is it, where the peaceful expression of
religious belief brings police knocking at the door? And, where
blustering officialdom thinks it can ‘challenge’ and ‘educate’ honest
citizens whose opinions don’t meet with their approval?” (150)
“Time was when the answer would have been obvious. Such
things might happen in banana republics or Communist dictatorships,
but never here. Not in tolerant, democratic, free-speech Britain. Yet,
something unpleasant and deeply disturbing is emerging today…” (150)
This refers to UK Christians Joe and Helen Roberts, who politely
objected to their local council about its pro-gay policies. “They committed no
offence. Their views on homosexuality may be unfashionable in liberal circles,
but are shared by millions of Christians, Jews and Muslims.” And by many
more who have no religious beliefs at all!
But, what did petty-minded bureaucrats of Wyre Borough Council do?
Yes, they reported the couple to the police! Their sad excuse? They did so
“…with the intention of challenging attitudes and educating and raising
awareness of the implications of homophobic behaviour.”!!
Perhaps they ought to be educated themselves in the truth about
homosexuality! And in their blatantly heterophobic behaviour! “Evidently, the
legitimate expression of a religious point of view is beyond the pale in that part
of Lancashire. But the police response was even more chilling.”
165
“In a country where violent crime shot up by 17% last year, you might
think the force would have better things to do than follow up this outrageous
attempt to censor free speech. But no.”
Two police officers – not one but two – were sent to see the Roberts’.
Are those officers part of an elite storm-trooper unit, I wonder? They spent an
astounding 80 minutes “interrogating them about their non-offence. They even
had the effrontery to warn the couple they were ‘treading on eggshells.’ A
more clear-cut case of official bullying would be hard to imagine.”
You might remember seeing 82 year old Walter Wolfgang being
dragged out of a UK Labour conference by Labour hench-men, just because
he shouted out “nonsense” during Tony Blair’s speech? The police later
charged him under, of all things, the Terrorism Act! “Whatever happened to
proportionate, common-sense policing?”
“Today, politically correct senior commanders seem ready to
push their powers to the limit and beyond, if they think it will please the
establishment… But, just as worrying is the intolerance of views that
don’t follow the prevailing fashion. Isn’t this supposed to be a country
where there is an inalienable right to honest opinions, honestly
expressed? And where no law-abiding citizen need fear a policeman’s
knock?”
You will notice this is about an ordinary couple who expressed dismay
about a local council having pro-gay policies. A local council is made up of
councillors elected by the people. Those employed by the local council are
employed not by their own efforts, but by the taxes paid by local people. That
is, they are employed by the very people they serve.
So, the person who so pretentiously ‘reported’ the Roberts’ to the
police was reporting on his/her employers! And what for? To make
themselves feel important? They were the little boys who ran to
teacher…”Please sir, please sir, let me do the dirty on them!”
That is happening to ordinary people, not hate-mongers or brutal thugs.
Schools Reject Freedom of Speech
Because of its importance I quote the following article in full:
“Beverly LaHaye, founder and chairwoman of Concerned Women for
America (CWA) is angry. In fact, she is beyond angry after researching what
is happening in public schools where she found that a gay, Lesbian, and
Straight Education Network (GLSEN) is pushing a grade school curriculum
that promotes cross-dressing.
Concerned Women for America has found that GLSEN has a budget of
several million dollars and counts more than a thousand homosexual activists
on the team. They are well connected and have influential backers in the
educational establishment. The National Educational Association (NEA) is in
support of homosexual ‘rights’, including the right to gay marriage. Radical
homosexual activists have long said, ‘Whoever controls the schools controls
the future.’
Their agenda contains such programs as: Cross dressing promoted to
grade-school children, graphic and explicit instruction in gay sex taught to
teenage boys and girls and armed guards posted to keep parents out of
school assemblies led by radical homosexual activists.
166
A book that endorses sex between children and adults is
published by a taxpayer-funded university. Its agenda is to inculcate
children as young as kindergarten-age that sex is alright between
children and adults.
For crying out loud, this is the age of innocence! Why can’t they leave
these poor kids alone and let them enjoy their childhood.
Concerned Women for America has also found another dangerous
book that provides an academic cover for paedophiles and child molesters.
The book is entitled “Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from
Sex”. Protecting children from sex... huh? “Sex is not harmful to children.
There are many ways even the smallest children can partake of it”.
On another page, the author gushes over a ‘lush and mysterious’ photo
of a naked 3- or 4-year-old boy. She quotes a variety of paedophiles by
concluding, “Children are not necessarily harmed by sex with adults”. She
advocates that America lower the age of sex between adults and children.
Can you imagine the arrogance? And this book was published by the
University of Minnesota Press. So much for the age of innocence.
GLSEN has produced some of the foulest “educational” material in the
earned rable history of sex education. A few years ago, CWA exposed the
fact that a pornographic teaching session had been conducted in
Massachusetts by GLSEN. During that workshop, homosexual instructors
indoctrinated children as young as 14 years old. The children heard detailed
descriptions of perverted sex acts and some so heinous that they are too
disgusting to mention.
After it was exposed, it sparked outrage across the nation, so GLSEN
leaders became more secretive and had guards posted to keep parents out.
So, with tax dollars footing the bill for homosexual propaganda, the parents
who foot the bill are thrown out of public schools by armed guards. Can you
believe it?
If you don’t believe the arrogance of the homosexuals and the collusion
of the school administrators, just listen to this. In St. Louis, when school
started for the new session, Debra Loveless, whose daughter attended Metro
High School, heard that GLSEN was conducting a school-sponsored
assembly. She tried to view the presentation to determine its contents. When
she entered the school, she was escorted out of the assembly by armed
security guards. She never knew what those young people were exposed to,
but, if it was one of GLSEN’s usual presentations, the material was corrupt,
perverse and destructive.
When David Parker of Lexington, Mass., tried to find out what his 6year-old son was being taught about homosexuality, school officials refused to
give him any information. When he went to the school to investigate, the
police were called and Parker was arrested. He is presently awaiting trial. This
is the position to which parents are relegated. (Editor: Parker’s young son
was recently beaten up by his own school chums, after being prompted
by a leading local lesbian).
Concerned Women for America asks in their literature: ‘Are they
teaching homosexuality in Spring Hill, Florida Area Schools?’ Only the parents
of the children can answer that question. It is up to them to investigate and
inquire what their children are being taught.
167
The homosexual agenda is like a cancer that wants to contaminate
everyone. Not too long ago, there was a school superintendent in a Florida
school who introduced two books for recommended reading. They were
‘Heather
Has
Two
Mommies’
and
‘Daddy’s
Room-mate’.
The outraged parents united and sent the man packing. Cheers for the
parents, but don’t give up yet. The GLSEN and the NEA are relentless and,
aided by the liberal media and academia, they will stop at nothing. Only
determined, concerned parents can stop this insanity.
If in the USA, contact www.cwfa.org. Or, write to: Concerned Women
for America, 1015 Fifteenth Street, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C.
20005. Telephone: 202-488-7000.” (151)
So, schools are taking control not only of our children, but of our
minds! They are cutting-out anyone, including their own parents, who
has an interest in keeping children innocent of sexual activity until they
are ready, as adults. This cannot continue. It is immoral and illicit.
Parents must join together as never before and make sure governments
listen. Otherwise, those who love perversion will also ‘love’ your child!
Stand up against schools and colleges!
If you oppose them in large numbers they will back-down!
Take them to court if necessary – recent cases have been very
successful, so don’t be afraid!
168
PART B
Chapter 8
Gays Who Change
“I love thee, Death, thou art my all. I am marrying
you with the ring of my soul. Come, destroy…”
“I never believed my own justification that I was
experiencing ‘wonderful pleasure’. You know as
well as I do, that this is a bitter lie.”
“Like drug addicts, ‘gays’ are not so because they
are ‘ill’ – they are ‘gay’ because they chose to be
that way.”
“Gays live a desperate existence”
“You also know, as I did, that such a life is full of
unhappiness.”
“After such liaisons you feel something like a
sword cutting sharply through your conscience
(which is why so many homosexuals feel guilty and
suicidal – it has nothing to do with society’s lack of
sympathy, it wells up from within yourself).”
“The problem is not physical, but moral and spiritual.”
“Remember not to give an inch to ‘gays’ no matter
what excuse they give for their condition…as one
who has been through the whole thing, I can testify
that homosexuality is nothing but a personal choice
to enjoy perverted sexual practices.”
In this book you have seen that gays can and do change back to
heterosexuality, frequently! This chapter contains suitable evidence, not just of
frequent changes, but permanent change. I will not fill the pages with similar
stories, because a few will prove my point. GAYS CAN AND DO CHANGE!
Two accounts show changes by Christian conversion. One is a change
brought about by an act of will, with no Christian conversion, proof that one
can change if the desire to do so is there, because it is an act of choice.
169
A Gay Confesses Choice
In 2002 an ex-gay sent me a letter, quoted in full below. The writer
wanted it published so that other homosexuals could read how a person can
change from homosexuality to what is natural. The letter was sent unsolicited.
“Since my early youth I had homosexual tendencies. I cannot explain
why I had them, but I can tell you the consequences. I was brought up in a
Christian family and since my childhood I knew many things about the Bible,
Jesus, sin, etc.
However, at the age of 12, I was dismayed by the conduct of certain
‘Christian’ pastors and preachers, and I asked myself, “What is wrong with
Christianity today? Why do they act in such an ungodly way?” Then, a young
girl I was friendly with, a preacher’s daughter, refused to write to me any more
because of my family’s doctrinal position. This seemed to ‘top’ my dismay and
… my homosexual tendencies became much stronger.
At that time, as a young teenager, I loved the girl, so it came as a big
shock. This, plus all the other dismays, collected in me until I started to reject
Christianity. As this was happening I was raped by an older boy and so my
homosexual tendencies grew even more, because he ‘initiated’ me into the
lifestyle. I find it now very hard to remember the exact details (and I do not
wish to remember), but that was the real start.
I went on to be a good ‘highbrow’ college student with excellent grades,
being top student out of 900 others. I read much on history, philosophy,
politics and sexuality. From my studies of pro-homosexual writers, I
‘discovered’ that it was not my fault that I had homosexual tendencies, but a
‘biological fact’ that I was born with. So, I accepted my situation. I devoted
myself to poetry and the attainment of intellectual knowledge, particularly
philosophy, from ancient Greek ideas to present day.
As I read Plato and was told he was homosexual, I found logical
justification for my behaviour…but my family and friends never knew about it,
because I lived a double life. By day I was the good student son of a pastor,
and secretly by night I was a rebel homosexual.
When I read the work of Nieztche, I accepted that ‘God is dead’ and
concluded that if He did not exist, there was no point in asking Him to help
me! So I lived a sinful and godless life whilst continuing to search for ‘the truth’
by logical and philosophical means. Mostly I used to get drunk with my
friends, used very bad language, and destroyed anything that stood in the
way of my ideas and lifestyle. (Editor: This is very common amongst
gays). Yet, I was inwardly desperate and wrote: “I love thee, Death, thou art
my all. I am marrying you with the ring of my soul. Come, destroy…”
This summed up my almost Satanic intellectualism, something
found amongst many homosexuals in reality. Though I did not practice
Satanism in the usual sense, my whole life was nevertheless Satanic
and I rejected God and what He stood for. I did not believe in either
Satan or God. Though I did not admit it, I knew that I had chosen every
step of my way.
After a while living (if that is what it was!) as I did, my life became too
hard for me and I turned once again to religion, but not to Christ (as so-called
‘Christian’ homosexuals do today). I attended church, but also read up on
Buddhism, Islam and other heathen religions.
170
With some pride I thought Christianity was the better religion, because
the others were less logical and seemed to be too superstitious. As a nephew
of a Roman Catholic bishop I rejected Roman Catholicism. I accepted most of
the Bible’s doctrines intellectually, but not spiritually (which I could not do
anyway, because I was unregenerate), after many years of atheism.
Believing I was a ‘Christian’ I asked to be baptised and became quite
enthusiastic, asking God to change my life. But, all along, I refused to disown
my sin, because at the time I was not saved by God’s grace. Even so I was
baptised and accepted into the local church.
Many things from my old life disappeared, but the peculiar and
harrowing sin of homosexuality remained within me. It was like a drug and too
hard for me to eliminate by myself. I tried my best to avoid homosexuality, and
though my encounters became fewer, they became far worse. Because my
pastor was also my father I did not ask for his help and so I kept my sin and
my burden secret for a long time. I did not trust other ministers because I saw
what they were like. Eventually I wrote to a missionary who had preached the
gospel to me, but I again rejected his clear, Biblical, answers, because they
were too hard for me.
I prayed, but in vain, and I was far from God. Once again I accepted my
position as a biological ‘mistake’. I knew the Bible condemned what I was, but
I kept saying I could not help it. I kept praying but received no answers.
Because I received no answers I convinced myself that my homosexuality
was not my fault. I did not think that I had no answers because I was sinning
and rejected God!
Therefore, I became a secret ‘Christian’ homosexual. One day, after an
homosexual encounter, I reached rock-bottom and wanted to die. A cruel
bitterness gripped my heart and I decided to commit suicide, as countless
questions crowded my mind… like “I must punish myself for my sin – but what
can I say to God when He judges me?” “It was not my fault, so why did you
not help me?” In desperation I cried out, “This is all your fault, God! I defy
you! If you really are God, then stop me right now from this awful life and
make me free of this evil in me… if you can!”
Then I made preparations for my triumphal death as a philosopher. I
wrote my last letter without explaining the reasons for my actions, and
stripped electrical wires to electrocute myself. Because I had heard that
people can survive an electric shock I got hold of several wires, to make the
job good. But I did not die! I reckon the Lord stopped me from dying – He had
answered, after all. When I contemplated His mercy toward me on that sad
day, I broke down in tears and prayed a true prayer, and was saved. A real
peace entered my heart, a peace that I had never known before.
I must say that the removal of my sin of homosexuality took some time,
as I learned to face up to, and refuse, its domination in my heart and mind. I
had to tell myself the truth, that it was a sin and not a biological mistake. I had
to learn to avoid all my old friendships, to fight against my flesh, and to
replace them with victories, trusting in the Lord. He gave me not just a logical
concept of Himself, but also showed me a spiritual and living understanding of
Himself, and of His majesty and grace. He showed me how to live life fully,
and the Way of Truth to follow – Himself!
I have a few words to say to those who have the same problem as I
had: both atheism and homosexuality. It is not true that your homosexuality is
171
caused by anything biological; and it is not a mistake. I never believed my own
justification that I was experiencing ‘wonderful pleasure’. You know as well as
I do, that this is a bitter lie. You also know, as I did, that such a life is full of
unhappiness. After such liaisons you feel something like a sword cutting
sharply through your conscience (which is why so many homosexuals feel
guilty and suicidal. It has nothing to do with society’s lack of sympathy, it wells
up from within yourself).
You can rebel against the majority view of the people. You can claim
hotly and loudly that you have the right to be gay or lesbian. But, you are a
sinner nevertheless! You are a sinner like any other human being. Before God
your sin is just like any other sin, from which you need freedom and release.
You must repent and be forgiven. It does not matter who you are: an
intellectual, a philosopher, a poet, a rent-boy…but you still need the same
forgiveness.
The Bible condemns homosexuality because it is against nature as
created by God. The problem is not physical, but moral and spiritual. I am not
a biologist, but I was gay and I know the problem!
If you are gay, or even a ‘Christian’ gay, then please call on God for
forgiveness and leave your lifestyle behind you, because it is a sin. You must
seek the help of a true minister of God. Read Romans 1:18 – 32 and Leviticus
18:22. Read the whole chapters and see how homosexuality is a sin, not a
biological thing.
Also read Matthew 11:28 and John 6:37, where you will find a whole
and complete salvation in Jesus Christ. You must not sign a card or do works
or even mentally agree with the Bible. You have to repent and seek
forgiveness. Ask God to make you free of your sinful habit and no longer
believe all those false justifications for it.
A Message to Ministers of the Gospel
Ministers must be ready to listen to those who have adopted an
homosexual lifestyle, because they need to be evangelised just like anyone
else. The main problem is that someone who is ‘gay’ finds it difficult to
communicate with someone who is not ‘gay’, because they fear the
consequences. They need someone to listen. However, do not waste your
time but simply preach the Gospel to them.
You will find that many are ‘irregular’ in what they say and do, and
indeed they are. They might have all kinds of ‘reasons’ for their state, but do
not be fooled into searching for elusive ‘reasons’ for their homosexuality. Just
preach the Gospel and stick to scripture…social care must not be allowed to
become more important than the need to be saved, or to adhere to God’s
word. What they need is salvation and the freedom in Christ that it gives.
Psychiatry and psychology can give some insights on occasions, but they are
not a substitute for proper counsel and salvation.
Like drug addicts, ‘gays’ are not so because they are ‘ill’, they are ‘gay’
because they choose to be that way. So, they need the Gospel. However, you
will need to be patient, because it will be hard work!
You will find, especially amongst younger ‘gays’, that they are
inconsistent and intolerant of many things: family, society, groups, etc. Do not
follow their desire to dwell on their own problems with others; the Gospel is
the main consideration.
172
Do not allow them to dwell on the past and to even glorify their past
sins by giving public ‘testimonies’…their lives have dealt in shame and deceit,
so a new life under Christ will not allow such glorification of their past sins.
Rather, let them glorify Christ for His marvellous redemption. It is common
today to use testimonies of those who have been bad in the past. Do not
succumb to this trend, for it is only a way of amazing and shocking people.
“He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.”
Today, ‘gays’ are receiving the natural end result of their sin, by
contracting AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. So, I am very
concerned that they find the same peace as I found, but only in and through
Christ Jesus. This peace means repenting totally of all sexual sins, including
the perversions such as homosexuality.
Remember not to give an inch to ‘gays’ no matter what excuse they
give for their condition…as one who has been through the whole thing, I can
testify that homosexuality is nothing but a personal choice to enjoy perverted
sexual practices. Therefore, a ‘gay’ is not born, but has a habit just like a drug
addict, and habits can be broken, if there is a will to do so.
It is a fact that not many ‘gays’ are saved, because to be ‘gay’ is to be
at the farthest end of sinful desires that indicate total rejection of God and His
word. Yet, just like me, there are some who will respond to the Gospel. ‘Gays’
live a desperate existence and it is my desire to see more come to know
Jesus Christ, Lord and Saviour. Amen.”
I will repeat that the above was written by an ex-gay. If you are gay and
you reject this testimony because it is ‘Christian’, then you do yourself a
disservice. Look at the principles involved, not the religious language! The
man is telling you that he had the same thoughts as you, the same desires,
the same moral lapses, the same promiscuous tendencies. But, he changed!
Don’t insist on changing homosexuals by psychology…though if
psychology helps to stop outward behaviour, it is a partial answer. The letter
above does not refer to any human being trying to change the man. He
changed because God changed him.
Sadly, many gays will never change, because they have been
condemned already by God, by entering their sin until it drowns them. They
can no longer hear their own consciences let alone God’s voice, and they
enter very deeply into the most corrupt and perverted of practices. And the
deeper they enter into homosexuality the more they hate the rest of society,
especially Christians.
Let it be a warning. God can and does cast aside some men and
women. They live and eat their sins (not just sexual) and their course through
life is fixed by their lusts. However, God calls to people in many ways. I have
observed many gays as they struggle. They tell me about this, and say if they
could change, they would. It is up to God. If He calls you, then you must obey
and stop your sin immediately, even if the lust remains within you. Once you
have stopped the behaviour, you can deal with the rest of it.
When you stop, you must also avoid all who you once knew, who might
drag you back down: other homosexuals, for example. If you have a ‘partner’
you must leave immediately. God will never bind you to someone who is
acting sinfully, even if you once declared ‘love’ for that person. Like any
contract, it is null and void if it is illicit! Forget the tears and tantrums.
173
Note: One gay who turned against me was not as obvious as many
others. In truth, I liked him. In his own way he had integrity. But, he also had
spiritualistic tendencies and drank to excess. His language could also be foul
at times. These are typical background details of gays. I am convinced that his
moodiness came from his sadness, a sadness caused by his own gay
lifestyle. I have the strongest suspicion that his homosexuality is getting him
down, even if he does not realise it.
As for lesbians, most are not as lesbian as they think. One used to flirt
strongly with me, and she used to stare longingly at a certain worker who
visited our hospital and tell us how she would love to be carnal with him (she
even said she ‘lusted’ after him!). And, whenever her ‘lover’ telephoned her,
she always looked annoyed and exasperated, because she was what could
be termed ‘reliant’ on her. Yet, they were joined in a civil ‘marriage’. She was
also a very strong drinker and took drugs. As I have already said, this
background is very common amongst homosexuals.
With gays and lesbians nothing is as it seems!
Lesbians Do Change
“she joined a feminist movement and this quickly
led to her first lesbian affair.”
“when she went with her first woman, it was
terrifying and felt unnatural.”
“She used the usual trickery of emotional blackmail
(“If you don’t accept my life, then you won’t see me
at all.” Etc).”
“When Jackie went out to clubs she would be
approached by lesbian ‘police’ who insisted that
she toed the official lesbian line.”
“She now admits this was all ‘one track’ and
‘unnatural’, and says that the lesbian scene is
militant, shockingly intolerant of all those who do
not accept their lifestyle, and a closed world.”
This is a story about a woman who gave up being a lesbian. (I have
other similar letters). She is not a Christian, so no homosexual can say this
is just another Christian conversion. But, her story is typical of so many who
claim homosexuality is ‘natural’ and ‘right’. It is a story about a young
woman who suddenly looked at herself in the mirror and said “You are such
a fool. You have lost your grip on reality!“ From that moment she wanted to
get rid of her sexual habit, which she herself calls ‘perverse’.
What her story shows is something fundamental: that both male and
female homosexuality are personal choices and not something a person is
born to! And just as a woman can choose to become ‘lesbian’ so she can
choose to undo her unfortunate choice and return to normality. This is the
174
belief of one such ‘lesbian’, as reported in a newspaper. (Source: UK Daily Mail,
7th August, 2003).
Actress Jackie Clune was a ‘normal’ girl as a youngster, and slept
with her boyfriend for several years. But, when she went to university (a
place where many youngsters lose their senses and learn to go wrong bigtime) she joined a feminist movement and this quickly led to her first lesbian
affair.
She says that when she went with her first woman, it was terrifying
and felt unnatural. This should not be surprising because it is unnatural!
She felt odd, but liked the idea of being daring. So she continued and got
deeper into lesbianism. I am told, time and again, by male and female
homosexuals that they know what they do is ‘unnatural’. (‘X’ reported exactly
the same thing in the UK)
After five years she revealed her choice to her parents, who, she
says, were devastated at first. It took them a long time to ‘accept’ her as she
was. (I doubt if they truly accepted it at all. Parents do not want to lose their
child, so they put up with an awful lot of rubbish and lies). She used the
usual trickery of emotional blackmail (“If you don’t accept my life, then you
won’t see me at all.”, etc. This was the real basis for their ‘acceptance’!).
She moved to an area of London known to contain many lesbians
and worked for a theatre company that later became totally lesbian. This is
how most homosexuals live; they band together for illusory self-support and
a ready supply of partners.
Jackie admits that lesbians tend to be very strident and harsh, and
say they are ‘happy’ when they are not. Like so many homosexuals she was
unable to form a lasting relationship, and she describes her life in a lesbian
community as like “being in a bubble” and whenever lesbians broke up, they
all attended a ‘cushion therapy’ session with each other, when they talked
for hours and made their split formal. Jackie said what any Christian
knows… that lesbian relationships are ‘destructive’.
Over time she became tired of the lesbian scene and its emotional
roller-coaster existence, and “I’d spent too long living my life wrapped up in
my sexuality”. She says that lesbians only employ lesbian workers and
lesbian friends. This, reader, is the sign of a very serious emotional and
mental problem! It is a way of protecting your bad choices. You should
note that whilst homosexuals employ fellow homosexuals, they deny
non-gay employers the right to similarly restrict their employees to
non-gays!
Note, too, that it is all about sex! (Boston: A lesbian flirted with a male
colleague. She ‘married’ her partner, but was obviously annoyed that she
was so dependent on her. After that she openly said to her female
colleagues that she ‘lusted after’ a man she saw out the window). In an
attempt to deceive, lesbians pretend it is all about ‘relationships’! Yea, right!
When Jackie went out to clubs she would be approached by lesbian
‘police’ who insisted that she toed the official lesbian line, by not wearing
lipstick or having too much fun!! She now admits this was all ‘one track’ and
‘unnatural’, and says that the lesbian scene is militant, shockingly intolerant
of all those who do not accept their lifestyle, and a closed world. Remember,
this is her own testimony, not ours!
175
I have said this many times before: homosexuals create their own
false ‘lifestyle’ so they do not have to admit how unnatural their choices are,
and to avoid being argued-against. That’s why they stick so closely together.
If anyone dares to question their motives or their lifestyle, they band
together and attack without mercy. And many seem ‘nice’ at first, even
friendly! It is all deception.
And if those they attack are employed, they will get employers to sack
them. Lesbian ‘love’ does not really exist. It is all to do with simple sex and
lust. And love for others does not exist either, only hatred for anyone who
stands in their way. Without doubt lesbians are emotionally unbalanced. I
have yet to meet one who does not have a neurosis.
I have included this story to reinforce the fact that homosexuality is
unnatural and false, a bad choice and not a thing one is born to. Do not be
controlled by homosexual propaganda. Speak out when you have to and
speak Biblically. You don’t have to be rude or nasty, just honest and strong
when under pressure to conform.
(If you want serious proof from elsewhere that homosexuality is
wrong and that men and women can change from being homosexual, look
at www.narth.com).
A Bi-Sexual Changes
“I, too, have had verbal abuse off gay people – they
don’t like it when I tell them that I was once like
they are, but that God delivered me.”
“the Lord has shown me that I need to share this
with other so-called ‘Gay’ people, in order to show
them God’s power to deliver and set people free,
and also to dispel the gay propaganda lies.”
“it was disgusting and dirty, and probably one of
the worst sins I ever committed.”
“I…had trouble stopping the gay support
group/crowd from bothering me. However, at this
time, I had reached the lowest point in my life; I
couldn’t go any lower if I tried. The gay lobby is the
biggest lie from Satan, I honestly believe anyone
who really wants to change their sexual orientation,
can do so if they are truly born again. It has to
come from within and from God. Psychology and
self-help groups are of no use.”
In this account you will read of a woman whose life was initially altered
by things that happened to her. In the past I have met women who became
lesbians after being abused by violent husbands. Many such gays and
lesbians turn to what they see as ‘safer’ people… their own sex. She is
176
identified only as ‘Gail’ because I know how lethal gays can be toward anyone
who says they can change.
“I am 33 years old, and have been married for the last four years, with
a little boy aged 2 years and 10 months.
I’ll get to the point. I am writing to you because I was a bisexual. I also
had dealings with True Freedom Trust. The man who runs it is a very nice,
well-meaning man, but when I said that God has completely delivered me and
set me free, he didn’t accept it as he believes a complete cure is not possible.
My deliverance was gradual and took a long time. I had very little help
and it was a case of complete surrender to the Lord and complete 100%
faithfulness to his commands, soaking my life in prayer, and remembering that
God didn’t make me that way. The Bible tells us submit to God, and to resist
the devil, who will flee from you. I would say that when I married I was about
60% cured and 2 years ago 100% cured.
I, too, have had verbal abuse off gay people. They don’t like it when I
tell them I was once like they are, but that God delivered me. I took part in
Christian witness at gay pride two years ago. I got abused and gays came
close to violence several times. One lady in contact with True Freedom Trust,
and whose son was gay, completely lost it when I told her of my testimony.
But, I have looked at your website and found it fantastic (Ed. She is
referring to christiandoctrine.net). It tells the truth. I don’t mind this being made
public; I have been keeping it secret for a number of years because of fear I
would lose many friends. But the Lord has shown me I need to share this with
other so-called ‘Gay’ people, in order to show them God’s power to deliver
and set people free, and also to dispel the gay propaganda lies.”
You will notice from this letter that Gail’s change was rejected even by
a Christian ministry! This is because they did not like the fact that Gail
changed without their psychological help. Gail sent the following letter to
another person, whose name I have withheld.
“My name is Gail and I am writing to tell you of the good news of the
gospel of Jesus Christ; and to share my testimony with you.
I grew up in a home where religion was never discussed. My mother
was a nominal Anglican but my father was a Roman Catholic until the age of
17, when he joined the Communist party. He was a communist until the day
he died (14 years ago in a road traffic accident).
Both mother and father were heavy drinkers and Saturday nights were
spent down the Catholic Church social club, as well as any other occasions,
or times my father was off work. My father was a philanderer and fathered four
daughters by four different women, none of whom I know personally.
My parents never married and father would often leave at a moment’s
notice to set up home with one of his latest women, only to return back to my
mother and I. However, once, I didn’t see him for 3 and a half years.
At the age of 8 I was raped the first time by a lodger (who lived at our
home) and violently raped again at knife-point when I was 13, by a young lad
who lived on my estate. I struggled with suicidal thoughts and low self-esteem
for many years. I am ashamed to admit I tried to commit suicide a total of 7
times during my life.
177
I also started drinking around the age of 10 although I had my first drink
at the age of 4. After I was raped the second time things started to go wrong
for me. I always believed in God and I used to pray at night. As I said, my
family were not religious. I started attending a local Church of England church
around the age of 12, and stayed for some time, but I found it didn’t satisfy the
deep longing I had to be close to God.
All of my life I felt I needed to know God; little did I know that sin kept
me a stranger from knowing Him. God cannot and will not have fellowship and
come into the heart of someone who hasn’t been ‘born again’, or repented of
their sin, and trusted the Lord Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.
Anyway, I asked the rector of this C of E church how I could know God.
He told me “You are too young to worry about things like that.” Not long after
this I tried to commit suicide the first time, and the doctor at the hospital said
“it is a miracle, as you shouldn’t be alive.” I had taken a total of 150
paracetamol with a litre of wine. This I am ashamed to admit, and I have
repented of this and God has forgiven me. I am only sharing this to let you
know that God can save anyone who truly repents of any sin.
When I was about fifteen I used to go to the park and drink cider with
my friends. They started sleeping with lads and became pregnant, etc. I
realised there must be more to life than this, and I wondered once again how I
could get to know God.
Anyway, at school we started researching various religions for a childcare course. My friends researched the Salvation Army and the Seventh Day
Adventist Church. Unfortunately, I went for the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints, otherwise known as Mormons. I wrote off for pamphlets
and within a day or so two young men were on my doorstep. I had to start
discussions at a neighbour’s house: my parents didn’t care, but we only had
one sitting room and it got in the way of my father’s television viewing.
I studied practically every night and lived away from home, sleeping at
this lady’s house. I attended every meeting at the local Mormon church and
was completely brainwashed. I can remember now how my mind switched
from a sense of reality, when I was away on a youth camp. On my sixteenth
birthday I was baptised into the Mormon Church. Within weeks I was in a
teaching position and used to go around frequently visiting with the
missionaries. Several times they let me lead discussions with people
investigating the Mormon church.
I was so zealous for Mormonism I believed I was right and everyone
else was wrong. I did all the correct things and kept every rule rigidly, but that
is not how we gain eternal life The Bible tells us in Isaiah 64 verse 6 “and all
our righteousness is as a filthy rag”. We cannot get to heaven by good works.
It is by grace you are saved lest any man should boast.
Anyway, I carried on faithful to this church for 2 years. Then, one day, I
came across a Christian who told me that the Mormon church believes Jesus
was a polygamist and was married to Mary Martha and Mary Magdalene. He
also said Mormons did not allow black men to hold office until 1978, because
they believed black people were inferior to white people.
I didn’t believe it at first and tried to shake off my doubts, but sometime
later there was a documentary on the TV saying that Joseph Smith, the
founder of the Mormon church, was a polygamist and that he had sexual
178
relations with teenage girls. Also a load of other horrible facts came to light
and I had to leave.
When I came out of the Mormon church, I started to drink to excess.
My father died not long after, and several more suicide attempts followed. I
am ashamed to admit it, but I became an alcoholic. Also on and off since the
age of 12 I struggled with same-sex attraction. I was ‘bi-sexual’. I had no
trouble sleeping with men, but I also struggled with feelings towards my own
gender. I came out of the Mormon church and studied every cult under the
sun: Jehovah’s Witnesses, Spiritualist, Islam, to name a few. I felt I didn’t
belong outside of the LDS Church but I didn’t belong inside it, either.
Life for me was a living nightmare. One day at the age of 23 I was
walking around the estate where I lived and went into a local church and sat
down to listen to a service. God had his hand on me! I heard the gospel
preached for the first time, I knew then if I didn’t repent of my sin, and trust
that the Lord Jesus’ death at Calvary paid for my sin, all would be lost for
me… I would go to hell. I knew my sin was great, and the conviction was so
strong I just sat weeping for ages. I just knew I had to follow Jesus totally as
my Saviour and that He had to be my Lord.
I came away a new creature! Although I was now a born-again believer
I attended Charismatic churches for some five years, and was even an
assistant pastor in one church. This was another thing God graciously forgave
me for.
For five years I honestly believed I was completely cured of same-sex
attractions. Then, at the age of 27, it hit me like a bulldozer, and I thought I
was a lesbian. I can honestly say that at this time I would have committed
suicide had I not been saved (born again). I went to my church. They were
nice enough but were useless and I subsequently got disfellowshiped
because I renounced the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement. They tried
‘deliverance’ on me, and I ended up having clinical depression!
I came across True Freedom Trust, who told me to accept the fact I
may never get rid of lesbian feelings. I went to secular and Christian
counselling, and both left me more screwed up than before. I stopped going to
church and out of desperation ‘phoned the London Gay switchboard. They put
me in touch with the local gay help line.
Though I started to talk to them, I knew, deep down, that this wasn’t
God’s plan for my life, and that He didn’t want me to be this way. Even so, I
started to attend the local (secular) gay support group. Most of the people I
met there were on drugs, and one was self-harming, with cuts on his arm
which were badly infected. They were dead miserable, like most gays, but at
least I had someone who understood.
I can honestly say that most had been abused, physically, emotionally,
or sexually, during their childhood. People are not born homosexual, it is
different things that cause these feelings. But as my own experience proves,
all these can be overcome and eliminated by The Lord.
However, unless we are born-again and have total reliance in, and
obedience to, God, through the power of the Holy Spirit, it is pointless even
trying to change. In my own life, deep down I didn’t trust men until just a
couple of years ago. I wouldn’t get in a lift, and, subconsciously, I believed
that every man would try to rape me.
179
Anyway, I kept attending this gay support group. I made friends with a
girl, who I will call Lee. Lee became emotionally dependent on me. I attended
a gay club once but, thankfully, God stopped me from taking the drugs and
drink. By God’s grace alone I managed to stay off the drink. Stupidly, I went
round to Lee’s house one day for coffee, and I am ashamed to admit that we
ended up in bed together; I won’t go into the details.
It is something I try to forget, and though I know God has forgiven me,
it was disgusting and dirty, and probably one of the worst sins I ever
committed. I had trouble getting rid of Lee as I knew I must never speak to her
or see her again.
I also had trouble stopping the gay support group/crowd from bothering
me. However, at this time, I had reached the lowest point in my life; I couldn’t
go any lower if I tried. The gay lobby is the biggest lie from Satan, I honestly
believe anyone who truly wants to change their sexual orientation, can do so if
they are truly born again. It has to come from within and from God.
Psychology and self-help groups are of no use.
I felt so low I could only turn to God – no human being could help. As I
said, True Freedom Trust are nice enough people, but they, too, were unable
to help. Now, I am 100% free of my gay tendencies and they (True Freedom
Trust) refuse to believe that the Lord has set me free without their help!
It wasn’t easy to come away from my bi-sexual feelings. I had to trust
God totally and renounce all dealings with the gay movement. I had to really
get into the Bible; I was graciously converted to the Authorised Version, which
the Lord used mightily. I set up an ex-cult ministry and through that met my
husband. We now have a three year old son. Not many people know of my
gay past, because it isn’t something I like to share frequently.
However, in 2004 I went to Belfast and witnessed to my change and to
God, at the Gay Pride March.
God showed me I needed to forgive my parents for my childhood, and
my father for his frequent affairs. I needed to forgive the two men who raped
me. I needed to be obedient to God in prayer, Bible reading, and service for
Him. It hasn’t been easy, but a long, difficult, struggle, and only God, alone,
got me through it. Only by his grace did I get set free.
I would love to see you set free completely from your struggles: God
can do it. I am praying for you. More importantly, if you haven’t repented of
your sin (including homosexuality) and been born-again, please do so. Time is
short, so don’t put it off. Hell is somewhere where you don’t want to go – it is
for all eternity. I beg you as someone who truly cares.”
Well, we see in that letter common elements in a gay life: abuse, fear of
the opposite sex (heterophobia), a poor upbringing, etc. We also see the
sincere but mistaken belief that gays can partially change if only they receive
this or that counselling and psychological help. I know that even if this help is
Christian, it is still misguided… especially if those counselling suggest a
person can never be freed of gay thoughts. Gail points to the only possible
help, God Himself. When this help came, there was no need for lengthy
sessions, because it was the real thing!
Homosexuals can change! And they often do. Not just back and
forth between gay and heterosexuality as so many do, because their
180
lives are anchored only in sex, but out of homosexuality for good. I
receive a continuous stream of similar letters, so Gail is not unique.
If a male or female homosexual changes back to heterosexual
normality, guess what excuse other homosexuals give? Yes, that’s right:
“They were never gay in the first place”! Clever come-back, eh? Not!
That’s what was said about Heather Duncan Macadam, an author,
when she decided she had had enough of female lovers. She simply
changed, almost in an instant, after being with women for a long time. (‘I spent
18 years going out with women. Now I’m in love with a man.’ The Observer,
UK, June 11th, 2006). As she admitted, she had “had enough”.
Her mother said that her time as a lesbian was like her vegetarian
phase! Something she did out of curiosity and as respite from a failed love
affair! Once again, it is confirmed, that homosexuality is merely a choice, a
bad habit, a phase some unfortunate folk go through. Unlike the examples
above, this ‘returnee’ simply left homosexuality without a bad word. It does not
matter. What matters, is that, again, we see homosexuality is not a minority, a
community. It is just a sad mixture of people who gather together for sex. No
genetics. No uncontrollable force. Just choice.
181
PART C
Chapter 9
What the Bible Says
“Homosexuality is unlike any other sin, because it
is not just one sin, but a whole collection of evils.
Really, homosexuality is the summation, the tip of
the iceberg.”
“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of
the world are clearly seen, being understood by the
things that are made, even His eternal power and
Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools”
“God also gave them up to uncleanness through
the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own
bodies between themselves:”
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile
affections: for even their women did change the
natural use into that which is against nature.”
“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use
of the woman, burned in their lust one toward
another; men with men working that which is
unseemly, and receiving in themselves that
recompence of their error which was meet.”
“God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do
those things which are not convenient.”
Romans 1 – the Gay Nemesis
Gays with superficial knowledge of the Christian scriptures will no
doubt refer to the book of Romans, chapter one. They try their best to
denigrate it because it has power. It tells the truth and is God’s word. What
follows is based on an article written a few years ago.
Today we see a phenomenon within the churches (and outside them)
with far-reaching ramifications: we see homosexuality being accepted by
some badly taught Christians, as well as by others. Such a state of
acceptance was almost unknown up to the 1950’s.
182
But, now, the sin of homosexuality has eaten its way into our lives like
a malignant growth, eroding the hearts of nations. God despises
homosexuality and all it entails. He plainly and repeatedly damns what He
refers to as ‘vile affections’ and calls homosexuals ‘fools’ who are of
‘reprobate minds’. Yet, Christians completely ignore God’s own word and
entertain homosexuals and their notions in their minds and hearts, if only by
silence!
(Ed. Please note – this section quotes what God says. As a Christian I
believe it. Also, I see its truth in modern life. Whilst I refer to the Biblical
language, I do not in any way elevate myself above gays, nor do I show any
hatred toward them. I believe what God says because His thoughts are pure
and holy, and are always right. His words are a warning to gays to repent and
change).
Multiple references in the Bible all say the same thing – unrepentant
and practising homosexuals will be cast into hell; they do ‘works of darkness’
and are slaves to their own lusts, which are devilish by nature. But it is
Romans Chapter One that gives us the full horrific truth about homosexuality
and its followers. Do not listen to so-called ‘gay Christians’, because they are
deluded souls with a fake religious front.
If you are a Believer, but you have fallen under the spell of ‘gay’
propaganda, then I challenge you to read what God’s word tells us in Romans
Chapter One. If, after that, anyone still allows homosexuality to be treated
with respect and with sympathy, then I can only say, God help them!
(I speak of not having respect for ‘homosexuality’ and not
‘homosexuals’. We can respect homosexuals as people, but we cannot
respect what they say and do as homosexuals. Also note that a ‘work of
darkness’ refers to anything not initiated by God).
The General Picture
Homosexuality is unlike any other sin, because it is not just one sin, but
a whole collection of evils. Really, homosexuality is the summation, the tip of
the iceberg. The best way to see this is to examine what Romans 1 actually
says to us. We will not need to twist scripture (as so-called ‘gay’ Christians
do, in order to cling to their habits), nor will we have to go into difficult
theological debates...the general picture given by the Bible is unequivocal and
there are no alternative meanings!
It is this clarity of teaching that homosexuals fight against. At all costs,
they want to cloud the whole issue, so that Christians and others do not
discover the truth about what homosexuals believe and do. We ignore the
truth at our own cost. Already, the AIDS pandemic is sweeping the earth, a
disease given to us primarily by homosexuals and which also kill Christians,
even if they do not practice homosexual habits.
But far worse than this and other physical scourges associated with
sexual promiscuity, is the spiritual apathy which homosexuality engenders
amongst Christians.
An Overview
Verses 1-7
Verses 1 to 7 form the introduction to this intense chapter. Paul greets
the Roman Believers and says that the Gospel of Jesus Christ was foretold by
183
the prophets (this is repeated elsewhere in Romans). Interestingly, we here
see another name for Christians (there are several in the New
Testament)...”the called (of Jesus Christ)”.
Verses 8-15
Paul says he would like to visit Rome to see his brethren. Their faith
was famed amongst Christians and he wanted to help them to grow spiritually.
Verses 16-32
God’s purity and commands have been made absolutely clear and
those who believe will be saved. Those who disobey will know His wrath and
will go to hell. This is because they know very well what they must do or must
not do. Instead, they do evil, terrible things, including homosexuality and all
the things that lead up to it and surround it; homosexuality is not a single sin.
Those who persist in it are ‘reprobates’ because they ignore God and do
whatever they like.
A Detailed Examination
We will start our study at verse 18. The definitions given are from the Greek
text:
Verse 18
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness”
God’s ‘wrath’ is the full extent of His anger. It is a sign of His total and
unchanging hatred of something. Unlike human anger, which is the result of
emotional lability, God’s anger is pure. God’s anger is never a reaction, for
God cannot react (as we do). If He were to react, it would remove His deity,
for a reaction to something means it was not expected, or, that it was not
foreseen.
God knows all and sees all, from beginning to end. Thus, He never
‘reacts’... He can only act, in such a way as to be completely in harmony with
His being and attributes.
Why is this important? Well, if He knows what is to happen and His
actions are always the sum of His attributes, it means that His wrath must be
predetermined. Homosexuality is not a surprise to God. He saw it coming,
even before it began! Thus, His wrath against it is not a sudden whim, or a
knee-jerk reaction. It was predetermined; it just means His anger has to be
displayed in time, our time, even though it had already been predetermined in
eternity.
Everything we ever do, say or think, is measured against God’s
holiness and purity. If it does not match and we are not repentant, then His
wrath will follow and He must punish.
Is this fair, especially in the case of unbelievers? Yes, it is! All talk of
fairness is supercilious, for it assumes God must surely be just like us! God
cannot be, and is not, like us. He is the Creator and He can do whatever He
wishes with us.
In later chapters of Romans, we find that God is the Potter...and
election is explained. Whatever God does is based in eternity and in His own
184
fixed attributes, which are holy and just. ‘Fairness’ is a concept for human
consumption only!
We discover that God’s wrath is “revealed from heaven”...it comes from
the very seat of God Himself, the place from whence all rule flows. And this
wrath is directed “against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men”. To be
ungodly is to work against God, actively and deliberately; it displays
irreverence toward the Maker; there is no awe of His might and purity.
It is this irreverence which leads to unrighteousness: injustice; impurity
of heart and life; violation of God’s law; deceitfulness; a denial of first
principles. They “hold the truth in unrighteousness”.
Can they be excused? No. The next verse tells us why...
Verse 19
“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them;
for God hath shewed it unto them,”
This verse begins with “Because”. That is the “wrath of God” is on
them “because” of the reasons given in the following verses...and this is
where the case against homosexuality really begins.
We are told that what we need to know generally about God, has been
made “manifest”. That is, it has been made plain; it is evident and clearly
seen; plainly recognised. Not only has it been made obvious, but God has
implanted the truth “in them”! Thus, it cannot be disputed, only ignored. God
has “shewed it unto them.” They cannot claim they do not know, if the
Almighty has shown them the truth Himself.
Homosexuals and others who say that they do not know what God
wants, or that they do not understand it, are lying. They know very well what
He wants, because it is written in their corrupt hearts. But they choose to
ignore it. Hence their loud jeers and shouts against God’s word!
The shouts are not the result of unbelief, but are the result of their fears
and knowledge of God’s word in their hearts, which constantly tells them they
are wrong. They cannot get rid of this condemnation, and that is why they are
always so furious, screaming, and abusive toward Christians.
With their jeers and shouts they hope to drown-out the nagging truth
which God has placed deep in their own hearts. What God generally requires
is shown to all people, by words, deeds, and by nature itself. Homosexuality
is so obviously against nature!
All those people who taunt us to ‘prove’ the existence of God are
merely hiding their anxiety about God, behind a claimed unbelief. They know
He is there, but their sin prefers to ignore Him. Their many questions are not,
then, genuine. Do not bother to answer them. Even if you make an answer,
they will just keep coming with other riddles.
It is not their intention to learn the truth, but to hide it! This is evidenced
in the next verse where we find that all people know God is real and that He
has shown them the truth, even if they never hear preaching.
Verse 20
“For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.”
185
God may indeed be invisible, but His might and requirements are seen
through those things that are made. That is, the mind considers and thinks
upon the workmanship of God, when confronted by Creation. It is now a
derided thing to say, but the universe really does bear the mark of a Maker,
and divine Creation is obvious.
Only schemers and sinful men want to throw out God from Creation, as
a sign of their deliberate avoidance of His presence. That is why they invent
scientific fairy-stories such as the ‘Big Bang Theory’ and ‘Evolution’. These
theories are not natural conclusions, they are evidences of pride, stupidity,
and bad science.
What led Darwin to evolution was not scientific examination and
legitimate findings, but his own unbelief and his refusal to accept God as the
Maker of a literal six-day Creation. (Darwin, by the way, came from the then
new Unitarian church, which later founded humanism, the basis of all
secularised science today).
Time and again, this refusal to face reality is found in the sciences and
in social practices such as homosexuality. These deliberately turn reality and
truth upon their heads.
It does not end there, for we are told that Creation even shows us “His
eternal power and Godhead”. So, homosexuals are without excuse. Creation
shows us clearly that God exists and that He is full of might, miraculous power
and rulership. We see His “Godhead”; that is, His divinity or supernatural
nature. We see Him as the one, only, true God (The word ‘Godhead’ is rooted
in the Greek ‘ho’, meaning ‘the’; that is, THE only true God.
Because this is shown to all men “they are without excuse” (this is all
one word in the Greek, so there cannot be a mistranslation!)
These general observations of Paul lead on to what happens when
these ‘fools’ deliberately ignore God and pretend to be wise, using their own
meagre ideas....
Verse 21
“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as
God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened,”
Arrogance is a major feature of homosexuality. Today homosexuals
feel society is now accepting them (though it does not, except for those who
have been deceived with lies), so they ‘come out’ and openly declare their
perversions. They scoff at God and His commandments and think that
whatever they want to do, they can do. They can get away with it because
their “foolish heart(s) (were) darkened” and because Christians dare not stand
against them, partly because of a fashionable sympathy for the homosexual
cause, and partly because of fear of violence or other attacks.
Verse 21 tells us the state of these people. Homosexuals know there
is a God and they know what they do is evil...”when they knew God”. But
they do not praise or honour Him. Instead they desecrate His Name and
word. They “became”, or chose, to be vain; foolish; empty vessels; devoid of
truth; useless; fruitless. Even in the bible, then, we see that homosexuality is
a personal and deliberate choice.
Homosexuals have something to contribute to society? They can
produce good work like anyone else, but can they contribute to the good of
186
society? Never, because God says they are ‘useless’! The only ‘gifts’ they
have given the world are depravity and AIDS*. “Their foolish heart” translates
as: unintelligent; stupid; unlearned. (*ardent gays refer to AIDS as ‘the gift’!)
Thus, people who extol their godless beliefs and activities are, in the
words of the Lord, ‘stupid’. Anything that does not have God in it is vain and
useless...that is why homosexuals are called ‘empty vessels’. When the soul
is ‘dark’ it automatically leans toward evil and immorality, as is made plain in
the remaining portion of Chapter One.
In verses 22 to 25 we find that when men reject God and His authority
over their lives, they always turn to themselves for authority. But all they find
is constant change and the frailty of human desires. And the easiest desire to
feed is – sex. This is probably why sexual immorality is so strongly
represented in the chapter.
Verse 22
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools”
This means they alleged themselves to be skilled or
earned
(intellectually and spiritually) and in their delusion they became ‘flat and
tasteless’, acting foolishly and proving themselves to be ‘stupid’, godless and
impious. Thus, they think they are clever, but they are actually stupid. This is
because they have no higher authority than themselves.
Those who have listened to, say, humanists argue, are very aware of
the fakery of their logic. Similarly, homosexual activists offer the most
ridiculous of reasons for their sexually perverse habits. The best word to use
is ‘pathetic’.
Some may say that people are entitled to their opinions. Is this
correct? If they want to appear to be stupid, then I suppose they are correct.
To put it another way, personally, I do not suffer fools gladly, especially if
those who present their silly opinions are Christians. If their argument is not
grounded in scripture, or, worse, if they offer nonsense instead of scripture,
then I tend to be rather curt.
There is no reason at all why Christians should allow stupid opinions to
persuade them, just for the sake of ‘free speech’. This is because none of us
are entitled to say something is good when God condemns it. In the case of
homosexuality, God hates it and curses it. In no way must we ever condone
what God hates. (Ed. This has nothing at all to do with respect for people
because they are human beings).
Verse 23
As a direct result of becoming stupid, these people proceeded to lower
God and His image, so that He was no higher than themselves! (This is
exactly what so-called ‘gay Christians’ do). Because they saw no difference
between Man and beasts, they therefore saw God as equal to an animal...and
that is how they acted between themselves. Hence the allusion to idols.
The same applies today. Obviously, if God has no higher status than
the animals He made, then certain evils will arise...for example, abortion on
demand, euthanasia, pornography, homosexuality, violence, genocide, etc.
By making God no higher than themselves (and by seeing themselves
as equal to animals), they thus “changed the glory of the incorruptible God
into an image made like to corruptible man”. That is, they exchanged what
187
God really is for a god they wanted, refusing to understand that if God is God
then He cannot, by definition, change.
What is God’s ‘glory’? It is a reference to His splendour, dignity,
magnificence, pre-eminence, majesty, perfection, etc. Thus, these evil people
purposely ‘swapped’ the true God for something far less; they made Him to be
lower than the things He created. An obvious example of this is the theory of
evolution. What they are left with is a sham god whose attributes are as faulty
and as corrupt as their own.
They tried to change the “incorruptible God”. This means, the God Who
could not die or perish (as creatures can and do). He is eternal and pure and
cannot die or alter. Yet these same ‘stupid’ men made idols to worship.
Some looked like men e.g. Jupiter, Mars, etc. Others looked like birds or
animals, or even the sun. So, they worshipped created beings like
themselves. Silly fools!
It is obvious to the smallest of minds that something created cannot, at
the same time, be the creator (a god)! Today, homosexuals idolise and
worship blatantly immoral, depraved sexuality and other men/women, as
objects of their desire. They are their own gods (gods with AIDS in many
cases)! And what do they end up with? “corruptible man”! ‘corruptible’ means
‘depraved’ as well as ‘liable to change, decay, or death’. Is the swap of
value?
Verse 24
Because men did this, “God also gave them up to uncleanness
through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies
between themselves:”
So, God delivered them into their own hands, to be their own master (if
only in a deluded way, for being godless they are slaves to Satan; they are not
their own masters). What did God give them up to? Was what they achieved
better than holiness? No! God gave them up to their own devices.
“Unleanness” means physical and moral impurity...whatever men
demand. It also means living in a luxurious and profligate way; foul. Of
course, luxury is something not needful for life; excess; self-indulgence. And
to be profligate is to be totally abandoned to vice, depravity and a vicious
mind. Thus, they were given over to a self-centred life, vile and full of vice.
(Ed. And, as has already been shown, the gay mind turns naturally to fascist
‘solutions’).
What we have here is the Biblical teaching on homosexuality. How on
earth can so-called ‘gay Christians’ blatantly ignore it and say their lives are
pure and they are loved by God? It is impossible! But, of course, if they are
given over by God (this is strongly emphasised later in the chapter) to vileness
and vice, we cannot expect them to think properly.
God gave them up to the “lusts of their own hearts”. A lust is a pathetic
craving for what is forbidden (by God). The root meaning is a passion that
boils up; it is equal to the idea of a drinker who is driven mad by continuous
drinking and who is then killed by what he drinks. This meaning is itself
rooted in another root meaning – to be sacrificed by one’s own choice!
Thus, very clearly, the Bible condemns homosexuality and places the
blame for it upon the crazed shoulders of homosexuals themselves who, it
says, are ‘sacrificed by choice’; and what they are sacrificed to today is,
188
mainly, AIDS. They choose their own perverse path in life, because their own
lusts drive them onward into a pit of ‘filthy’ living. That is exactly what the
Bible tells us. (Ed. The word ‘filthy’ is used in its original Biblical sense).
Note that this deadly craving comes from the ‘heart’. In scripture the
‘heart’ is the seat of all our innermost thoughts and desires. It can only
express what we really are at the core of our being. Therefore, it is easy to
see what an homosexual is really like inside, given his (also applies to ‘her’)
lusts and his way of life...a sinful, depraved, heart produces a sinful, depraved
way of life.
How did this sinfulness show itself? They “dishonoured their own
bodies between themselves”. To dishonour is to treat with contempt, by
thought or deed (the thought being equally sinful); to insult; to treat
shamefully; base actions. The word ‘between’ indicates a position of rest and
instrumentality. That is, men do these things when left to their own devices,
because it is the true ‘position’ of their wicked hearts. Men will naturally do
wicked things to each other and with their own bodies.
Verse 25
By doing this, they “changed the truth of God into a lie”.
It means that they ‘exchanged’ the truth (everything godly and good)
‘into a lie’. The word ‘into’ is the same as the word ‘between’. This shows us
that living a lie is the natural, fixed state of the unsaved heart and that lies are
at the foundation of our (unsaved) lives. A lie is a deliberate, intentional
falsehood; it is perversity, deceitfulness and ungodliness.
Homosexuals, then, live an intentional falsehood and they choose
depravity and lies instead of God’s truth and holiness. But worse than that,
they attempt to exchange God’s word for their own perversity! Of course, no
man can actually change God’s word – it is forever true. But, to these
deluded sinners, they can do whatever they wish.
This leads to the worship of themselves. Homosexuals are notoriously
self-seeking and self-praising. To ‘worship’ is to revere or to treat as holy; to
‘serve’ is to pay homage like a slave, a hired menial... gays claim to be their
own masters but they are really slaves to their lusts and to Satan. Yet God is,
in reality, “praised for ever” (blessed), no matter what self-seekers try to do or
how they wish to ruin their own lives.
Verse 26
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even
their women did change the natural use into that which is against
nature.”
As we see, God gave them up, or, washed His hands of them. He let
them get on with their “vile affections”. Hardly a term the Lord would use if He
thought homosexual behaviour was acceptable! The word ‘vile’ means
disgrace; dishonour; public shame; despised; base. (Note that the word
‘homosexual’ applies to both men and women, although the distinction of
‘lesbian’ is used to define homosexual women).
The women, then, chose unnatural sexual activities, instead of the
‘natural use’ of their bodies ordained by God. They chose abnormality,
monstrous perversity, instead of the ‘order of nature’. The word “use” in this
189
context specifically refers to the ‘sexual use of a woman’. They chose that
which was ‘against nature’.
This means that lesbians constantly fight against reality and what was
ordained by God. They knowingly prefer unnatural activities. This does not
necessarily include prostitution which, though a sin, stays within the borders of
natural use of the body, but sins such as bestiality, homosexuality, etc.
Verse 27
“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,
burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that
which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
their error which was meet.”
“likewise”...that is, ‘similarly’, the men turned away from women and
“burned in their lust” for each other. Thus, their own base desires caused
them to have foul passions for each other. They are ‘foul’ because God
describes such lust as something He has forbidden.
In allowing their lusts to lead them, they do unseemly things. They
laboured to do shameful things that are ‘uncomely’, ‘deformed’ and indecent.
This definition is rooted in a word meaning agitation of mind/something
possessing the mind/clinging desperately to something. This is why they can
indeed be called ‘pathetic’ and neurotic.
This is exactly the description of the vile men of Sodom who tried to
break down Lot’s door to drag out the angels in order to rape them. Their
lusts had overtaken their senses and so they acted out whatever they wished
to do: exactly what is happening today, because ordinary men and women
allow it to happen.
As a ‘reward’ for their shamefulness, they received “recompence of
their error which was meet”. A breakdown of this text gives the true picture...
“receiving” = To have what is due by retribution
after destroying a proper union.
“in themselves” = Themselves or yourselves (thus applicable
today).
“that recompence” = Reward (the fruit of labour, being
punishment instead of praise).
“of their error” = Roaming astray/wrong opinions and morals
which show themselves as wrong actions. Fraud
or deceit. Corruption. Deceiver. Misleading.
“which was meet” = Right and proper; a need for it; necessary
by its very nature; brought on by one’s own
conduct; necessary by command or law of God.
We can conclude from scripture that:
1.
Homosexuals are so through their own choice and habit.
2.
Their choice is deliberate. They constantly labour to do what is
indecent.
3.
Homosexuality is shameful and is perversion.
4.
Any ‘reward’ for homosexuals is a retribution from God for their wrong
thoughts and acts. (In this context a ‘reward’ is a punishment, e.g.
AIDS, suicide, depression and, finally, hell).
190
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Homosexuals are moral frauds, liars and deceivers.
God’s punishment is right and proper because homosexuality is, by
nature, wrong and against the laws of God.
Punishment is brought upon their own heads by their conduct.
We can legitimately assume, therefore, that AIDS is a two-pronged
‘reward’; it is induced by corrupt morals and it is also a punishment
from God.
If the above is true (which it is, because it is taken direct from
scripture), then we must also conclude that
(i) No sympathy is due to those who contract AIDS or who
suffer, with unrepentant heart, because of their own lusts.
(ii) There is nothing to ‘understand’. God has openly declared
the parameters of our thoughts on the matter. He says that
homosexuality is a grave sin which must be punished.
(iii) There is no excuse, either for homosexuals who wish to
maintain their lusts and lifestyles, or, for Christians who wish
to support them with sympathy and misplaced understanding.
Verse 28
Homosexuals try to cast aside what God says so that they can pursue
their lusts. So-called ‘gay Christians’ twist scripture for the same purpose.
For this reason, we are told:
“God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things
which are not convenient.”
They did not attempt to check if they were doing what was right.
Intense lusts do this to people: all they want is to fulfil their every desire. The
most obvious of truths are torn apart, they are like charging, mad bulls. Did
God sit them down and chat to them? No, He “gave them over”!
“gave them over” = Delivered into another’s hands. To be judged;
condemned; punished; scourged; tormented;
put to death.
“reprobate” = Not approved; unfit; failing the test; cast away;
counterfeit.
“mind” = The understanding; perception; intellect; feeling; judgement;
power to consider properly; calmly; impartially.
From this we can see that God left them to their own devices and to
Satan because they were unable to think, feel, or act properly. God cast them
aside because they were unfit and ungodly. They were reprobate, thrown out
by God.
Where does that leave ‘gay Christians’? In exactly the same place as
any other homosexual! They are ‘counterfeits’ and they have ‘failed the test’;
their intellect and their entire being has been made rotten, to such an extent
that they cannot think or act in a godly way… if you read their literature and
pretence to theology, you will see what I mean. Like their ‘unbelieving’
counterparts, they have been delivered into the hands of Satan, to “do those
things which are not convenient”:
“to do” = To be the authors of.
191
“those” = The things spoken of.
“things not convenient” = Things not fit or becoming; to be
a follower of what is unfit.
Conclusion, verse 28:
1.
Speaks of homosexuals/lesbians/others who do the unnatural sex acts
referred to. (Thus it might also apply to heterosexuals who indulge in
anal sex, for example).
2.
They are like it because they ignore God.
3.
Because of this, God handed them over to Satan.
4.
Their thoughts, words and actions are all based on sin. They cannot
understand or think properly because they love evil.
5.
They are the authors of their own evils and they bring punishment upon
themselves because they are unfit and follow what is wrong.
The words used in the above verses all indicate that:
(a)
Homosexuals can change, if they want to. Homosexuality is just a
habit.
(b)
They are so far gone as to be given over to sin and to Satan, being
rejected by God.
(c)
Anything they get is a just reward for their evil.
The sin of homosexuality is not a single-factor evil. Verses 29 to 32 list
a host of other evils which all go to make an homosexual what he or she really
is. They are “filled with” certain things. To be ‘filled’ is to be full to the brim;
abounding; supplied liberally and without stopping; completely given over to
something; consummated; completely filled in every way to the end...obeying
God’s will and purpose as known in the law; fulfilled according to law. Even
those ‘nice’ homosexuals will have the same character beneath the thin
veneer of niceness.
Thus, the bad results of what gays do is part of God’s will, a
punishment. They are filled “with all”...all manner of things all the time. What
kinds of things do homosexuals do all the time? The list is long and chilling....
“unrighteousness” = Iniquity of heart and life; violation of law and
justice; unholy; sinful; deceitful; unjust; to be
punished. His is the basic condition which lead
to all the other, following evils.
Note: ALL of them – not just one or two!
“fornication” = Illicit sex; worship of idols and defiled by them;
prostitution. To allow oneself to be misled.
Harlot/whore; male prostitute (which all male
homosexuals are, by definition); whoremonger;
One who is impure sexually or spiritually.
(Note: The early Hebrews marked several classes of
fornicators: some were stoned to death; some were
put away or shunned etc. Fornication can also
include adultery).
“Wickedness” = Iniquity; malice; evil purposes and desires;
depravity; toiling annoyingly for perils; causing pain
192
and trouble – especially to Christians; bad nature or
condition; diseased.
“covetousness” = Greedy to have more; excessive love of money or
of other things (which can include sex)...especially if
they belong to others.
“maliciousness” =
Malice; ill-will; desire to injure. Wickedness;
depravity; not ashamed to break laws; evil and
trouble; bad in every way; injurious; pernicious;
destructive; poisonous. This is certainly part of
being homosexual.
In verse 29 we read they are “full of”...or, ‘full of the following’. (In this
context, their minds are crammed full with thoughts and emotions of an evil
nature):
“envy” = A corrupt desire for what others have; the opposite of
the Christian desire for good.
“murder” = Slaughter without cause. Premeditated killing without
cause.
(Note: Nowhere in scripture does God say that all killing is wrong.
Only murder is said to be wrong).
“debate” = Wrangling; strife; contention; at variance. That is, arguing
all the time against the truth.
“deceit” = Craftiness; deceiving; a decoy. That is, they use ‘red
herrings’ as arguments.
“malignity” = Bad character; depraved in heart and mind; always
planning evil against others; vicious.
“whisperers” = Slandering behind one’s back; detracting from truth.
“backbiters” = Speaking evil; defamer.
“haters of God” = Hateful to and toward God; exceptionally impious
and wicked; detestable; full of hate, especially
toward God.
“despiteful” = Insolent; full of pride and thus piles insults on others;
uses insulting language; does shameful wrongs; causes
injury; wanton; outrageous; injuring by speaking evil;
impudent; haughty; injuring in vile temper; doing so
abundantly.
“proud” = Thinks one is above another; tries to appear to be better;
wants to be noticed continually; thinks much of one’s own
self and efforts; despises others they think are ‘below them’.
“boasters” = Empty pretender; a vagrant.
“inventors of evil things” = Contriving; always trying to find evil by
thought and experience; searching for
bad things to do.
“disobedient to parents” = Will not bend or be persuaded. Will never
listen to advice; disobedient; rebellious;
contempt for authority of parents (and
subsequently of others).
“without understanding” = Unwise; unlearned; stupid; unintelligent.
“covenant breakers” = Faithless; simple; breaks promises.
193
“without natural affection” = Cherishing what is unnatural and evil.
“implacable” = Always ready for a fight. Prefer hostility to peace.
Refusal to be friendly. Pours out ill-will. Brittle and bitter.
“unmerciful” = Merciless; cold-blooded; No compassion or pity; Will
not help one in need or seeking aid. Unkind.
UnChristian.
All of the above applies to homosexuals. Then we come to the final end
of all who live this way: they “know the judgement of God that they which
commit such things are worthy of death” Knowing that God has judged
them to be worthy only of death and of hell, they “not only do the same, but
have pleasure in them that do them”.
What can be added to this most damning of texts against
homosexuality? It really is ‘damning’ in every sense. Can readers see what
homosexuality involves and why it must never be given free reign in society?
As one who has been at the receiving end of homosexual hatred, I can testify
that the many evils listed in this chapter of Romans ALL apply to EVERY
homosexual I have ever met, in varying degrees.
God loathes homosexuality to such an extent that He tells us in many
texts what He thinks of it. Romans Chapter One contains possibly the most
detailed account of this wrath and it accurately describes the homosexual
ethos. In fact the rest of this book adequately proves the Biblical case. It is
certainly true that to God all sins, whether ‘small’ or great, are equally heinous
and each is worthy of death.
Thus, if we were to make an illustrative comparison, the raging
homosexual is equally as worthy of death as is a serial murderer, because
both need salvation from their heinous acts. However, it still stands that
homosexuality has been deliberately chosen by the Lord to be an example for
all peoples and in all ages, of the vilest of depraved depths to which
humankind can sink.
Let no man and no woman ever pretend that this is not so. Scripture
contains God’s judgement against this sin, which encompasses so many other
evils. We can justly observe that open homosexuality is the sign of advanced
depravity and is not merely the sign of a single sin enacted as an impromptu
gesture. It is a conglomeration of a multitude of evils, as anybody who has
ever had dealings with homosexuals know.
The nation that refuses to condemn and judge homosexuality is a
nation on the downward slide. History proves, time and again, that when a
nation is entering its final days of glory, homosexuality and violence are
common to the people. God recoils from the nation that prefers unnatural
affections before His own pure and changeless commands.
As a nation is judged corporately accountable if it allows a murderer to
live, so it is similarly judged when it allows gross immorality to rule without
challenge. That is when evil follows evil and godlessness makes slaves of all.
God help those who still ignore God’s word!
Also read the Second book of Peter, chapter 2!
194
Chapter 10
Homosexual Evil in Marriage
“… he had a violent temper.”
“I have vile, horrible, memories of his perversions.
Apart from that, he wanted me to look like a man.
He cut my blonde hair short and smashed up
anything of mine that was pretty.”
“… the young lad had been found dead in his car at
the bottom of a cliff.”
“I did not know it, but my husband had been
appearing in court for procuring ‘rent boys’ off the
streets, and maybe more.”
“He used to take all my wages and gave me just 50
pence at a time to buy food. (Later I found out what
he was using the money on). At the time, this would
buy 2 sausages, and a few potatoes and
vegetables. He always had the meat and I had very
little, I became very, very thin.”
“Homosexual sin is so very destructive. I have been
at the centre, having married one.”
A lady sent the following personal notes to Dr N after reading one of his
articles on homosexuality. It has been passed on to me as an example. Her
account is horrifying but common to those who marry homosexuals (many of
whom are also paedophiles). All references that might identify this Christian
lady have been either altered or removed, for both her safety and
confidentiality.
“I know first hand what it is like to be married to an homosexual. I was
married to him from 1976 -1980. I was an ignorant and totally naive girl. He
was introduced to me at the church my family and I had just joined after
moving from another area.
I got cajoled into marrying him and did not really want to. I was very
confused in the first year of marriage and just knew things were very
wrong…and he had a violent temper. My career ended.
I have vile, horrible, memories of his perversions. Apart from that, he
wanted me to look like a man. He cut my blonde hair short and smashed up
anything of mine that was pretty. One day we had friends around for a meal
and he suddenly pulled off my pretty scarf and ripped it to shreds in front of
them, thinking it funny. He used to ‘make love’ sometimes and pretend he was
raping me, shouting “Rape!” at the top of his voice.
195
In the young peoples’ group we belonged to in the church was a lad
who my ex-husband had befriended. He was one of many who would come
up to our flat, and I was told not to be in the same room as them. I didn't
understand.
I watched the news one Saturday evening in December, to hear that
the young lad had been found dead in his car at the bottom of a cliff. The next
day my husband insisted we drove up to the cliff. I had my hand on the door
ready to jump out quickly. To this day I don't like going past that spot. We
looked at the tyre marks where he had gone over. I still was not fully aware of
what was going on, trying to understand and not talking to anyone. I think he
was involved with my husband. Indeed, I am convinced of it.
Then our pastor rang up and wanted to speak to my husband and I
knew something grave was going on. I did not know it, but my husband had
been appearing in court for procuring ‘rent boys’ off the streets, and maybe
more. He was in a terrible state: he'd been found out by his pastor, he was the
church organist! Fuming with rage, and tears, he began to shout down the
‘phone that he would change and be normal. His pastor’s support somehow
got him off the hook to a certain extent, but never once did the pastor help to
sort me out, so he did not talk to me.
Our bed cover got what I thought was more spilt coffee over it each
week...until it dawned on me...slowly - it wasn't coffee. That was when I got
"baptized" in the "holy spirit" in the bedroom. One night I started to have
buzzing in my jaw and face. I read books about it and started speaking a
strange language, and it went from there. I was desperate for help.
I became ill. We were both working as teachers and I loved my job. He
had to escape from the home town where we were, and we moved to another
part of the UK, to a terraced house. A man from England rented the spare
room.
I tried desperately to be accepted by my husband. One day, Feb 14 th,
1980, Valentine’s Day, I sold all my jewellery - not much, a pendant and two
rings that my grandfather had bought me. I got just £30 for it all. This was
because my husband was in terrible debt. He used to take all my wages and
gave me just 50 pence at a time to buy food. (Later I found out what he was
using the money on). At the time, this would buy 2 sausages, and a few
potatoes and vegetables. He always had the meat and I had very little, I
became very, very thin.
I cooked him a beautiful meal and made the table look lovely. I put a
long dress on and did my hair. On the table was the money to help his debt,
but it only made a small dent. He went ballistic and smashed me about,
screaming blue murder and going into hysterics before going to bed. I was
shaken to the core and badly damaged physically and emotionally.
The next morning I cooked him breakfast, and took it up on a tray,
which I did every morning. I said I had to go and buy something. I had
enough for a train ticket to my family and one change of clothing. I never went
back.
The nightmare continued. We attended a church in a nearby town, and
I spoke to the pastor, asking for help. He introduced me to a couple who had
been on a course. They suggested I live with them. They were in their 50’s.
They were, as I discovered, liberal New-Agers. The wife ‘took a fancy’ to me,
and they both ministered ‘deliverance’ on me.
196
When her husband had music lessons each week in the front room she
came into my bedroom and molested me. I was trapped. This carried on for
about 3 months. Then I got a very severe ‘flu and she left me alone. There
was a lot more. I was like a terrified rabbit with a light shining in my eyes. I
had nowhere to go. I got a job through her where she worked.
One day I walked over a high bridge in one town and was determined
to commit suicide. I was ready to climb over when a truck-load of men in an
army truck went under the bridge and whistled at me. I stopped and thought
that maybe, one day, a man would love me. I met my new husband shortly
after, and was married within 6 weeks of meeting him, carrying a vast amount
of emotional baggage. Slowly, with his help, I came through.
Homosexual sin is so very destructive. I have been at the centre,
having married one. The church I was in was used by Satan to destroy me,
and got me caught in a horrible nightmare with a couple who I thought were
there to help. They would feel vibrations around old buildings and could
sense the presence of the past and spirits; they were vegetarians and into
typical New Age stuff. I knew nothing of these things years ago.
I felt disgusted with myself for years about what happened in my
marriage, and about being violated by another woman. It was sickening. I
thought I would go mad and I got very anxious with panic attacks. My new
husband and I unfortunately sought charismatic help for the answer.
I repented 100 times for marrying my (ex-) husband, and asked the
Lord to forgive me for not running away from the couple in Brighton, and for
not being brave enough to stand up for myself.
To this day I can't very often wear trousers, I have to keep my hair
longish, otherwise I feel like a man. The scars are still there.
It’s not just about what an homosexual does to himself, but how he can
damage others, especially a wife. It is horrible. It can scar another person for
many years. I am still very conscious about myself every day when I look in
the mirror: Do I look right? Am I feminine enough?
These fundamental issues are not taught in Church. ‘Gender-bending’
is everywhere. I would love to see teaching on these issues, showing men
and women the Lord’s patterns for His creation. He wants men to be men and
women to be women, having liaisons with the opposite sex only, with nothing
invented in between. The whole Bible is not taught.
I love being what the Lord intended for me. I show by example what
my daughter should be like. She is 12. I have always loved being a woman
and have never wanted to be anything else. I am responsible for my own
actions. My past has gone but still has some affect on me.
If the Church doesn't lead the way it will get worse, but, in most
churches, both men and women can look similar in their clothing and
behaviour.
I know of nothing else that can be so destructive on a person’s whole
being. The more a person goes down that road the more it gets into all the
nooks and crannies, weaving poison into the body, mind, soul. If not stopped
it will poison society.”
197
Additional Notes:
“It is by the grace of God I am sane. The ‘ministry’ I was given over
several years, and others had, has, I know, badly affected my/their sanity and
health.
I want to add to my account what happened on the occasion of
Valentine’s Day. When he beat me and went ballistic, it was a direct result of
me dressing in a feminine way, in a pretty long dress which was fashionable
then. I had hoped, in my innocence, that surely he would love me if tried once
more to look pretty on Valentine’s Day.
But, the result was pure evil; can you imagine such fury unleashed on a
young woman? It was devastating; words cannot describe the utter horror
and terror I felt that night. As I said, I am still insecure about my apparel and
have to check and recheck in the morning to make sure I am ok.
When I left him and first went shopping, I remember standing in Marks
and Spencer looking at perfume & powder in the make-up section, shaking in
fear of buying any of it. I suppose I could have gone to the extreme, but I
didn't. Then the fear of AIDS came for many years. That is something the
wife of a paedophile or homosexual has to face. My ex-husband would have
been classed as a paedophile. Secrecy is their hallmark. Violence can follow
if they are caught out; murder too, I believe.
When I hear of a case in the newspapers, my heart goes out to the
wife, especially if her name is dragged through the tabloids. People say she
must have known, how could she not know, they say. You try to figure it out
as a wife, but you are there with the person and he is so manipulative as you
are trying to put bits of the puzzle together. A wife will certainly know that her
husband has horrible sides to him, but she might not know the awful truth,
because secrecy is their hallmark.
It wasn't until I left him that I found out more. I tried frantically to find old
copies of the local ‘paper, because, in there, were headings about the court
cases...but I never found them.
The church we belonged to, which we as a family had moved to when I
met this man, knew what he was like, and what he had done to boys there
for a long time! They knew all this (including the pastor, who is now dead). It
should have been their duty to tell my family and myself and the police. The
reason they didn't was because my ex's father-in-law (who is also dead) was
a life-time member, a ‘part of the furniture’ there in the church.
It was a little club and so my husband-to-be was very ‘in’ with the
pastor. Eventually I wrote to the pastor and told him he had failed to tell me
and protect me before getting married. I married and the pastor gave me no
support. Time does heal to a certain extent, but not totally, and memories are
there, even if not as painful.
I believe that many homosexuals are militant and violent. They are not
so secretive as they were, but dark things are often done in secret. They are
very promiscuous, generally speaking, and that look in their eyes is horrible,
it’s the window of the soul. I do not like to shake hands with an homosexual,
for obvious reasons. Some perhaps are kind. But, evil is still evil, though.
Also, I felt desperate sadness for the boys he had got off the street,
and felt tainted and somehow to blame, because I was married to him. So, a
feeling of guilt and wretchedness stayed with me for many years, a revulsion.
198
Your sexuality defines who you are. When it is blurred, or turned
upside down, it creates mayhem in the mind, body, and soul. It can destroy
the soul like nothing else.
My dreams still convey the darkness I went through. They can still
surprise me with evil and terror. Even last night I had a nasty dream. My
present husband of 24 years had no experience of these things so has not
always found it easy. But he has always been there by my side. He often
says that I am strong and that he doesn't know how I have kept going. He
quotes the song, saying that " I pick myself up, dust myself down, and start all
over again."
Editor:
This lady has been through horrific times of abuse, by those who
claimed to be Christians. The same abuse is also found outside the churches.
It is my view that none of the people she met with were true brethren.
Therefore, at no point did she have contact with anyone who could help her.
The now-dead pastor certainly was not in a position to help, but was
party to this lady’s terrible experience by allowing such a man to remain as a
member. Indeed, his behaviour as a pastor appalls me.
Also, this lady’s only church contacts appeared to be charismatic (this I
know from other correspondence) and her beliefs are still affected by
charismatic heresies, though she is no longer in that area of influence. I am
amazed that she is ‘sane’ as she puts it!
Her story shows the usual propaganda, so carefully orchestrated!
Homosexuals want to seem to be normal, and to have the same feelings and
emotions as heterosexuals. But, they do not! Theirs is a life of secrecy,
fantasy, and dark evil. They live in defiance of God and His will for mankind.
At the very beginning, God made men and women to be the partners of
each other in marriage. So, even from Genesis, man-with-man, and womanwith-woman, is not found to be normal in scripture. Indeed, not too far into the
Old Testament, we find strict laws that fully denounce and condemn
homosexual behaviour, with the demand of the death penalty.
In all accounts concerning homosexuality we find God’s wrath
expressed against those who practise it, and the warning that they will never
enter heaven, such is their grave sin. No amount of propaganda will remove
the curse of God upon their lives.
Homosexuality is an evil for all of society, fragmenting the order of God
and the order of society, breaking it down into fruitless and sterile
relationships that are often riddled with the cancer of promiscuity, one cancer
being cursed with yet another cancer!
Do not think that homosexuality is simply a sexual sin. It is a sexual sin,
but one that has numerous other sins snaking from it, so cancer is an apt
description of its nature. Behind it all is defiance of God and His laws, and the
rejection of a proper view of society as a whole. As I have said in other
material, a very few homosexuals are nice people in the usual sense of the
word, and as part of a public image. But, this does not prevent me from
knowing that, underneath it all, there is a seething mess, an awful denial of
God and of morality.
If you know there are homosexuals in your church, talk with the pastor,
who, if he is true, will speak with the man or woman. If that person does not
199
repent and change, then he or she must be cast out of the church. This is
God’s word. Do not marry an homosexual hoping to ‘change’ him or her,
because such action never works.
Remember, homosexuality is not a condition or a genetic flaw. It is sin,
that is all. It is a fast-acting habit the practitioner is loathe to lose, because it is
steeped in dark thoughts, desires and evil. Thus, homosexuals are just
ordinary people, but they have deliberately chosen to act-out a sexual
perversion. It does not take long, though, for the chosen lust to become their
master, one they cannot control.
Remember the facts – heterosexuality is normal. It is how God designed
men and women to be. Homosexuality is a deliberate choice to be
perverse. Because it is a choice, one can choose to get back out of it
again.
200
Chapter 11
The Blasphemy
of ‘Gay Christians’,
so-called
"Shouldest thou help them that hate the Lord?"
“There shall be no whore...nor a sodomite...Thou
shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a
dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any
vow: for even both these are abominations unto the
Lord thy God."
"If ye love me, keep my commandments".
To blaspheme is to desecrate by impious talk and to use the Lord's
name in vain. So-called 'gay' Christians blaspheme. Their theology is twisted
beyond all semblance of Biblical meaning...it can justly be called 'rubbish'.
They make nonsense of true Biblical exposition by deliberately misinterpreting
scripture, turning God's word into a lie. They get away with it because so few
Christians know or understand their own faith!
I have heard 'Christian' animal-rights zealots claim that Jesus was the
first animal rights activist, by twisting the account of Jesus clearing the Temple
of money-lenders, etc. To these misguided folk, the opening of the dove
cages had nothing to do with holy anger against those who would desecrate
His Father's house, but was to do with Jesus freeing poor, defenceless birds!
Thus, by interpreting scripture without any reference to what the Bible actually
says, they find support for their extreme views.
In the same way, by completely ignoring what scripture actually says,
so-called 'gay Christians' (including those presumptuous impostors who claim
to be gay pastors) twist theology in a vain attempt to 'find' Biblical excuses for
their evil behaviour!
I will use examples given by Dr David Cook, who is a respected
Christian lecturer of ethics. For reasons best known to himself, he appears to
be lost in a delusion when it comes to homosexuality, casting aside his usual
clarity of thought. What he teaches to groups everywhere is nothing but
homosexual propaganda, which should be consigned to the dung-heap.
Whenever I hear such impious ramblings, I feel great anger at the
desecration of God's word by those who try to produce an ungodly love for
people who practise homosexuality. In 2 Chronicles 19:2 a blunt question is
asked: "Shouldest thou help them that hate the Lord?"
In the question is an implied condemnation of those who do offer help
to God-haters. We are not called to love homosexuals unconditionally.
Indeed, we are called to condemn their habits and to demand a change in
their lives, as the Lord requires. If they do not change, we must shun them.
God was very strict in what He required of Israel, and we ought to view
this as a type of Christian separateness. In Deuteronomy 23:17 we see that
201
God hated certain things... “There shall be no whore...nor a
sodomite...Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog,
into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are
abominations unto the Lord thy God." (Sodomite and whore in this context
= male and female temple prostitutes. There is no real difference between
prostitutes and anyone else unmarried who has sex for gain or even for
pleasure. It is all a form of prostitution).
Gay ministers? Let them be accursed! Gay Christians? They are an
abomination and likened in scripture to whores/harlots. Do not listen to their
lame arguments, do not entertain them in your homes, do not let them remain
in your churches, do not let their fantasies go unchallenged! God hated them
in the days of old and He still does. God does not change. What He
commanded thousands of years ago were not whims, but were fixed in and for
all eternity.
Christians have no right whatever to alter what God demands, or to
accept what God calls an abomination. We have no mandate to ‘hate’ as God
does, but we must follow the principle.
Gays Hate the Lord
How can I say that 'Christian' gays hate the Lord? Easy! In Leviticus
22:31 for example, God says "Therefore shall ye keep my commandments,
and do them: I (am) the Lord". In John 15:10 Jesus says "If ye keep my
commandments, ye shall abide in my love". John 14:15 tells us: "If ye love
me, keep my commandments". By joining these three statements (which
are themselves commandments), we reach the following conclusions:
(a) That we must keep every commandment of the Lord,
because He is the Lord. No other reason is needed.
(b) That to be loved by Christ/God, we must keep His
commandments. This is a prerequisite to retaining His love.
(c) The opposite to love is hate. Thus we can say that: if we
love Him we will keep His commandments...and conversely, if
we do not keep His commandments then we hate Him.
Homosexuals, especially those who claim to be Christians, do
not keep the commandments of God, which explicitly warn
against homosexuality. Therefore, they hate the God they say
they follow. It is as black and white as that - we are either
for Him or against Him...there is no intermediate level of
obedience.
The 10% Nonsense
The foundation of the argument used by Dr Cook 'for' gay Christians,
revolves around propaganda put out by so-called 'gay Christians' themselves.
In an attempt to win-over other Christians and to legitimise their position, they
completely twist and corrupt God's word. And it is this corruption which Dr
Cook espouses (if he does not, then he ought to be careful what he says in
public...I have heard him speak the same heresies on radio). God help all
those congregations and audiences who follow his example!
Dr Cook still quotes the 'fact' that about 10% of the population are
homosexual. This is not a fact at all, but an assumption made by pro-gay
202
groups, who want it to be true! The percentage, in fact, was just snatched out
of the air by lesbians, who thought it sounded good for propaganda! Latest
figures are reduced to as little as 1% or less. Even this figure is an
assumption, for homosexuality is not a fixed part of humanity, it is a choice,
and a choice determined more by social revulsion/acceptance than by
anything inherent in Man!
Thus, the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals will naturally rise at
times of acceptance. The ratio will all but disappear at times of godly respect
for Truth. In the same way, incidents of thieving will fall dramatically at times
of intense police activity and will rise when the police are stretched to their
limit in small numbers. It has nothing to do with attributes a person is born
with.
The Church's 'Error'!
Basically, Cook claims that Christians revile homosexuality because
they misunderstand the Biblical texts concerning homosexuality. Cook, of
course, ‘understands’ properly! (Yet, Dr Cook correctly advocates a
systematic approach to Bible study and exposition, something he has lost
sight of in the case of homosexuality). He says (or rather, gay Christians say!)
that there are actually two kinds of homosexuality...INVERT and PERVERT.
An INVERTED homosexual is, he claims, one who is exclusively
attracted to the same sex (with the implication that this is 'normal' to such a
person, an inborn attribute); whereas the PERVERTED homosexual is one
who is attracted to the same sex only to procure sexual satisfaction (at other
times, then, he reverts back to the opposite sex). If that reasoning is not
sheer garbage, then I do not know what is! It is the most feeble excuse and
non-definition one can find. And it has no scientific backing.
The Thought and the Deed
There is also supposed to be a difference between 'orientation' and
'actual' homosexual activity. In other words, there is an exclusion from God's
condemnation, if one merely has thoughts which are not committed to action!
Again, what garbage! In this way, a man or woman can have the seething,
raging, inner sexual desires and remain untouched by God's wrath. With
disdain, I point them to scriptures which tell us unequivocally that the thought
is the same as the action in the eyes of God; thoughts and actions attract
exactly the same condemnation. So, that is the end of that!
Cook sees the 'cause' of homosexuality as 'complex'. It could be
different in every case and can possibly include many factors, such as
psychological, past bad sexual experiences, teenage crushes, etc.
Thankfully, he excludes (but only for the moment, it seems) genetic and
hormonal causes. He cannot see that the 'cause' of homosexuality is sin; the
desire to commit abominable sexual practices. A very bad habit, and no more!
There is nothing complex about it. It does not matter what precipitates the
actual turning toward same-gender sexuality, because they are only the
peripheral, secondary causes (or temptations, to be more precise, which are
not in themselves 'causes').
203
'Homophobia'
We are told that the reason we all have a 'problem' with homosexuality
is that we fear it! 'Homophobia' is the word he uses, a word coined, and
extensively used by, homosexuals themselves. Cook uses this word without
proper definition, for it does not mean fear of homosexuals at all, it means
'fear of mankind', which is something totally different.
Let us again be blunt about it (and I dare to speak on behalf of many
true Christians): I do not 'fear' or ‘hate’ homosexuals. I simply loathe what
they think, say, and do, concerning their sexual deviance. This is a proper
and Biblical response.
To Cook, this 'fear' (or red-herring!) prevents us from dealing with
homosexuals in a loving and caring way. Indeed, he says, homosexuals care
for their own (i.e. those who have AIDS through homosexual activities) in a
way which puts us Christians to shame!
This is an outrageous statement completely at variance with scripture
and medical fact.
Homosexuals brought the scourge of AIDS upon
themselves and the peoples of the West (and maybe the whole world).
Already, many innocents have died of this mainly same-sex-borne plague. As
the figures prove, the aetiology of AIDS is completely the fault of
homosexuals.
Relatively speaking, few people turn to the sexual perversion of
homosexuality. Therefore, it is obvious that once AIDS had been established,
the number of heterosexual cases of AIDS would greatly overshadow the
number of cases in homosexuals. It is obvious that those who are perverted
will naturally care for their own, given the revulsion felt by heterosexuals for
gay practices.
Gays rightly fear the hostility of their fellows for the plague they have
bestowed upon the world. They also prefer to create their own 'communities'
(ghettos), where everybody can do whatever they wish and get away with it.
All they care about is maintaining sin and the means to continue with their evil
ways. They care nothing for people themselves.
(As an aside at this juncture, I must state my strong belief that AIDS,
although brought to us via homosexuals, is actually the result of God's wrath
upon sexual deviants and others. That is, it is a judgement, the 'whirlwind', of
God upon their sin).
The 'Gay Christian Movement'
Of course, those in the blasphemous 'Gay Christian Movement' have
excused their behaviour in terms of theology. In this way they hope to blind
the masses within our churches with their pseudo-interpretation of scripture
which, in turn, will make ordinary Christians feel ashamed by their
previous/current disgust at homosexuality. Gays hope this manipulation of
minds will eventually lead to acceptance of homosexuals and homosexual
pastors in the churches.
Gays are not shy about using force, censorship or, legal strangleholds
to bring this about. They already report citizens for even looking at them the
‘wrong’ way. And the Sexual Orientation Regulations are a prime example of
gay hatred for the masses. God forbid that such a cause will take hold and
flourish! Stand up and shout against these beings who masquerade as
Christians! Cast them out from your midst until and if they repent! But do not
204
expect much by way of results. As the later scriptural references clearly
indicate, we cannot expect many to discard their homosexual way of life;
therefore many will die in their unbelief and will suffer the wrath of God, as
well as the wrath of AIDS and, eventually, of society as a whole.
Deliberate Twisting of Scripture by Gays
Scriptures which are 'misinterpreted' by ordinary Christians are today
'properly' interpreted by 'gay Christians'. For example...
In Genesis 19 and Judges 19, God is NOT condemning homosexuality
as such. No, He is condemning a lack of hospitality, which is considered to be
a grave social error in Eastern cultures! There, wasn't that easy?
In Leviticus 18 and 20, we again, of course, ‘misinterpret’ the text. God
is not condemning homosexuality as such in these passages...so many Jews
were being killed off at that time, that more children were needed. Therefore,
the Jews should not have indulged in homosexuality AT THAT TIME, because
procreation was needed. The sin, then, was not homosexuality, but a refusal
to procreate. See how easily we have misinterpreted scripture by succumbing
to our homophobia?
Again, we are wrong to say that homosexuality is condemned in 1
Kings 14. Really, God is condemning the fact that the Jews were looking too
much like Canaanites, through mixed-marriages...His condemnation has
nothing to do with homosexuality! Tut-tut, what stupid people we all are to
accept scripture as it is written. How fortunate, that we have those with
vested perverted interests to show us our errors, by re-interpreting scripture
and by inserting new insights neatly between the lines to help us.
But perhaps our greatest error is in reading Romans chapter one as it
is written. For, in verse 26 we are clearly told that people 'pervert'...and men
give up what is 'natural'. See? God is not condemning homosexuality ('true
natural' homosexuality) at all! He clearly tells us that He only condemns the
'perverts'. That is, NOT INVERT homosexuality, but PERVERT
homosexuality. Go back to the introductory definitions...can you see it? That's
right, God does not mind those who are 'born' to homosexuality, He only
condemns those who are not 'naturally' homosexuals, who merely use
homosexuality as a means of sexual gratification!
We should all bow down low before these immense theological insights
and repent for the sin of interpreting scripture as though the words actually
meant something. That is not the way gay Christians have now taught us;
they have shown us how silly it is to interpret scripture properly. We must
abandon reality, ignore sense, and submerge Biblical Truth in favour of what
'proves' the inherent goodness and acceptability of whatever evils we want to
promote and practise.
There I will stop the tongue-in-cheek 'acceptance', just in case it is
taken literally! Perhaps the reader can see, without a shadow of doubt, just
how devious gay 'Christians' are and how they will go to any lengths to make
themselves acceptable within the churches. Never let this happen. God
condemns what they think and do.
And as we will see later, His
condemnation for Christians who resort to gay activity is greater than His
condemnation for the unsaved who practise such things.
205
What Scripture Really Says!
We will now go on to see what scripture really says about Sodom.
Why? Because the fall of Sodom is a vital, key element in this argument. Are
gays right to claim that the sin of the Sodomites was not primarily their
homosexuality, but was their desecration of the Eastern social rules
concerning hospitality? The original account is dealt with elsewhere; here we
will examine other texts that refer to Sodom and Gomorra and show us God's
wrath against sexual deviance.
Note: Can a Believer, who was once caught in homosexual habits,
continue to flaunt homosexuality? No, he cannot, for homosexuality is
condemned. Can a previously heterosexual Christian turn to homosexuality
without penalty? No, he cannot, for God says that His wrath will fall upon
such a one. Millions of gays with AIDS have already fallen under this wrath.
Dr Cook says that Christians must be willing to run to the homosexual
at any time of the day or night, when he is experiencing his deepest
homosexual desires. We must do this in order to counsel him at his worst
time and to stand by him during his time of need.
What an horrific thought! Christians are not the servants of sexual
perversion! We are not called to befriend those who are in the depths of
unrepented sin but, rather, to shun them. What if the one who experiences
homosexual desires is a Christian who genuinely wishes to be helped?
Firstly, any help must never be given by one person of the same sex.
Secondly, help must be limited. In fact, scripture tells us to warn such people,
not just to 'counsel' them. They must be warned to repent and to immediately
stop their habits. If three warnings are ignored, then we must cast the person
aside until and if he repents.
Let us be candid about it, if a so-called Believer insists that his life is
hounded by a multitude of unfulfilled (or fulfilled) homosexual desires, then
there can be only one answer...his desire to love God is less than his desire to
enjoy homosexuality!
God tells us that when we are tempted, He gives us the way out so that
we need not sin. We only commit the sin if our inner desires ignore the
guidance of the Holy Spirit. In such circumstances, Christians have no
mandate and no right to help the 'suffering' homosexual. There is certainly no
Biblical warrant for Christians to help unsaved homosexuals who wish to
continue their habits.
If you read 2 Peter 2, you will find a devastating warning to Christians
who turn to homosexuality and to all who pretend to be Christians and are
perverse.
206
Chapter 12
The Bible Case Against Sodom
"But the men of Sodom (were) wicked and sinners
before the Lord exceedingly."
“...the whole land thereof (is) brimstone, and salt,
(and) burning, (that) it is not sown, nor beareth, nor
any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of
Sodom, and Gomorra, Admah, and Zeboim, which
the Lord overthrew in His anger, and in His wrath.
Even all the nations shall say, wherefore hath the
Lord done this unto this land? What (meaneth) the
heat of this great anger?
Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken
the covenant of the Lord God of their fathers.”
“Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom…
And they were haughty, and committed
abomination before me: therefore I took them away
as I saw (good).”
“Even as Sodom and Gomorra, giving themselves
over to fornication, and going after strange flesh,
are set forth for an example, suffering the
vengeance of eternal fire.
Likewise also these (filthy) dreamers defile the
flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of
dignities.”
Gays abuse Biblical text just as much as they abuse each other. Socalled ‘gay and lesbian Christians’ also misrepresent and misuse texts to
appease their own consciences and to try and convince others they are right.
But, anyone who has a proper knowledge of the Bible can easily discern the
error in what they say.
Genesis 13:13
"But the men of Sodom (were) wicked and sinners
before the Lord exceedingly"
Those who believe the sin of the men of Sodom was primarily their
refusal to honour the Eastern rules concerning hospitality should consider
what this text is really saying. The word "wicked" is loaded with significance.
It means:
207
(1) Bad/malignant/evil (giving pain, suffering, hurt, misery,
unhappiness, disagreeable, unpleasant, displeasing, valueless,
worse than others, sad, unkind and of a vicious disposition.
(2) Distress/injury/calamity/wrong. The word is based
on the meaning: to break; to be broken into pieces;
mischief.
Notice the profound meanings of this word? See how the Sodomites
were vicious and unkind, unpleasant and malignant? See how they meant to
harm and destroy and were of no value to society at all? And see how they
were worse than others? This is a picture I readily see amongst homosexuals
every day.
It is correct that to God every sin, whether big or small in our eyes, is
deserving of His wrath. However, we are repeatedly told in scripture that
Sodom is an example of extreme wickedness deserving not just eternal hell
but also the temporal, summary penalty of total destruction. Sodomy is not
'just another sin', it is the culmination and expression of the depths of human
depravity (see Romans 1).
Also, look at the word "sinners". This word is an extreme expression
meaning sinful; exposed to condemnation; reckoned to be offenders. It is a
word which has the following root meanings:
(1) To sin/miss the true way of right and duty; to go
wrong; to be guilty and to incur a penalty.
(2) To induce to sin/cause to sin; to bring into
condemnation and to incur punishment.
The word "exceedingly" reinforces and further defines the words
"wicked" and "sinners". It means:
(1) With much force and might.
(2) Abundantly
(3) Greatly. To a great degree. With muchness.
Does any of this suggest that the Sodomites were simply being
'inhospitable'? Are there still readers who think God would destroy not just a
city, but a whole region, because some did not display customary social
graces? Look again at the meanings of the words used in this text: they
completely overturn the myth given to us by homosexual 'Christians'.
Genesis 14:2
In this text we are given the names of two kings, Bera, ruler of
Sodom, and Birsha, ruler of Gomorra. Old Testament names are fascinating,
because they tend to match the person's characteristics or destiny. Thus,
'Bera' means 'son of evil' and 'Birsha' means 'with iniquity' (from
wrong/wickedness/guilt in all senses). The most despised cities ever to have
been built were ruled by men whose very names described their habitation
and their lifestyles. This is not a coincidence, as any student of the Old
Testament knows.
208
Genesis 18:20
"And the Lord said, Because the cry (1) of Sodom
(2) and Gomorra (3) is great (4), and because their
sin (5) is very (6) grievous (7)"
The meanings of the words with numbers after them
are given below.
(1) 'cry' = outcry/cry of distress/clamour. A
proclamation of guilt.
(2) 'Sodom' = "burning" "to scorch". (Remember,
Sodom and Gomorra were hailed with fire and
brimstone and destroyed!).
(3) 'Gomorra' = "of iniquity" "submersion". From: to
manipulate/ deal tyranically with/treat as a slave. (Note
that Sodom and Gomorra were submerged after being
burnt. These cities and others are said to be under
what is now the Dead Sea. Also note that the name of
the city matches that of its king and that the Bible
describes lust to sin as a tyranny and as slavishness).
(4) 'great' = abounding in/more
numerous/many/chief/exceedingly.
(5) 'sin' = condition of sin deserving of punishment.
(6) 'very' = exceedingly/force/abundance/to a great degree.
(7) 'grievous' = burdensome/heavy/great/massive/numerous/
very oppressive/insensible/unresponsive.
We can see from this single text alone, that the sin of the Sodomites
must have been much greater than merely not giving hospitality! We see the
sins of the region were vast and varied and of immense force. They were so
bad they oppressed the people who, by reason of continuous indulgence in
the worst kinds of evil, became totally insensitive to their condition; thus they
did not respond to godliness or to moral and ethical duty. This is much like
homosexuals today.
As in the days of Noah, so it was for Sodom! God had to destroy it. He
told Abraham that He would not destroy the city if there was only one
righteous person living there. But, as we know, there were no righteous
people there, not even one.
Does it mean, then, that every inhabitant lacked the social grace of
hospitality and so was worthy of instant destruction? Only an unbeliever could
swallow such a lame 'interpretation'! No, Sodom and Gomorra were given by
God, for all time and for all peoples, as examples of gross wickedness and its
results.
Deuteronomy 29:9 etc.
A warning is given to the Israelites to remain faithful to the Lord, or to
suffer the same fate as Sodom. The warning continues (verses 23-25)...
"...the whole land thereof (is) brimstone, and salt,
(and) burning, (that) it is not sown, nor beareth, nor
any grass groweth therein, like the overthrow of
209
Sodom, and Gomorra, Admah, and Zeboim, which
the Lord overthrew in His anger, and in His wrath.
Even all the nations shall say, wherefore hath the
Lord done this unto this land? What (meaneth) the
heat of this great anger?
Then men shall say, Because they have forsaken
the covenant of the Lord God of their fathers..."
So, we see Sodom was not destroyed merely because its men were
inhospitable! They had forsaken God and gone their own way, committing all
manner of vile things, including homosexuality.
Deuteronomy 32:32
"...their vine (is) of the vine of Sodom, and of the
fields of Gomorra: their grapes (are) grapes of gall,
their clusters (are) bitter."
'gall' means venom/bitter/poisonous. 'bitter' is similar in meaning to
'gall'... the seat of gall/venom/bitter thing. One is the source of evil, and the
other is the evil coming from the source. In the New Testament we are told
that the 'core' of a man determines what he does and what his motives are.
Here we are told that the 'core' of the men of Sodom was evil and poisonous.
Therefore, everything they thought, said, or did, was thoroughly permeated
with evil. Nothing good came out of the place, including its homosexuality.
The truth and aptness of this assessment is found in the next reference.
Isaiah 3:8,9
"Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because
their tongue and their doings (are) against the Lord,
to provoke the eyes of His glory.
The shew of their countenance doth witness
against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom,
they hide (it) not. Woe unto their soul! for they
have rewarded evil unto themselves."
Yes, homosexuals are ruined and fallen. What they say and do is
against the Lord (not primarily against other people, though this is also true)
and causes Him to loathe them. Their very faces reflect their defiance and
they do not even bother to hide what they do, or what they stand for! Anyone
who has ever had dealings with homosexuals knows all this is true. They have
certainly rewarded themselves with their own evil, and AIDS is just one sign of
this judgement. These statements are more intensely expressed in the Book
of Romans, chapter 1. Woe unto their souls!
Jeremiah 23:14-17,19,25,26,29,30,32
"I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem an
horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in
lies: they strengthen also the hands of evildoers,
that none doth return from his wickedness: they are
210
all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants
thereof as Gomorra.
Therefore...I will feed them wormwood, and make
them drink gall.
Thus...hearken not unto the words of the prophets
that prophesy unto you: they make you vain: they
speak a vision of their own heart, (and) not out of
the mouth of the Lord.
They say still unto them that despise me, the Lord
hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto
everyone that walketh after the imagination of their
own heart, No evil shall come upon you.
Behold, a whirlwind of the Lord is gone forth in
fury, even a grievous whirlwind: it shall fall
grievously upon the head of the wicked.
I have heard what the prophets said, that prophesy
lies in my name.
...yea (they are) prophets of the deceit of their own
heart. (Is) not my word like as a fire? saith the Lord;
and like a hammer (that) breaketh the rock in
pieces?
Therefore, behold, I (am) against the prophets, saith
the Lord, that steal my words every one from his
neighbour.
...I (am) against them...(who) cause my people to err
by their lies...I sent them not, nor commanded
them: therefore they shall not profit this people at
all, saith the Lord."
Gay 'ministers' who proclaim their homosexual heresies and
blasphemies are thus warned and condemned by the Lord. They are false
prophets whose words are not from God. They speak lies from the depths of
their own imaginations, which are fed with abomination. They offer no
spiritual profit to Christians. In fact, they cause Believers to stray from the
True path.
Do not believe 'Christian' ministers who claim Biblical authority for their
sexual sins! The same warnings given to false pastors also apply to Dr Cook
and all who defend the homosexual gospel, which is no gospel at all. It is a
sick and offensive message, as we read in Ezekiel...
Ezekiel 16:49,50
"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom,
pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of
idleness...neither did she strengthen the hand of
the poor and needy.
And they were haughty, and committed
abomination before me: therefore I took them away
as I saw (good)."
211
The word 'abomination' means: a disgusting thing/something
abominable i.e. unclean food, idols, immorality, etc. One can observe that the
attributes of homosexuals are like those mentioned in this text and in Romans
chapter one: they are arrogant and full of self, determined to corrupt all who
will listen, in order that they may indulge their lusts without censure; stopping
at nothing to get their own way.
2 Peter 2:6-10,12-15,17-22
"and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorra into
ashes condemned (them)...making (them) an
ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.
And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy
conversation of the wicked...
(which) vexed (his) righteous soul from day to day
with (their) unlawful deeds...
The Lord...(will) reserve the unjust unto the day of
judgement to be punished:
But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust
of uncleanness, and despise government...
Presumptuous (are they), self willed, they are not
afraid to speak evil of dignities.
...as...brute beasts, made to be taken and
destroyed, speak evil of the things that they
understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own
corruption.
...spots (they are) and blemishes, sporting
themselves with their own deceivings while they
feast with you.
Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease
from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they
have exercised with covetous practices; cursed
children:
Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone
astray, following the way of Balaam (the son) of
Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness...
These are wells without water, clouds that are
carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of
darkness is reserved for ever.
For when they speak great swelling (words) of
vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh,
(through much) wantonness, those that were clean
escaped from them who live in error.
For if they promise them liberty, they themselves
are the servants of corruption; for of whom a man
is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.
For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the
world through the knowledge of the Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled
therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse
with them than the beginning.
212
For it had been better for them not to have known
the way of righteousness, than, after they have
known (it), to turn from the holy commandment
delivered unto them.
But it is happened unto them according to the true
proverb, the dog (is) turned to his own vomit again;
and the sow that was washed to her own wallowing
in the mire."
There is no doubt about what is being said here! And there is very little
need for further comment on the text, which is self-explanatory. Homosexual
'Christians' have brought the wrath of God on their own heads by doing what
they do and by inciting others to do the same things. After knowing (possibly)
the pure Truth of the Lord they return to their own vomit, preferring evil to
righteousness.
I watched a foolish bishop preach at a special meeting held at
Southwark Cathedral, UK, by gay and lesbian ‘Christians’, who applauded him
approvingly. Every single person in that place was deluded, including the
bishop. Homosexuals can gather around themselves many with theological
backgrounds, but it only proves that even those with knowledge can fall and
become miserable creatures without understanding. And every single person
there stood condemned by God for daring to enter a place of worship in His
name, but without purity and holiness!
Let the Book of Jude have the last word. It speaks of those who, like
the Sodomites, do whatever their lusts dictate. And their end will be the
same...
Jude 1:6-8,10-16,18,19
"And the angels which kept not their first estate...he
hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness
unto the judgement of the great day.
Even as Sodom and Gomorra, giving themselves
over to fornication*, and going after strange flesh*,
are set forth for an example, suffering the
vengeance of eternal fire.
Likewise also these (filthy) dreamers defile the
flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of
dignities.
But these speak evil of those things which they
know not; but...as brute beasts, in those things
they corrupt themselves.
Woe unto them!
These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they
feast with you, feeding themselves without fear:
clouds (they are) without water, carried about of
winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit,
twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own
shame * ; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the
blackness of darkness forever.
213
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam,
prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord
cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
To execute judgement upon all, and to convince all
that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly
deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of
all their hard (speeches) which ungodly sinners
have spoken against him.
These are murmerers, complainers, walking after
their own lusts * : and their mouth speaketh great
swelling (words), having men's persons in
admiration...
...there should be mockers in the last time, who
should walk after their own ungodly lusts *.
These be they who separate themselves, sensual,
having not the spirit."
Definitions:
* 'Fornication'. One of the root meanings is, a male
prostitute. Note that the modern habit of ‘living together’
is also a form of prostitution.
* 'Strange flesh'. Means 'not of the same nature' and
can have a root meaning: body of a man. Thus these
words and 'fornication' easily refer to homosexuals.
Even if such an interpretation is rejected (without proper
reason), Romans 1 cannot thus be rejected.
* 'foaming out their own shame'. Means a shameful
display of violent passions/wild savagery and fury.
* 'walking after their own lusts'. Means to lead
oneself after forbidden desires. This is another clear
reference to homosexuality and other forbidden sexual
desires. Note that the person 'leads oneself'. That is,
he/she CHOOSES perverse sexuality.
* 'ungodly lusts'. Means an irreverence toward God
by seeking forbidden things. A root meaning is 'a killing
passion'.
Notice something? The text tells us that the sodomites were put to
death not for inhospitality, but for fornication and more! Maybe homosexual
‘Christians’ are unable to read long words, so they missed that one.
214
Chapter 13
Legalising Immorality (164)
(With particular reference to changes in the law concerning nurses in the UK)
“You are personally accountable for ensuring that
you promote and protect the interests and dignity
of patients and clients, irrespective of gender, age,
race, ability, sexuality, economic status, lifestyle,
culture and religious or political beliefs.”
“In law you have the right to conscientiously object
to take part in care in only two areas. These are:
The Abortion Act 1967 (Scotland, England and
Wales) which gives you the right to refuse to take
part in an abortion and
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
which gives you the right to refuse to take part in
technological procedures to achieve conception
and pregnancy.”
“You should carefully consider whether it is
appropriate to accept employment in an area which
carries treatments or procedures to which you
object.”
Though originally written by a UK nurse in 2002 for nurses, the
principles in this section also apply to any other medical personnel.
“As a college student studying law modules I had a marvellous tutor, a
barrister (lawyer) with a great sense of fun and realism. He told us that the
law was not concerned with what was fair, or moral, but with whether or not
something complies with the letter of the law. At the time I accepted that
position, acknowledging with him that, on occasions, ‘the law is an ass’,
because it cannot make distinctions of morality or fairness.
However, since then I have come to see that his assertion was wrong.
It is absurd to suggest that the law has nothing to do with morality or fairness,
because, by definition, if something declares itself to be amoral (neither with,
or without, morality) it becomes relative…and law is not relative.
Once a law is on the statute book, it is a statement of absolutes. Where
its various words and clauses are not defined enough*, there arise ‘loopholes’,
which are the target of every self-respecting defence lawyer. And even the
structure of the law machine is absolute, for the existence of a defence lawyer
demands the existence of his opposite, a prosecutor! (*Usually deliberately written
this way to accommodate particular stances when necessary).
Which brings us to another fact, that every ‘positive’ law implies an
unwritten ‘negative’ opposite restriction. For example, once we say, in law,
that every car must be black, it implies that any other colour is thereafter
illegal. Even if such an unwritten opposite is not used against members of
215
society, it remains a threat to the freedom and conscience of all who want a
different colour.
Law, then, is neither amoral or relative. It imposes its own morality and
declares its own absolutes. The only leeway is in sentencing, but, even then,
a judge must sentence within a given boundary of possible judgements or
‘remedies’. The law itself, though, is separate from the sentencing.
When a new law emerges, its first few cases tend to determine its
strengths and weaknesses, and these form the ‘precedents’ that themselves
determine how both defence and prosecution lawyers form their legal
arguments, and how judges decide on applicable sentences.
Few lawyers and judges will deviate from precedents, unless they can
find a definite technical ‘loophole’, meaning they can swing the definition of a
word or clause to fit their own argument.
I can almost guarantee that homosexuals (the subjects of one of the
problems shown in this section) in particular will ensure that precedents will
run in their favour and that Christian voices will be silenced by law. (Ed. This
was prophetic, for it is now happening in the West).
Legal Morality
Every law imposes the will of the few upon the will of the many. In the
majority of instances, in a ‘free’ country, laws are generally ‘good’ for most
citizens, because they are used to protect the majority.
As we have shown above, law bases its formulation on absolutes and
absolutes are a recognition and imposition of a ‘moral’ stance. What do I
mean? I mean that to live ‘relatively’ is to deny the presence of morality and to
act as though morality had no place in our thinking. Humanists and others
who deny the existence of morality, say that everything is ‘relative’. They say
we must all choose what we think is suitable for our own lives, and so there is
no such thing as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Thus, they say, there are no absolutes.
Again, this is an absurdity, as I have pointed out on many occasions in
public written arguments against humanists. It is absurd to say “there are no
absolutes”, because the very statement is an absolute! It is impossible to live
in our own thoughts, let alone live in society, without having absolutes.
Every day we inwardly compare possible actions and outcomes.
Whether we like it or not, these are moral (or immoral) activities. It is
impossible to be amoral and to live as though there were no absolute criteria
for making decisions that affect our actions. Impossible. (That is another
absolute). Those who say that ‘anything is possible’ have again been trapped
into making an absolute statement!
When a law is passed, it automatically makes a moral and absolute
statement. Being law, it imposes restrictions on everyone (except with prohomosexual laws, which place restrictions only on non-gays!). Those who
defy or act against the legal statement are deemed to be acting illegally and
are brought to book. Fairness and justice have nothing to do with it…do not
confuse ‘justice’ with ‘law’, for justice is a moral concept, not a legal one!
In South Africa, the law was against the colour of one’s skin. This was
not fair, nor was it justice. The law itself protected the perceived supremacy
of those with white skin, and this led to black people being treated worse than
dogs. Inevitably, some began to protest against this unfairness, but fairness is
not a legal concept, so the pleas were ignored. The pleas became bitter
216
shouts of anger. As time wore on, this became a movement and within that
movement there was violence.
So, the law created its own problems, protecting and even promoting
the interests of some, to the detriment of others. Then, suddenly, the
definitions of what was ‘politically correct’ (that is, the prevailing thinking
process and definitions) changed, and what was once highly illegal became
fashionable, and the complete opposite became law! Now, it is politically
correct to be black and to rule. The same is now happening with gays, who
are modern, but deadly, fashion accessories. Like white supremacists, they
will one day have a groundswell against them from the majority. Thus we see
that what is ‘absolute’ in the world depends on the whim of elites!!
No, this is not a contradiction. Everyone seems to have their own ideas
as to what is absolute, and what is deemed to be absolute depends on many
factors, such as education; access to information in order to make proper,
informed choices; expectations; legal restrictions; ability; freedom to make
objections; and so on. It is a fact that laws are developed and initiated by the
few, the elite who actually control countries and people. It is not the law that
controls, but the few who initiate the law. The ‘many’ are expected simply to
obey. In the west it is gays who control politicians, medics and the law, though
the puppets don’t know they are puppets!
The elite who make law do so from the stance of their own beliefs (or
the beliefs of those who can pay for them to be changed), and some insist on
making laws that personify their own beliefs, rather than laws that allow
freedom of conscience. Today, for example, we have laws that protect a very
small minority (in this case, homosexuals) whose way of life is immoral. Thus,
the law in that particular case is making its own absolute statement, that it is
moral to be immoral. This is where we come across yet another absurdity.
The law has been couched in terms of freedom of choice, yet choices
mean the existence of one or more alternatives. These alternatives are
‘absolutes’. Once a man says he acts according to a particular belief, that
belief becomes his absolute. The only way he can impose that absolute on
others is if he can persuade the elite to make his absolute a law. Immediately
that law is passed it denies the freedom of choice of others, and denies
that their absolutes have any validity in law.
Absolutes, of course, depend on the source of those absolutes. It is the
source that validates or invalidates the authenticity and force of absolutes.
The source of a belief in thievery, for example, is the belief that thieving is
acceptable to the thief as a way of life. It is his ‘absolute’. Because his beliefs
are detrimental to society as a whole, and even the thief would object to
having his property stolen, laws exist that make thievery illegal.
Absolutes, then, in this sense, are ‘relative’ to the beliefs of men. Every
man has his own idea of what is ‘absolute’. And when one absolute is raised
above another in law, it restricts the freedom to choose an alternative
absolute. When the legitimate freedom of choice of another is made illegal by
the legal imposition of an elite, in favour of the immorality of the few, then
something must be done.
For the Christian, what is absolute depends on what God says. Over
the millennia, what God says has stood for the good of mankind. Yet, today,
that good is being obliterated by an elite, whose minds have been swayed by
the arguments of a powerful minority of vested interests. The elite make laws
217
that are not in the interests of the many, but reflect the desires and
perversions of the few (homosexuals).
Protection of Perversion
Why should we protect a perversion? Why should anyone wish to
legally protect what is plainly wrong? It can only come about because
lobbyists have persuaded the law-making elite that their cause is ‘good’ and
‘natural’. The elite may, or may not, embrace such perversion themselves, but
at the very least they have fallen prey to the prevalent ‘political correctness’ of
the day. As we have shown in the example of South Africa, what is
‘correctness’ changes with fashion and peer values. By stark contrast, God’s
laws are timeless and unchanging and not liable to human frailty and
illegitimate desires.
There are many anomalies in current laws that protect perversion, laws
that contradict themselves. How? Let me elucidate:
The law protects homosexuality. But, homosexuality is a biological,
psychological, medical, societal and spiritual perversion, a deviance from what
is proper and ‘normal’ and created by God. Thus, it is immoral in the widest
sense. It also offends God and His people. It is useless to argue that
homosexuality is simply an ‘alternative’ to heterosexuality. It is only
‘alternative’ in the same way that breathing poison gas is an ‘alternative’ to
breathing oxygen. One is especially created for man to breathe, and the other,
though it can certainly be breathed, is poisonous and kills!
Homosexuality, as the data proves, creates and spreads many sexually
transmitted diseases. So, why legally protect those who spread AIDS and
other diseases by ignoring sexual propriety? Homosexuality is a biological
perversion. Female genitalia are made specifically for male genitalia. This is
so obvious as to make any other argument laughable.
Male homosexuality involving anal sex is, medically and
physiologically, a definite perversion, for men are using a part of the body
specifically created to expel waste. The anal canal is made of very thin and
therefore easily damaged tissue, which makes it ideal for the spread of
diseases like HIV. How, then, can such behaviour (in male-female couples,
too) be defended as legitimate and as an equal alternative to normal
behaviour? And why use law to protect sexual choices, anyway?
Do not use the question ‘Ah, but what is normal?’, because that, too, is
an absurdity borne of political correctness. What is normal or abnormal is
usually plainly obvious to any human being with an ounce of sense! We only
ask such an absurd question when we wish to protect a vested interest.
Homosexuality is not normal, unless we wish to make perversion normal, and
that is the clue to its protection.
Perversion titillates. It is ‘enjoyed’ by some in their hearts and minds,
and by a minority (a very small minority) in actuality. But this does not make it
right, or good, or an equal alternative, or a legitimate absolute. Those who
enjoy perversion have persuaded an elite who make laws.
The reason perverted people wish to have laws is that they may enjoy
their perversions with state approval, and use them to silence critics. The laws
become stepping stones, to ‘liberate’ others into joining their cause for
reckless and appalling lifestyles that produce and spread disease, destroy or
prevent marriages and families, and make sterility an accepted choice. And,
218
as we have seen recently, when a law is passed in favour of homosexuals,
pressure groups immediately press for even more favours and more radicallyliberal attitudes, harming society even further.
Already, those who are perverted are trying to take the law farther
down the road they are themselves making. They now want the ‘legal’ age of
consent to be brought down even more, so that younger people can become
pawns in the sexual perversion of the nation, and easy prey for older perverts.
The age of 16 will soon lead to a lower age, enshrined in law. It will free
perverted people to attract younger people into their net. And it will provide a
reason to lower the age yet again. (Ed. Another prophetic truth).
Now, if children are recruited into homosexual perversion ‘legally’, why
is paedophilia not given legal freedom? After all, it, too, is a ‘sexual
orientation’. Why not ‘liberate’ children for the pleasures of those already
protected by law? There is no logical reason to reject the plea, which is being
made by paedophiles today, many of whom are homosexuals. (Ed. Note that
the legalisation of paedophilia is already a possibility in Holland).
Why not protect the thousands of Roman Catholic priests who force
children into homosexual acts of perversion? Why castigate them, when they
are only doing what is logical to homosexuals, and whose perverted state is
protected by law?
Other perversions are not protected by law. Why not? A perversion is a
perversion and the principles are still the same. So, why not protect those
whose ‘orientation’ is bestiality, or necrophilia? Those who cannot see the
authenticity and logic of this argument are blinkered. There is no qualitative
difference between homosexuality and sex with dead bodies or with children
or with animals, all of which are condemned by God and should be
condemned by everybody, not just Christians.
We should note that homosexuality offends the vast majority of people,
as surveys have shown. They do not have to be Christians. Roman
Catholicism, Islam, and other religions, condemn it, as do many who have no
religious belief at all. So, why is it being protected? It has nothing to commend
it, so why give it legal status? The motives of the elite must be questioned!
Especially when they try to force others to comply with such an intolerable
demand, using law to punish those who reject it.
We will now look at recent UK legislation, created by a government-led
body responsible for overseeing the work of nurses and midwives. It will be
shown that Christians who are nurses can be prosecuted if they do not
comply. Do not say this will not happen if they declare a case for
conscientious objection. When the Abortion Act came about, those who
wished not to take part in abortions were got rid of! Also, as I have been told
by the Body in question in a letter, nurses have no legal right to refuse
participation on grounds of conscience!
Current legislation is marginalizing personal conscience and beliefs
and making perversion honourable. It should not be the case that good beliefs
are thrown aside in favour of what is a perversion. The new laws for nurses
also force them to comply with other demands, as we shall see in the
following report by a highly-qualified UK nurse (‘A’).
Interestingly, the report was written by him several years ago, but in
2006 the very predictions he made came true and the excuses he mentions
were used against him! Thankfully, the mischief makers, lesbians, did not get
219
their way on this occasion, but ‘A’ believes it is only a matter of time because
they operate on a ‘no sense, no reason’ philosophy of utter vengeance.
“The Code of Professional Conduct
Professionally, as a nurse-manager, I welcomed the bulk of this Code
and used to implement it in my workplace. It replaces earlier Codes produced
by the former UKCC, as the governing body of nurses was then known.
However, I had to contact the Nursing and Midwifery Council because I have
immense problems with two of its clauses. I am concerned because, as a
nurse, I can have my licence (and thus my job and income) removed from the
Register if I do not comply.
I have told the Council that I will not comply with certain demands, as
shown later in this report. Their replies to me say that I will not be called upon
to ‘champion’ the cause of homosexuality, but that is not what the Clause
actually says. Therefore, if they so wished (and homosexuals will certainly
wish it), the Clause can be interpreted that way by people with a vested
interest. This can be done because the terms used are sufficiently vague to
encompass a very wide leeway. But, as many other ‘loose’ legal terms prove,
this very leeway can be used against those who the legislator wishes to
condemn. (Ed. This happened in 2006! The writer was spot-on!).
My first concern is with Clause 2.2 of the Code. This states that “You
are personally accountable for ensuring that you promote and protect
the interests and dignity of patients and clients, irrespective of gender,
age, race, ability, sexuality, economic status, lifestyle, culture and
religious or political beliefs.”
My second concern is with Clause 3:11 which says; “You must
ensure that the use of complementary or alternative therapies is safe
and in the interests of patients and clients. This must be discussed with
the team as part of the therapeutic process and the patient or client
must consent to their use.”
My concerns were expressed in an email I sent to the new Council, the
content of which is given here, followed by the reply. Note that nurses may not
apply for exemption from complying for reasons of conscience. Thus, nurses
who do not wish to take part in homosexual or occult procedures or activities
are liable to prosecution. Unless the wording is changed the threat remains.
My email to the Council
The first part of my email was to do with Clause 2.2. The second part
was to do with Clause 3.11.
“Thank you for my copy of the new Code of Professional Practice. (I am
a practicing nurse).
I have a number of questions regarding interpretation of certain points,
which I hope you can clarify for me, as they can have vital ramifications for
Christian nurses…
2.2
What is meant by the ‘interests’ of patients/clients, irrespective of
sexuality…lifestyle…religious…beliefs?
Does it mean their health interests? I can readily ‘promote and protect’
such ‘interests and dignity’, as I already do. But, I cannot, by reason of both
220
conscience and belief, ‘promote and protect’ interests that are specifically
homosexual or otherwise deviant, or lifestyles that are openly anti-social or
against Christian teaching, or religious beliefs that oppose my own. I can
accept their existence and respect people as people. But I cannot ‘promote
and protect’ their interests in general, only their health interests.
As you can see, my question is very relevant and if I have to comply
with the ‘promotion and protection’ of the above, which are basically ‘lifestyles’
or beliefs, then I would have to consider finding alternative employment, rather
than run the risk of being taken off the register.
If ‘promotion and protection’ does refer to sexual choices, for example,
I believe this is beyond the remit of a regulating body for professional nurses.”
3.11
Does this consent by the patient, and the use of complementary
medicines by nurses, also need to include counter-arguments against their
use? For example, as a Christian, I can accept the use of, say, herbs, and
ordinary counselling. But, I would reject the use of certain types of
alternatives, such as Reiki, therapeutic touch, and so on, as these are
considered to be occult by Christians.
There is therefore no way I could take part in their use, or commend
their use by, or for, others. If I had no choice in the matter, though, I would
have to give counter-arguments as to their use. If, after such information is
given, the patient continues to prefer such treatment, what would happen if I
refused to take part in it, or commend it, or to have anything to do with it?
I found the rest of the document excellent and can say that I will
proceed to amend a variety of our working practices and documentation to
allow for their full implementation.”
I think that the email adequately expresses why I was concerned, and I
hope that Christians can see the need for great caution, especially if they are
nurses. I feel that the way the Clauses are worded is unworthy of a
professional body, because they force members to become defensive about
their own beliefs and marginalizes their position.
eMail from the Council
In response to my queries the Council said (words underlined by
myself):
“Thank you for your e-mail of 19 May 2002 with your comments on the
NMC Code of Professional Conduct. A document which, I know, will be useful
to you and will inform your practice in the future.
I would like to clarify the points you have raised in your communication:
There is no question of your being asked to ‘champion’ ideologies that
do not fall in line with yours. However, you are expected to recognise the
uniqueness and dignity of the individual and respond to their need to care
irrespective of their ethnic origin, religious beliefs, sexual orientation or any
other factor.
Clause 2 of ‘the Code’ is all about respecting the rights of the
individual and the patients’ part in planning their own care. You are the
advocate for the patient and have a legal, moral and professional duty to care
for patients. Whilst carrying out your nursing duties you must recognise the
221
patient’s right to individual choice at all times. Ensuring that the care received
is that which they find acceptable, even if this does not fall in line with your
own personal philosophies.
Indeed, clause 2.3 makes the clear point that you must at all times
maintain appropriate boundaries in the professional relationships you have
with patients and you must ensure that all aspects of care are entirely
focussed on the needs of the individual.
Moreover it is important that you do not allow your own beliefs to
impinge on the care given and you must ensure that you avoid any abuse of
your privileged relationships with, and the privileged access allowed to, their
person.
It must be remembered that although you may find certain beliefs and
lifestyles directly in opposition to your own it is likely that your stance may
seem equally unacceptable to others who do not share your ideologies.
With regard to Clause 3.11.
No patient should ever receive any medical treatment which they have not
consented to, and on which they have not had the opportunity to make an
informed choice. The medical aspects of any procedure must be fully
investigated as part of the overall care plan by all members of the care team,
which includes the patient, doctors, nurses, the client and if possible the
pharmacist. Ultimately it is the patient’s choice to receive the treatment
acceptable to them. No registrant is expected to administer medication without
a prescription from a recognised prescriber.
In law you have the right to conscientiously object to take part in care in
only two areas. These are:
 The Abortion Act 1967 (Scotland, England and Wales) which gives you the
right to refuse to take part in an abortion and
 The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 which gives you the
right to refuse to take part in technological procedures to achieve
conception and pregnancy.
As I am sure you are aware, you are personally accountable for your practice
and in the exercise of your profession accountability you must report to an
appropriate authority or person any conscientious objection, which may be
relevant to your professional practice. You should carefully consider whether it
is appropriate to accept employment in an area which carries treatments or
procedures to which you object.
I hope this information is of use to you.”
My Real Objections
Though I appreciated the promptness with which I was given a reply, I
felt that the response was rather patronising and dismissive. It can be seen
that the only ‘let-out’ for nurses on grounds of conscience is for two very
specific types of care or treatment, one to do with abortion and the other with
fertility.
Therefore, this leaves all nurses who conscientiously object to taking
part in other areas of so-called ‘care’ and ‘treatment’, excluded from this vital
right not to take part in something that may be deeply offensive or against
one’s beliefs. (I can guarantee that if the one objecting is a Muslim, there will
222
be special consideration, because it is not ‘correct’ at this time to offend
Islam).
I object strongly to the wording and concepts, because the supposed
‘rights’ of a small number of people are allowed precedence over the rights of
another. This is bullying and intimidation, not the actions of a professional
body! Why should the beliefs and practices of a patient be more important
than the beliefs of a professional medic? In the past, if I did not wish to
actively promote or uphold an homosexual in his or her beliefs and activities, I
could simply not take part. (Interestingly, when a patient I knew objected very
strongly to being cared for by an homosexual, her wishes and objections were
completely ignored by senior staff!)
Now, I am being warned that if I dare not to uphold a lifestyle and
sexual outlet that I find obnoxious, I could lose my job and be removed from
the nursing register! This means that a minority sexual perversion overrides
Christian belief. In the case of the alternative therapy clause, I will not be
allowed to object to that for reasons of conscience, either.
Let me advise that I have never accepted the notion that the rights of a
patient or client are greater than the rights of those who care for them (i.e.
giving clients their ‘every need’. Homosexuality is a want not a need).
There must be equal rights and room for conscience at any level and
on any issue, if those reasons have a solid foundation. But here, we are being
told, in effect, that the Christian beliefs of millennia, based on scriptural
teachings that go back even more millennia, are worthless because they do
not fit current (fashionable) ‘political correctness’.
I remember being told as a student nurse that I must ‘respect’ the
lifestyle of homosexuals and must not make a fuss if a male patient showed a
sexual interest in me, but must decline with a ‘thankyou’!
There was no way I could go along with such a demand, and I never
did. I find homosexual attention obnoxious, so there was no way I could allow
such attention to ruin my peace of mind or my personal right to present my
objections. Why should I allow it, when homosexuality is a perversion that
offends me greatly? What gives homosexuals the right to silence objections?
So, when it comes to having to support and uphold such perversions as
homosexuality, I will not do it! I will give proper professional care medically,
but I will refuse to take any part in the homosexual ethos. Example: a recent
homosexual patient I had was extremely obnoxious, and this was recognised
widely by all concerned, including psychiatrists. He demanded that I provide
him with pornographic homosexual videos whilst he lay in his bed of sickness.
I refused to supply them and told senior staff I would not obtain them or have
anything to do with them. When the man spoke homosexually I refused to talk
to him, but I always treated him properly. The new Clause would have me
removed from the Register for such a response.
As for alternative therapies, some are of no concern to me and I would
not object to their use. Examples are ‘straightforward’ aromatherapy and use
of herbs. I would not object even if they were of no known use or benefit
except as a placebo.
But other therapies I could not take part in, commend, or in any way
uphold. These would be occult-based approaches, such as Reiki, Therapeutic
Touch (widespread in hospitals), spiritualistic applications, and so on. To have
223
any part in these is to condone them, to be a party to occultism, and to be
open to spiritual attack.
No Christian can be expected to have anything to do with such
therapies. Clause 3.11 forces nurses to comply. Yet, I can tell you now, that a
Christian doctor would not tolerate the situation, so why use the law like a club
to beat nurses with?
My Reply to the Council
“Many thanks for your help. I have no problem giving care and
treatment. My only concern was that I might be expected to promote a lifestyle
that is not acceptable to my beliefs. I would add that I also object on social
and biological grounds after fifteen years intensive study in this area and in
that of HIV, so my stance is not merely that of one with a particular set of
beliefs.”
Notes on the Council Response
The underlined sections above show areas of concern for Christians.
Note that the client or patient can hold any belief or ‘philosophy’ he or she
wishes and this is considered to be more important than that of the
professional. Why is this? A client or patient can hold to any belief he or she
wishes, and this will not prevent me from delivering professional care without
bias. But to insist that I actually uphold and promote what I find objectionable
is beyond the remit of any professional body, whether or not it has
governmental and legal backing.
How dare the Council insist that I put my own sincere and deep beliefs
on hold in favour of a set of beliefs or practices I find objectionable? Again, I
call this bullying, and unacceptable. Why should I be intimidated over a matter
that should not be of any concern to the Council?
To my mind, if I deliver proper professional care to an homosexual or to
one who wishes to use an occult ‘therapy’, and treat them with due respect as
people, I cannot see how the government or the Council can force me to
comply with choices or practices that are deeply offensive to me, or against
my deepest-held beliefs. How dare they tell me my beliefs are less important
than those of patients?
My objections would not mean bad care or any other kind of
discrimination, only a refusal to take part in things I cannot take part in. In the
same way, the client or patient is free to object to dealing with certain staff for
their own reasons. My objections cannot impinge on their choices if I refuse to
take part in them. And my objections will not cause me to give anything other
than a totally professional regime. I cannot speak for anyone else, of course,
but I will predict that at some time someone will feel so strongly, they will only
give superficial and grudging care, which will be bad news all round.
Objections to, say, homosexuality, are far more reasonable than the
objections homosexuals have toward heterosexuality or Christian belief. So
the advice of the Council on those grounds is very weak indeed. There is no
way homosexuality can be called normal or equal to heterosexuality, given the
sexual, social, moral and medical problems it raises!
I am being told I should carefully consider taking up employment in an
area that might cause me concern. This is outrageous! I took up my
employment before the government and the Council ‘moved the goalposts’!!
224
Am I, then, expected to resign because perversions and the occult are thought
to be good for patients and clients? Why should I? Why am I denied an act of
conscience? Who has the authority and knowledge to insist on such values?
(Ed. Again, this was prophetic, for this nurse was forced to resign).
A very small number of Council personnel invented and drew up all the
Clauses. The final document should have been issued before any final
conclusions were reached. But it has been presented in its final state, thus
putting my entire professional future in danger.
In effect this is an attack on Christian belief, even if it was not intended.
It is a denial of the very real objections so many people have to perversions
and occult therapies. And it is a bullying tactic I hoped had long gone from
employment scenarios. There has been much debate about NHS bullying, yet
here comes the Council that is to regulate nursing, with the very same
intimidating threats! Is this acceptable? I do not think so.
My conclusion is that the two Clauses I have objected to should be
rewritten. Clause 2:1 need only insert the word ‘health’ before the word
‘interests’. Clause 3.11 need only say that nurses may not take part in
alternative therapies if they object on grounds of conscience or religious
beliefs. Any refusal of the Council to do so is tantamount to harassing
Christians and denying them their freedom of choice, beliefs, and basic
human rights.
If such amendment is not forthcoming, I suggest Christian nurses
should be very wary, and not be bullied into accepting or taking part in those
things that are spiritually dangerous or offensive, to God or to them. If I have
the right to reject beliefs and practices outside of my workplace, then I see no
reason to be forced into accepting them as an employee! Nurses should band
together and object very strongly to the NMC and their unions. It would be an
uphill struggle, but do not lose heart!
Ultimately, no Christian can accept these conditions and should not
take part, even if this causes them to lose their jobs. God’s commands and
laws take precedence over the whims and caprices of government bodies that
adhere to political correctness at any cost.
Superficially, the objections I have raised appear small, but all it will
take is one case to show that the Clauses can destroy one’s living and future.
The challenge is there before you all. What will you do? Take it lying down or
oppose the Clauses before it is too late?
Summary of Principles
1.
2.
3.
Homosexuality is a personal choice, so is a deliberate decision to take
part in particular sexual acts and thoughts. Thus, it is no different,
qualitatively, to any other sexually deviant choice, such as bestiality,
necrophilia or paedophilia.
There are no scientific, medical, or physiological reasons why anyone
should choose homosexuality, only personal reasons, akin to choosing
what colour you wish your clothes to be.
In Biblical terms, homosexuality is sin. Some try to say that this sin is
like any other sin. But the destruction of Sodom and the words of
Romans 1 do not suggest this. It has a far more gross meaning and
widespread outcome.
225
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10
11
12
Sin must be opposed and spoke against. It must be repented of and
turned away from. Being a mere choice of habitual behaviour,
homosexuality can be stopped and turned away from. The ‘lifestyle’ of
homosexuality is only a ploy used to protect gross sinful actions.
The protection given to homosexuality is mysterious, for it is selected
from a wide number of sexual perversions, including paedophilia,
necrophilia, bestiality, and so on. Even more mysterious is the way law
is being used to protect a sexual choice. This is unique and cannot be
explained rationally or intellectually.
Homosexuality as a movement is aggressive and violent. It is anti-God
and highly discriminatory against Christians and others who do not
accept its basis of activity.
Nursing care can be given professionally and without bias to those who
choose homosexuality. It is insulting to professionals to be told that
they are in error if they choose not to uphold homosexuality, or forms of
treatment they honestly believe to be wrong and against their stronglyheld beliefs. Christians are a particular target in this matter.
I can give full treatment and care to those who choose homosexual sin.
This is because their sin is their affair, and I need not take part in it. If I
wished to not treat people on the basis of their sins, then I could not
treat anyone in the world, including myself! Therefore, I have no
problem with caring for people who happen to choose a sinful life.
However, to take part in, or to support, condone, or promote, their sins,
is another matter entirely. These actions have nothing to do with
professional care given by nurses. I can care for people who smoke,
but I refuse to be in the room if they are smoking.
Similarly, I can provide nursing care for homosexuals, but will not stay
in their presence if they wish to indulge in any kind of homosexuallyorientated activity or speech, because this has to do with morality and
not with nursing care. In the same way, I could not remain in the
presence of a person who wished to sexually abuse a child. As the two
perversions are equal in principle, because both are personal choices,
the choice not to take part is justified.
Believing homosexuality to be wrong and immoral, I refuse to take part
in, to promote, or to accept, homosexuality. If this causes me to be
castigated legally, then so be it. God condemns homosexuality.
Similarly, God condemns the occult, therefore I will not take part in,
recommend, or promote, any kind of occult or cult ‘treatment’. For the
same reasons I cannot take part in or support Roman Catholicism in
the workplace. Most of my clients are Catholic, but this does not stop
me from treating them properly and with due care. There is no
discrimination. But, I cannot attend an RC church service, assist in any
kind of Roman rite, etc. What a client does is one thing, but I will not
allow law to dictate to me what my personal response should be to
something that is against my own beliefs.
Christian nurses must not let this legal Code be implemented, because
it can be used against them. Homosexual groups in particular will make
sure of that. If necessary, nurses must be prepared to lose their job and
licence to nurse. Do not let Sodom return in spirit or deed!”
226
Chapter 14
Final Word
“Now, look at what homosexuals ‘offer’ as
‘morality’. Can any person in his or her right mind
truly say that it is a morality that “would be put
forward by all rational persons”? Hardly, unless it
is ‘rational’ to live in fear of death and destruction!”
“AIDS is a ‘clear and present danger’ and is killing
millions upon millions. It is one ‘reward’ for being
homosexual. If that is not immoral then I don’t know
what is.”
“In Germany they came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I
didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they
came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came
for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I
was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by
that time no one was left to speak up.“
Well, I have given you plenty of information from socio-politico-medicoscientific angles. You have also had a few Biblical notes plus evidence that
people can change from homosexuality permanently. I deliberately gave
examples that did not include changes brought about by counselling or
psychology to show that people can change back as an act of the will, or as a
result of Christian conversion. That is, the reason they can change back is
because it is a habit, not an inborn condition.
Morality – is it just Christian Propaganda?
What is morality? Many say morality is bound up in Christian clothing
and is a vestigial chain used to bind society. Yet, the very people who say this
wish to bind society with their own chains. They don’t want the notion of ‘God’
to rule them, but they are more than willing to let their own minds rule them.
This is a very great inequality! And it is not logical or just. Nor is it correct.
Morality is not specifically a ‘Christian thing’.
I have as much right to proffer God’s word to others, as unbelievers
have to proffer their own meagre ideas. After all, what weight can I put on the
dictates of mere men, when I have God’s word at my side? There is no
contest.
From general history as well as my own personal history, I know that
man’s morality shifts with time and mind. I know that human-based morality
does not reach even the bottom level of what I see in God’s plans for
227
mankind. The laws of Christ are infinitely pure and above anything devised by
men! With men, there is always power leading to greater power and, as
someone once said, absolute power in the hands of men always corrupts.
Why should I follow the changing moral codes of this world? If I do that,
how do I know which man, or which code, to follow? If a mere man is in
charge of morality, then why should I follow him, when I can follow myself?
That is the meaning of the morality of men: each follows his personal agenda.
In particular, why follow a code of practice and beliefs that centres on
sex, bringing with it disease and social ills? It is, to say the least, very limited
in its application and breadth! And, intellectually, numbingly stupid.
Do we jump headlong into the dire depths of the pit, as taught by
ancient Rome? Or slam into the cold steel of old communist Russia? Or the
camps of Nazi Germany? Do we follow men and women whose morality, or
lack of it, results in syphilis, or suicide, or AIDS? I think that to ask such
questions is to already be on the road to destruction. Why choose what is bad
for you? Why choose what is immoral? Why exult in what is unclean? What is
so attractive about unclean thoughts and actions? To me there is no attraction
and no good for mankind.
Homosexual ‘morality’ gives the world lethal and disabling illnesses,
crass wickedness, societal destruction, intellectual dumbing-down and
selfism. By contrast, Biblical morality brings only hope, charity, good and
purity, none of which kills, maims or destroys. By any law of logic, the better
morality is the Christian one! Homosexual ‘morality’ can only offer evil, and
part of this evil is to blind normally right-thinking people into, well - what name
would you put to an intelligent person who believes in lies, falsity and gross
sexual perversion as ‘good’, against all the known facts?
Morality
“The term ‘morality’ can be used either:
1. Descriptively, to refer to a code of conduct put forward by society, or,
(a) Some other group, such as religion, or,
(b) Accepted by an individual for his/her own behaviour, or
2. Normatively, to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified
conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.” (161)
This is a standard definition. Now, look at what homosexuals ‘offer’ as
‘morality’. Can any person in his or her right mind truly say that it is a morality
that “would be put forward by all rational persons”? Hardly, unless it is
‘rational’ to live in misery, with fear of death and destruction!
Look at the ‘code of conduct’ given in the Decalogue. Every
commandment is for the good of society, and generally formed the moral
stance (or the moral background) of almost every person in this world for
millennia. Why? Because everyone recognised in them the basis for a
sound and healthy society.
The ‘code of conduct’ of homosexuals, on the other hand, is erroneous,
ill-making, sick in concept, and maniacal. It is a charter of death, unacceptable
to “all rational persons”.
“Though not widely discussed, the definition of morality has great
significance for moral theory.” (161)
228
Homosexual morality comes under point 1b. Christian morality comes
under point 1a. What gives homosexuals the right to delete point 1a and
replace it totally with point 1b, when, normatively, point 2 universally proves,
beyond all doubt, that no rational person will accept the rantings of
homosexual activists?
Take another look at the Ten Commandments. Look at the variety of
moral statements made in the New Testament. Nothing in them will suggest
harm to society or to individuals. Quite the opposite.
Adultery is rife today, as is fornication and living together. Damage to
children through adultery and ‘living together’, where one or both partners are
abusive (or not), does nothing but harm. Multiple partners leads to cynicism,
sexual diseases, and a dulling of sensibilities. Society is being ravaged by
these sexual wrongs.
So, in which way is a moral code that warns against fornication and
adultery stifling to society? Those who demand an ‘open morality’ really want
total sexual promiscuity. In itself this is proof of dulled sensibilities, for no
person in his or her right mind can elect to deliberately harm their children or
their own self-esteem (and health) by doing it.
Homosexuals try to force their type of morality (immorality) on the rest
of society, and attempt to get rid of Christian or simple societal morality in the
process. And they are doing this by law, not by persuasion. All societies hold
to common values and moral codes, whether or not they are Christian. Thus,
murder is usually considered to be ‘wrong’, as is stealing, etc.
Homosexuals, however, want all reference to ‘wrong’ removed. Do not
think they are doing this for the good of society, or to give you a better life.
They do it so that they can indulge in their wicked sexual exploits without
hindrance! They do not care less for the rest of society.
I have already mentioned UK youth who go abroad on holiday (and
U.S. youth go to the beaches during spring recess). Most go without parents,
and for a very good reason. Watch any TV documentary about their activities
and you will be outraged by their blatant immorality. It does not matter if you
have Christian, Muslim, or any other beliefs; what these youth are doing is
wicked and immoral. It is how any rational being will react to self-destruction.
There is no way mature adults can accept it as ‘normal’ or ‘desirable’.
Superficially, youngsters will claim ‘happiness’ in what they do, but it is
all a sham, as they already know. In reality, they are shameful and corrupted
by their own desires. They are allowed to get away with blatant sexual
immorality, so they do it even more.
How many return home with sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s)?
How many contract AIDS? How many enter a foreign hospital for injuries
caused by their behaviour? How many girls contract ‘silent’ STD’s that ruin
any possibility of bearing children later? How many contract syphilis, often
missed because its initial symptoms can be relatively ‘minor’, but leading to
insanity or death in later life? All this is ‘good’ and ‘moral’?
The above are examples of what can happen when indulging in
immoral behaviour consisting of ‘normal’ sexuality. So, what of immoral
behaviour consisting of a perverse sexuality, such as homosexuality? If the
‘normal’ abuse of sexuality is bad enough, what does that make perverse
sexuality? AIDS is a ‘clear and present danger’ and is killing millions upon
229
millions. It is one ‘reward’ for being homosexual, or for allowing their demands
to take hold of our minds. If that is not immoral then I don’t know what is.
Another definition of morality says: “Morality, in the strictest sense of
the word, deals with that which is innately regarded as right or wrong.” (162).
I repeat that all homosexuals know they are immoral and know what they do is
perverse. This is very evident in their many screams and demands, and
especially in Gay Pride marches. The more they shout the more evident is
their self-knowledge of immorality. They shout and use the law, precisely
because they want to cover-up the shame they feel deep inside, and, of
course, they want to carry out their illicit sex plans unchallenged.
“Some commentators have suggested that since our ideas of human
rights are strictly western concepts, it is an example of both ethnocentrism
and cultural imperialism for us to insist that eastern nations - for instance
China - be bound by them.”
I find such an argument difficult to swallow. I simply cannot fathom the
legitimacy of such ‘ethical diversity.’
If morality is not absolute and universal, along the lines of the laws of
physics (and perhaps even, in some sense, a consequence of those laws),
then I am at a loss as to how we could legitimately question the behavior of
Nazi-era Germans who murdered millions of Jews. I doubt that any of those
who suggest Chinese behavior is acceptable would agree that killing Jews is a
good thing. Consequently, I would suggest that they don't really believe the
argument they're making, and they haven't thought through the implications of
their suggestion.
I've even read some who try to excuse the treatment of Christians in
China by arguing that Christianity is a foreign imposition on that ancient land
and an example of western imperialism, so of course the Chinese are going to
react harshly. And besides, in the past, some ‘Christians’ were persecutors
and oppressors.
Yet, in the west, aren't we supposed to be open to new ideas and accept
cultural diversity? So it's good for us to accept foreign ideas, but we can't
expect the Chinese to be this enlightened? Doesn't this strike you as
patronizing at its worst? Plus, there's the ethical problem of it all: the
Christians somehow deserve to be persecuted because Christianity isn't a
native Chinese faith and besides, some of the Christian's ancestors might
have been bad people? I think I detect some injustice here, don't you?
Yet, China deserves censure for its treatment of Tibet and the Dalai
Lama. I would agree that it does, but I'm mightily annoyed at the inconsistency
and shallow thinking evidenced by certain pundits who will decry the treatment
of one legitimate group at the same time they accept the persecution of
another, simply because one group seems more "deserving" than another.
Frankly, if one group is being persecuted, it might as well be me being
persecuted. If I don't think that way, then I run the risk of falling into the trap
described by Martin Niemoeller:
‘In Germany they came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade
unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I
230
didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they
came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak
up’. “ (163)
I have suggested that homosexuals have the (human) right to express
their views (legitimately, that is), even though what they say is irrational and
immoral. If I don’t uphold that principle, then I fall into the ‘trap’ referred to by
the above writer. But, homosexuals do not extend this principle to myself or to
Christians, Muslims, or anyone else who disagrees with them. That’s because
they are fascist. And that is unethical.
In so many ways, homosexuality harms all of society. You have seen,
with many proofs, that homosexuality brings us illness, death, a skewed way
of thinking and destruction. It is also dangerous for our children, who are
lusted after and ruined as prey by gays in particular. With scorn for legitimate
fears of parents, gay paedophiles boast openly of their desire to get hold of
children - YOUR children - and what they wish to do with them.
They are brainwashing governments into submission, by displaying
threatening and intimidating behaviour toward them. They force police to do
their bidding, so that whole chunks of society are being criminalized. They
present ridiculous pretend-facts as part of their ‘claim’. It will not be too long
before those who oppose homosexuality will be ‘diagnosed’ as mentally ill.
(Talk along this line is already occurring here in the USA).
It is time to act against this tide of evil. Either homosexuals do the
normal thing and leave their ideas to social review and comment, or they
get worse in their fascism. As a non-gay, which way do you want it to
go?
GAYS CAN AND DO CHANGE! Do not allow homosexuals to say
otherwise, because they are lying. It is very important for gays to cover
this plain fact up, because once they admit they can change, they know
they have lost their case for special legal protection.
Start a ground-swell of opposition. Argue the moral case
whenever you can. Be courteous but firm and never give in to gay
propaganda and threats, because otherwise they will come back, time
and again. They are moral racketeers who will smash you and what you
have if you don’t pay the going rate for ‘protection’. They are already
doing it all around the world, and they are getting away with it.
Courteously counter every incident of gay propaganda in your
local media, so that people know gays do not have a monopoly. When
gays complain about this or that ‘bigotry’, present a counter-complaint
against them and their heterophobia and bigotry!
Remember, at any one time there are no more than about 1%
homosexuals. That means 99% of the population are not. Of those a
growing number are pro-gay. But, they still constitute a very small
percentage. You are in the majority, so be strong and fight back! Why
are you allowing a very small number to disrupt and threaten you?
231
Chapter 15
Now What?
“Now, you,
something!”
a
member
of
society,
must
do
“If you are the parents of older children, even ones
in college or starting work – warn them strongly
about homosexual propaganda.”
“If you have children (or are grandparents, aunts,
uncles), then do not stand by and allow
homosexuals to enter your schools.”
“do not accept what your son or daughter is doing,
because if you do, you will help them to perpetuate
what may kill them.”
“everything homosexuals do in governmental,
political and legal terms, is for a purpose. It is all
part of their giant world-plan and gay agenda. So
oppose everything!”
“It is very important that Christians tell other
Christians the truth about the situation. A bit at a
time is okay, but the truth must be made known.
Never allow a pro-gay comment, no matter how
small, to remain unchallenged! It does not matter
who comes out with it – challenge it!”
“Don’t wait until gays have reached (children) with
their lies – tell them anyway, in anticipation. And
keep telling them…when they see or hear anything
about gays on TV or radio, give them a ‘junior
comment’ in suitable language! Make them afraid to
be approached by gays, just as you already make
them afraid to take lifts from strangers.”
“Today it is homosexuality, tomorrow the right to
walk naked, the day after it will be the right to abuse
drugs. In the end, so-called ‘rights’ will lead to our
own extinction.”
So, you now have the facts and the truth. That is fine, but where do we
go from here? It is highly possible that if gays do get their own way totally,
people of the world who have no Christian heart, will turn against gays in the
232
worst possible way. This would especially apply if gays go after children
freely. The result will be unimaginable violence. And gays will bring it on their
own heads.
But, it is not what this book is all about. It’s not about hating gays, or
trying to silence them, or putting them in prison. It’s not about stopping them
getting work or going about their business normally, even if it is their desire to
do bad things to everyone else and want to ban Christianity totally and put us
all behind bars, silenced and gutless!
‘X’ was devastated by what homosexuals did to her in the workplace.
They lost her her job and income, and blackened her name, all for the sake of
maintaining their sexual choices unhindered. They conspired to get rid of her,
obeying the ‘gay agenda’. Yet, to that point, they all got on together. Or so ‘X’
thought!
Despite what they did, ‘X’ does not hate them. Nor does she wish them
harm. They are foolish; they are stupid and immoral in their choices. Their
sexual choice causes them to ignore the voice of conscience inside each one
of them, so that they are willing to destroy others who disagree. Even so, they
are human beings, albeit nasty. No, there is a better way, whether or not
homosexuals like it.
If You Are Not a Christian
I know that many gays and lesbians will read this book. They will fume
and rant. They will write to their Senators and MP’s. They will demand
Christians are put into prison. You name it and they’ll want it done to people
like me! But some will read and be struck to the core of their being. And ALL
will know, inwardly, that what I am saying is perfectly correct. This goes even
for the most rampant and vocal of activists.
To them I say, your very loudness of defiance is proof of your
wrongness. The louder you object the more you convince me you are
aware that what you do is immoral. So keep shouting, because you are
digging your own pit.
But, I do not try to persuade these people. It would be like trying to
persuade a drunk not to drink, or a thief not to steal, or a drug-addict not to
take drugs. They know they are wrong, but until their soul is convinced of their
wrongness, they will continue nevertheless, even if they are damaged in the
meantime.
Homosexuals are dying of AIDS everywhere. As we have seen, leading
gays acknowledge it to be their own fault. Yet, they continue in the same
madness. Some, though diagnosed with HIV, continue to indulge in the very
same perverse activities! There is every reason to say that homosexuals are
not rational.
So, my words are not for homosexuals, but for the rest of society in any
part of the world who are watching, possibly bemused, and certainly illequipped, to discern the times we live in. If you have read this book, you are
now better able to know what is going on. Being shocked is not where it ends!
Now, you, a member of society, must do something! If you have
children (or are grandparents, aunts, uncles), then do not stand by and allow
homosexuals to enter your schools. Do not allow them to ‘teach’ sex to
children. Take control of your own families’ lives! If you don’t, your children will
become the victims of homosexual propaganda. Many of them will also die of
233
AIDS, because you did not stand up to be counted. They are YOUR children.
They don’t belong to gays and lesbians, or to the educational system, but to
you, the legitimate parents! For this you will probably need the support of
many others. Group protest is the answer.
If you are the parents of older children, even ones in college or starting
work, warn them strongly about homosexual propaganda. Give them the facts,
as shown in this book. Don’t assume they will not meet gays and lesbians,
because they will! If you can, persuade them not to have friendships with
homosexuals, because homosexuals tend to cluster together as a group, and
if your child is with them, the result is likely to be disastrous.
Try to get them to avoid social gatherings like parties, if they know gays
or lesbians will be there. Even if they reject this book, something will lodge in
their minds, ready to be confirmed at a later date. And remind them that in
most situations gays and lesbians will appear to be very nice people. But also
remind them that once they think anyone opposes their choices, they will
become vicious and uncontrollable.
If the youngster is in work, advise them to be polite but not to join in
anything social, outside work. No nastiness, just do not mix. If in college,
advise them not to join in anything where gays gather as a group, whether
these are clubs, trips, or any other function or event.
In other words, keep away from homosexuals as much as possible.
There are times when we all must work or study with them, but this does not
mean we must socialise with them! This is Biblical advice, not mine.
Your Child Already Homosexual?
If you are parents of a child who has already entered the gay scene,
then I offer my sincerest condolences. Even so, there is some hope. Do not
accept your son’s or daughter’s declaration of gayness! You can still love
them, even if you show disapproval. Tell them you hate what they do, but love
them as your child. Tell them you will never accept their gayness, or their gay
friends, no matter what they say. And do not allow other homosexuals to enter
your home, even if your child pleads or storms around in a rage.
Typically, the pull of sexual perversity is so strong your child will likely
use the old-chestnut, “If you don’t accept me as I am, you will never see me
again!” It is typical blackmail. If that is how they want it, then that is how it
must be. Look at it this way, you have read this book and know the very real
and pressing dangers in being ‘homosexual’. If you give in to your child at the
start, he or she will simply carry on and get even deeper into their mess. And
if male, might even contract AIDS and die. So, show your disapproval
immediately and maintain it. Because the stakes are very high indeed.
Remember that most ‘homosexuals’ change from their perversity back
to normality, at least once. And many return to normality permanently. So, do
not accept what your son or daughter is doing, because if you do, you will help
them to perpetuate their sinful lifestyle, one that could even kill them. Tell
them they are more than welcome to come back home if they change and
leave their sinful lifestyle behind them.
All the pain and distress is on you, not them. All they want to do is to
meet with similar people who provide them their sexual thrills. To do this they
will be willing to deceive or manipulate you. That’s really all it is about. In this
234
they are no different from ardent drug addicts. Don’t listen to homosexual
propaganda that says it is about more than sex! That is a farce!
In reality, their choice of homosexuality is based on selfish lust. But it is
so strong, it brings them to ‘coming out’. This is not about making a statement,
it is just a sign that their sexual perversion has them in such a grip, they are
momentarily unable to resist. This is proof their choice is not normal, and it
has started to rule their mind and heart… evidence that there is mental
imbalance. (By this I mean a minimum of neurosis. If their choices are
irrational and immoral, how else can we define what they do?). Any threats of
suicide are down to their own choices, not to your acceptance or disapproval.
What every homosexual wants is simple. They want you to shut up and
leave them alone to follow their sexual lusts. Even sons and daughters are not
interested in what you think, or about your distress, when they are in the grip
of sexual lust and perversity. Parents of drug addicts know exactly that what I
am saying is true.
If you are one of those unfortunate parents who has been brainwashed
into accepting the gay lifestyle for your child, then think again. Unless you are
yourself extremely liberal and already pro-gay, as a parent you will be
inwardly devastated by your child’s sexual choice, even if you outwardly
accept it. You know I am right! But, if you go on to support your child in his or
her sexuality, you are actively condoning it, and helping them to enter deeper
into their immorality and danger.
It is social acceptance that enables homosexuals to contract AIDS so
easily, not just your child’s personal choice. Even gay leaders admit this is
true and say only social disapproval will start to turn things around!
If your child threatens never to see you again, then that’s their choice,
not yours. If you allow them to dictate how you should react to their
immorality, then you are being utterly foolish; you are casting aside your own
reasoning, rationality and conscience in favour of a lie. Above all, you will fall
to the gay agenda, which is fascist. You don’t matter. Only the sexual choice
matters to homosexuals. Don’t be a fool! Make a stand. Perhaps, then, you
will make a difference to your child, and he or she will return to what is normal
and good.
You will hear all kinds of lame excuses and threats, designed to
persuade you to be a puppet of the gay agenda. Some are shown in earlier
sections. It is not true that you will drive them to suicide or to mental
imbalance! They do this themselves, by ignoring morality and normality.
Like drug-addicts, they only want you to be there to give them a safehaven for their choices. They will ‘do their thing’ right under your roof, rubbing
your nose in it. Is this what you want? Is this a real relationship? No, of course
it isn’t, it is just cynical exploitation of a parent by his or her own child! You
won’t save them from perversion by accepting it, only by rejecting it.
For Friends
Some years ago a young man known to my son openly and
disrespectfully rebuked me for telling my son that I preferred not to hear the
music of gay bands and singers in my own house! He said some of his best
friends were gay, and they were fine (which explained his outburst). That
young man did not want to hear the truth and refused to listen.
235
Apart from the disrespect he showed for his friend’s father, he was also
deluded. He was a victim of gay propaganda. Though some of his friends are
indeed gay, he has no idea about what this really means; he has only seen
the superficial ‘nice’ side. Indeed, when he has children of his own, I wonder
how he will react to his son or daughter telling him they have HIV?
I would suggest you do not make gays your friends. They are not really
interested in your friendship, only in your acceptance and silence. You are not
‘one of them’ so you will never be fully accepted anyway. They allow you to be
close to them so that you can support their habit, that is all.
As I have already said to parents, don’t be duped by propaganda,
based on a 30 year-old gay agenda that relies on people like you being quiet
and malleable. That agenda is being worked out right now, under your nose. It
will succeed if you allow it to. But if you do allow it to succeed, you are really
putting chains on your own mind and life and placing future generations in an
horrendous position.
Gays will get rid of anyone in their way, including you if you show
disapproval. Show it just once, and your gay ‘friends’ will rip your throat out in
fury! If you prefer fascism, then that’s another matter. But, remember the
claims of gay paedophiles: they want to ‘love your son’! Am I scaremongering? No, it is what gays have said themselves.
And even if you remain alert, homosexual teachings are destructive of
your self-respect and ability to think properly. I know some will say “How dare
you tell me this? I accept my gay friends and I will think what I like.” That is
certainly true, but you will not be allowed to think what you like!
What you think has already been decided by your gay friends, who
have already fed you with all kinds of propaganda, whether or not you realise
it. Your beliefs and actions have been manipulated by them, so that you will
support their lifestyle. Countless critics tell me, “but my gay friends are not like
that!” On this superficial basis alone they dismiss what I have to say, despite
all the evidence! It proves they are brainwashed. They do not now of the
horrendous lifestyle actually being led their gay ‘friends’, because gays are
often careful when in mixed company, to only show an acceptable side!
Not so long ago, you would have been too ashamed to openly befriend
gays. Thus, your current open friendships are proof of the success of gay
propaganda on your life and thinking! Stay with gays and you will never think
independently again.
Others…
If you are a policeman or some other professional, then you have a
problem. (You have seen a practical outworking of this in chapter 14). A
policeman, for example, must obey the law and ensure it is kept. However, no
policeman is above his own conscience. If something is immoral, then it is
immoral. If it is unethical, then that’s that. But what to do?
If you are in a difficult position, will you do what I was told to do – think
hard about your area of work? If not, then you should be just as crafty as
gays! That is, seek legitimate ways to change the situation. There are
ombudsmen in most industries and areas of work. There are panels of
experts, or committees looking at ethics and other issues. So long as you go
through the correct channels you should be able to voice your opinion.
236
However, today there is no guarantee your job will still be safe, even if
you go through the right channels. So, it comes down to what is acceptable to
you as an individual. ‘X’ worked in exemplary fashion. That is why her
employer had to resort to misusing the law against her. He could not do it any
other way.
So, you must ask “Is it worth fighting back?” I can only point you back
to the words of Martin Niemoeller. The vast majority of people think that so
long as something does not harm them personally, they can shut up. But, that
kind of thinking shows they are already harmed! It is the ‘head in the sand’
attitude of Hitler’s Germany. Millions were exterminated because the people
did not say anything. And thousands more died when allied bombers took
vengeance.
Hitler’s personal secretary, who was with him right to the time he killed
himself in his bunker, admitted toward the end of her life that if she really
wanted the truth, she would have found evidence to condemn Hitler. But, like
everyone else, she pretended all was okay. And so millions died horrible
deaths and her conscience can never be put right.
If we wait until something affects us personally, then we are already
lost, because the thing we ignore will one day land right on our doorstep. But,
by that time, our ability to think properly will desert us. It is far better to face
the music now, than later. Cowardice is a terrible affliction.
It is, then, up to every individual in the world to make a stand, in
whatever way is appropriate. Whether this is via a committee, an opinion poll,
a letter to your MP, a refusal to put immoral actions into effect, or whatever...
you must act now. If you can do it without losing your job, all the better.
Remember what I said about your children. And about the economy. It
is your elderly parent who cannot have an operation because gays are given
money for treatment. It is your wife with breast cancer who cannot have that
expensive drug. If millions are being spent on treating gays who contract
illnesses through their own stupidity and immorality, they are millions not
being spent legitimately. Gays win, you lose!
Don’t sit back and hope it will all blow over your head, because it won’t.
Gays are making ever-increasing demands, and being successful. One day
these will affect you personally and directly. Then what? You will either fall in
line and fully accept the propaganda (out of fear), or you will fall drastically. Is
it not better to stand and fight right now, with honour?
Here in the USA a document has come to light that has thrown gays
into a spin (June 21st 2006). It classifies homosexuality as a mental disorder,
in the same category as retardation and personality disorder. What’s wrong
with that? If you have read everything in this book, you will acknowledge that
the classification is absolutely correct!
A feminist emagazine (of course!) says “The document has outraged
medical professionals, psychologists and members of Congress, who
disagree with this labelling and its discriminatory undertones.” The feminists
fail to tell us exactly who these people are. I guarantee they are all pro-gay or
gay!
They also tell us that the APA have condemned the policy. Do they
mean in the same way as the APA originally took homosexuality out of mental
illness categories, by gay deception and intimidation? In this book you have
read that many within the APA disagree that homosexuality is not included as
237
a mental disorder, but they cannot say anything for fear of losing their jobs. So
much for integrity!
The University of California, to its shame, has a Centre for the study of
Sexual Minorities in the Military. What a waste of money! What a waste of
intellectual research! Anyway, it ‘found’ the policy, which was re-certified as
‘current’ as late as 2003.
Dr Steven Samuels, a social psychologist, ‘suggests’ this classification
by the Pentagon is “not scientifically derived”. What? Does he mean like the
‘scientifically derived’ research of LeVay et al? Dr Samuels is being extremely
furtive and very unscientific, if he thinks homosexuality has been made
acceptable by science!
Like all pro-gays he is spouting personal opinion and not facts! He
thinks the policy is opposed to the ‘high values of the military’. What ‘high
values’? How can he call acceptance of a perversion a ‘high value’? How can
he put a ‘high value’ on AIDS and the childishness and viciousness inherent in
so many gays?
The ‘high values’ of the military were once seen, when they objected to
homosexuality in the forces and kicked-out anyone who was gay! (Re
Department of Defense Instruction: Physical Disability Evaluation, 11/14/06).
This is an excellent example of what we have been discussing
throughout this book. It shows how pro-gays will rule the roost, even though
they have no scientific back-up or rationale. Simply by shouting a lot, they will
get the government to revoke their policy! There will be no rational
examination of the actual facts, only a fall-back to pro-gay unscientific
propaganda. I, for one, would welcome a full and unbiased examination of all
scientific claims made for homosexuality! This is because, without gay
prejudice, no scientific claim in favour of gays can hold water. So – bring it on!
(I know they won’t, because truth scares them witless).
Are You a Christian?
For Christians, there are no real options. Christians must either be true
to God, or they are sinning. What can you do? Many Christians have been
deceived by gay propaganda. They give indiscriminate help to homosexuals
with AIDS, even though they have never repented. Thus they misuse
Christian donations and their own time and effort. Others help in Africa,
without once mentioning immorality and requiring sufferers to stop what they
are doing. That is sin.
Others accept gay propaganda and side with gays and lesbians. They
allow despicable gay ‘Christian’ organisations to continue without challenge,
though their theology is one of continuing evil.
But what if you are a genuine Christian who has read this book, have
been shocked by its contents, and now wander what on earth you can do?
There is plenty! Remember, I am not calling for a ‘tit-for-tat’ response to
homosexuals. I am looking for a true Christian response.
The advice I give below is not given in any order of importance,
because each point is important in its own way.
What to do…
You have read this book. Now read what the Bible says about the
subject. Look at what true freedom means, what immorality really is. Bear in
238
mind that although Christians have no real input into what unbelievers do,
when those unbelievers impinge upon Christian lives and try to lead them, we
must do something. If homosexuals had not entered everyone’s world of
conscience with lies and demands, this book would not be necessary!
There is plenty of information on these subjects on the internet. Keep
abreast of what is happening and spread the word! But don’t bother with gay
websites, because they will be totally biased in favour of immorality. Gays can
operate unchallenged only because people who are ‘in the know’ do not tell
others. Gays rely on this silence.
The more who know the truth, the better it will be to dislodge lies. You
must have up-to-date knowledge about what homosexuals are saying and
doing, but you must also know what scripture says. Do not be fooled.
Everything homosexuals do in governmental, political and legal terms, is for a
purpose. It is all part of their giant world-plan and gay agenda. So oppose
everything! In the USA Christians are now starting to fight back, taking progay policies to court, and winning! It is not the ideal, but push back!
As you peruse information beware what you decide to read, because
much of it can be pornographic in nature. It can also use foul language. All
you need is the outline argument, not the rabid details.
Also, when you read homosexual material, or reports written by gays
and pro-gays, apply your reasoning and your Biblical understanding. Don’t be
fooled by sympathetic writing and do not allow emotion to sway you.
Everything you read must be subjected to what scripture says. In particular,
don’t be fooled by gay and lesbian ‘Christians’. They are in grave error and
must be shunned. Their theology is nonsense, if not blasphemous.
Throughout everything, Christians must pray. We know that. In this
matter our prayers should seek to know the truth, and to ask for protection
against gay propaganda. Do NOT accept even a single jot of homosexual
claims. Above all we need spiritual strength. What we are seeing today, is
what has been prophesied in scripture: toward the end times Satan will
uncover his aims. He will cause many to follow stupidity and sin.
Homosexuality is just one major tool he is now using, to deceive and to
intimidate. Part of this design is to cause those who should know better to fall
for gay lies. When it comes to this kind of strategy one’s intelligence is of no
value, as deceived authorities prove.
There is simply no rhyme or reason behind current popular thought on
homosexuality. All the signs direct people to the fact that homosexuality is
sinful, immoral and dangerous. Yet, they believe the opposite! There can be
only one reason for this apparent cessation of proper intellectual examination
of the facts: Satanic deception.
That is why prayer is of vital importance. Though they will not
understand what is being said in this section, gays and unbelievers will scoff
at the idea of prayer doing anything. Prayer is not just a self-delusional
activity, and it is certainly not a crutch.
Prayer is direct communication with a real God, the Creator of the
universe, the Sustainer of everything ever made. God is aware of what is
happening even before it happens. It is all real. Unbelievers and homosexuals
will laugh, but it does not matter, for it is they who are fools, not us. Scripture
tells us only those who are fools say there is no God!
239
It is very important that Christians tell other Christians the truth about
the situation. A bit at a time is okay, but the truth must be made known. Never
allow a pro-gay comment, no matter how small, to remain unchallenged! It
does not matter who comes out with it, challenge it! There is sufficient
information in this book to help you.
And, if you can, send copies of this book to Congressmen/MP’s, clergy
and pastors, colleges, the media, schools and teachers, Bible colleges,
doctors…as many people as possible. The more who know the truth, the
quicker will be the downfall of homosexual propaganda. Homosexuals have
had their dangerous fun. It is now time to turn the tide. If you only determine to
know the truth and resist being brainwashed, then that is a big help! As far as
the propagandists are concerned, be like a brick-wall!
I do not expect the tide to produce reforms just yet, but if enough
people know the truth and demand change, government will act! They only
acted on behalf of homosexuals because they thought gays had it all nailed
down! But, we must show them they haven’t. Show them that gays constitute
only a very small vocal few. They are not even a ‘community’. Create a
ground-swell of dissident opinion and governments will stop their foolishness.
Governments are not so concerned with truth as they are with votes!
Constantly tell them the facts. Homosexuals got their own way by constantly
spreading lies, so you do it by spreading the truth!
Teach children homosexuality is a sin and a gross perversion. Do this
even if they do not have to attend sex classes. Emphasise it time and again,
because if you don’t gays will take charge! They are already out there trying to
win over your children, so don’t be reticent.
When your kids see something on TV, or hear on radio, or in the
schools, anything about homosexuality, press home the truth. If a TV program
contains gays, turn it off and tell your kids why. As kids they will learn to take
on your attitude and beliefs, and this will help protect them. Keep instilling it
into their minds, so that it is second nature. You MUST do it, because
otherwise gays will brainwash them for you!
Don’t wait until gays have reached them with their lies, tell them
anyway, in anticipation. And keep telling them. And when they see or hear
anything about gays on TV or radio, give them a ‘junior comment’ in suitable
language! Make them afraid to be approached by gays, just as you already
make them afraid to take lifts from strangers (gays?).
Do it in such a way as to show love of the truth and love for people
caught in sin. Teach them to loathe the sin but not the sinner. Never let gay
propaganda win the day and never love the sin. In this way children will grow
into discerning adults, and will be able to spot gay propaganda a mile off!
They must grow up despising homosexuality itself, and should be taught to
see gays as pathetic believers in bad habits.
The aim is to be quietly confident. Constantly, homosexuals try to
undermine public confidence. That is why they use words like ‘bigot’,
‘homophobe’, and so on. Challenge these every time you hear them. Show
you know the truth, and just display a quiet strength. Give similar words
back…’heterophobe’ and ‘bigot’.
Tell about people who change from gay or lesbian back to normality.
This is hated by activists because it destroys their edge! And write to your
local and national newspapers when you can. Challenge homosexual
240
statements with decisive and factual information. In particular give quotes
made by gays themselves. Oppose all and any homosexual statements and
legal decisions, with courteous authority. Know your stuff!
There is now an opportunity to write to countless online newspaper
websites. Use them to give your opinion on news stories they publish. This
book alone gives you plenty of accurate information.
Churches, though it is particularly abhorred by God, homosexuality is
sin. As such it can be removed and repented of. This is done simply by being
saved and giving one’s heart to God.
The number of homosexuals who repent is small, because the
condition is at the end of a very long list of combined sins. However, Jesus
Christ saves even the worst offenders. Therefore, if an homosexual comes to
your church, or someone in the congregation admits to homosexual sin or
desires, but wishes to change, show compassion. Do not shun them!
Such a desire to change must, however, be proved, with an obvious
wish to be different; the person must stop all homosexual activity and contacts
immediately. If he or she has a ‘partner’ then he or she must instantly leave,
because every moment he or she remains in the partnership is another
moment of sin. God demands that we stop sin straight away. There is no
leeway for a time-lapse! And if the sin continues despite many warnings, that
person must be cast out of fellowship, just as would anyone else with any
other kind of open sin.
There are Christian counselling groups who think gays need lengthy
help with counselling, and, even then, they will never escape homosexual
tendencies or thoughts. This is untrue. Christ saves to the uttermost, and
when a person is truly saved from sin, and truly calls for release from
perversion, the Holy Spirit changes the person’s inclinations immediately and
fully. Any further temptations to go back to homosexuality are just that:
temptations. Like all temptations, they can be resisted. Gays can change
because theirs is only a bad habit, and habits can be broken.
If homosexual thoughts and desires creep back in, it is only because
they have firstly been entertained by the Christian experiencing them. In which
case, they are dealt with in the usual manner, repentance and prayer. This is
how all Christians combat their sinfulness!
Once you know the truth about homosexuality, nothing within
homosexuality will change, because the condition remains the same. Even so,
follow news stories and changes in law, etc., so that you can combat them,
speaking with authority. Do it by commenting on the news, etc., to others.
Don’t be fanatical. Just say it as it is. No need to give out every bit of
information all at once. A seed of doubt is very effective.
Churches should also hold teaching sessions, where the full facts are
given. In this way the entire church will know the truth and can stand as one
body. If you know anyone expert in the subject, use him or her. Issue study
notes, so they can be read even by people who did not attend, and used as
reference material. Stay factual and stay Biblical.
As Christian parents, question your child’s school. Do not allow him or
her to attend sex education classes unless you know in detail what is being
taught. If the school will not cooperate, keep your child away from the session,
even if it brings problems to your door (as in the recent appalling case of
241
Parker in the USA). Better to be told off by the school than to let your child be
indoctrinated with gay propaganda.
If your school, or schools you know about, are using gay materials,
complain to the local education authority (whether or not it was the authority
who put the sessions on). In your letter give some facts to back-up what you
say and demand a change in policy. Send this book! Get as many people as
possible to do the same. At the very least, teach your children the truth about
homosexuality, so that any ‘lessons’ they receive are countered.
Try not to be the only one to present complaints or arguments in the
local press. Get many others to do the same, so the public can see they are
not coming from a local crank, but from a far wider social grouping. This
makes it very much harder for local homosexuals to decry what is said, or for
so-called ‘experts’ to get their own way.
Wherever possible collect signatures on a petition, if one is needed,
and advise the media. This can be sent to MP’s, local councillors, and so on.
So, for example, if local schools, insist on teaching sex sessions including gay
material, keep kids away but also petition the local education authority. At the
same time, send a letter to your MP and all local councillors to say what has
been done, and inform the media. It does not matter if they become angry, or
if they are ardent pro-gay people. Just keep plugging away, because that is
exactly what gays are doing.
Remember that gays will no doubt fight back. Just be prepared with
information. Almost all of the information in this book is based on science,
medicine and social theory facts, so gays cannot bleat that it is just religious
fanaticism. There is not even a need to always mention a church or Christian
connection, unless it is required. If it is, be authoritative and never apologise.
As you have seen in this book, Christians offer peace, love and truth, whereas
gays offer AIDS, death and lies. So, what you have to say is worthwhile and
sound.
Write to national government/Senate ministers/Senators, too, from the
President/Prime Minister down. They are advised thus far only by bigoted gay
groups and pro-gay scientists. It is about time others joined in the act and
gave expert non-gay advice! Keep sending, so they know people are angry
and concerned. But, try not to be the only one to write. Send petitions, not just
from Christian organisations, but also from individual Christians and nonChristians.
If you are fingered by police for opposing homosexuality, immediately
write a letter of complaint to the Chief of Police, with a copy to your local
Senator/MP, and to the press. Get others (like Christian organisations) to do
the same, on your behalf, so that the news gets out. Ask police chiefs why
they are harassing law-abiding citizens. Be respectful but firm… you have
right (and the facts) on your side. And send this book!
If you work with homosexuals (male or female) bear in mind that their
sin is like any other sin when it comes to condemnation by God. You don’t
complain if a liar works with you, or even a thief. So, don’t complain about
someone being gay.
On the other hand, set yourself some ‘ground rules’, Many gays are
quiet in the workplace on their own. But, a growing number are vocal and
‘over the top’. If they are being a nuisance, or their words or activities are
imposing and causing you annoyance or embarrassment, tell them quietly. If
242
they continue, go to your superior, employer or personnel department. Or,
your union. All these will probably be pro-gay (at least in their policies), but
you are entitled to peace and freedom from harassment in your workplace. Do
not be abusive, just normal, quiet, but persistent. And get witnesses and
gather written evidence or a diary.
Tell them you are making a formal complaint, and would do so even if
the person was heterosexual. Say that the problem is not sexual orientation,
but the fact that the person is forcing you to listen to, or watch, sexual material
or other thing that is causing you embarrassment or discomfort. In other
words, it is straightforward sexual harassment. Even better, get others to join
you in complaint.
Homosexual?
If you are homosexual, male or female, this section is just for you. I
don’t care if you are rampant, a ‘gay slut’, an obnoxious overt deviant, a quiet
person, or one who has not yet ‘come out’. Whoever you are, you can change!
I also don’t care if you scream and shout about it: the fact remains, that
many gays and lesbians come away from homosexuality permanently. You
know deep down I am telling the truth.
You can change, too. But not with psychology or counselling. You are
probably aware of psychiatric and psychological programs claiming to help
homosexuals to change. Well, in the Christian world (the real world), people
change instantly. This can only be done by God.
As I have said before, if a psychological ‘therapy’ causes you to stop
your gay activities, then that is acceptable, but it is not the ultimate answer.
Even Christian groups who promise help by psychological change are only
doing a partial job. They usually tell you that total change is not possible, but it
is. Jesus Christ changes men and women immediately and totally!
How? Put it this way, if you are to change, it has already been
predetermined by God, way back before the world was made! You are reading
this section for one reason only, and it has nothing to do with your decision to
do so. No, you are in this section because God led you to it, even if you are
angry about it.
The information will have one of two effects. Either you will throw a fit
and stomp off in anger and frustration, or you will read on. If you stomp off, it
is because this section has been used by God as a ‘stumblingblock’. That is,
as a way of showing you that you are totally lost and condemned to hell. (God
says that homosexuals, including so-called ‘gay Christians’, who remain in
their sin will never enter heaven).
But, if you continue reading because something inside you tells you
that you must change, you’d better listen. God is showing you a far better way
and is directing you toward a better life and peace.
If that is how you are right now, you need to repent. That is, say sorry
to God for your homosexuality and homosexual thoughts. Promise to turn the
complete other way, and return to normality and heterosexuality. Ask God to
fill you with purity and holiness. Read the Bible (Authorised Version is best)
and pray. Tell God how you feel, even if wrong thoughts start to invade your
mind again (which they will). As you have read in some testimonies, this can
be hard. Find Christians and confide in them. Ask them to pray for you. Try to
get into a good local church. Stop seeing gays and lesbians immediately.
243
Above all else, when Jesus Christ says He changes lives, He means it.
You can change immediately, not just in hours, days, or weeks, but instantly!
That’s the truth. You don’t have to suffer the awful despondence of being gay
or lesbian, or being shackled to sexual lusts. These things might give you
short-lived thrills, but they will either kill you or make you unable to alter your
mind and heart. There is no joy in being homosexual. There is only hardness,
coldness and loss of self-respect.
But, the real reason for seeking God’s answer is in the blunt fact that
what you are doing is hated by Him. With every homosexual thought and
action, you throw God’s plan of Creation for mankind back in His face! What
you do or think is unnatural, unsafe and unhealthy. It is against God’s plan: He
made man for woman and woman for man. Anything else is sin.
By doing this sin you offend Almighty God, Who sees and hears all. As
a sinner you are completely devoid of the possibility of contact with God, and
will enter hell. You might even experience a ‘hell on earth’ by the way you live.
So, you are offending God by what you think, say and do. If this
message is driving home to your heart, consider it to be God talking to you.
Repent and change right away. Leave your gay friends behind, otherwise you
will be dragged back to the same dark pit they are in.
Every person who has ever lived must go through the same process of
repentance and salvation. Read the testimonies in this book, the two by
people who are now Christians. What happened to them can happen to you.
That’s a fact.
GAYS CAN AND DO CHANGE.
Word of Warning
Very often, when a Christian opposes something as vile as
homosexuality, he or she will be attacked by Satan. This can take the form of
sexual thoughts or inappropriate musing on the subject matter. In my own
case, for example, in my research I saw websites that are pornographic and I
have read material that is, to put it bluntly, filthy. This can all have a bad
effect, and it is a way for Satan to get entry into your mind and heart.
That is why you must pray all the way. Seek protection from bad or
inappropriate thoughts, and clean your mind daily, by telling God about it. Do
not return to those websites for more information than you really need. In
other words, keep away altogether.
Watch you do not become bitter or hateful toward homosexuals.
Present only the facts and demand freedom of speech. In this way you should
be able to remain pure in thought and action.
Christians are called soldiers of God, and soldiers must be prepared for
battle. Do not hold back when you have to fight and oppose, but never enjoy
the fight. Enjoy the fact that Christ is keeping you free of harm, but never
enjoy fighting sinners, no matter how vile they are. Leave vengeance to God!
Finally, let me quote a source not normally referred to: Jerry Ekandjo,
who, as Home Affairs minister for Namibia, wanted to criminalise
homosexuality in 1998. He said what most Christians and others are too afraid
to say today:
“It is my considered opinion that so-called ‘gay rights’ can never qualify
as ‘human rights’… They should be classified as human wrongs which rank as
244
sin against society and God.” He added, “… homosexuals (must) repent of
their ways before society and God, because that is the only way Namibia
could develop as a people… (these are values) fundamental to the welfare
and survival of the nation.”
“The so-called ‘rights’ of lesbians and gays, if not guarded against,
would lead to the extinction of the nation. Gay and lesbian rights can never
qualify to be fundamental rights, because if a male dog knows its right partner
is a female dog, how can a human being fail to notice the difference?”
Mr Ekandjo warned Namibians against accepting western culture
without critical analysis: “We take everything, lock, stock and barrel, without
carefully analysing what is good and what is harmful to us. Today it is
homosexuality, tomorrow the right to walk naked, the day after it will be the
right to abuse drugs. In the end, so-called ‘rights’ will lead to our own
extinction.”
This man’s use of language is different, but he is right in his
assumptions. Whether or not his desires were met does not alter the fact that
he dared to stand up and be counted, for the sake of his nation.
Of course, homosexual groups yelled and screamed about it, but their
arguments are futile. Mr Ekandjo wanted a good future for his people,
whereas homosexuals want Namibia to be yet another haven for those who
wish to pass-on AIDS and immorality. Really, I see no comparison. God help
Namibia if gays get their way! I commend Mr Ekandjo for his valiant stand for
truth!
A number of other countries also speak openly and bluntly about
homosexuality, calling it ‘sin’, or simply pointing out that it is unnatural and
unsafe. Good for them. We pray they will stay strong and not be forced into
submission, because if they fall, their countries will become a seething
breeding ground for bad health, permissiveness and loss of freedom of
speech.
These countries should also note another fact about homosexuality – it
subverts governments and ignores all restraints. Homosexuals are, at heart,
anarchic in thinking. Countries – beware!
245
Appendix 1
Taboos
Strictly, though this statement is concerned primarily with escalation of
violence, it applies in principle to all taboos: “…taboo lines…normally restrain
our most inhuman impulses. It can also lead people to take ever more
extreme and unjustifiable positions.” (165). It can also be applied to the
general attitude of extremism and violence openly declared by gay activists
toward those who reject their views, and to their general demeanour.
“Escalation is the increase in intensity of a conflict. Perhaps the most
destructive conflict dynamic, the cycle of provocation and counter-provocation
eventually results in the replacement of substantive debate with increasingly
hateful and sometimes violent confrontations directed more at hurting
opponents than at advancing interests.
This process plays a crucial role in the long slide toward war and the
crossing of taboo lines which normally restrain our most inhuman impulses. It
can also lead people to take ever more extreme and unjustifiable positions.
Escalation alone is sufficiently powerful to transform what should be a
tractable dispute into one that is virtually impossible to resolve.”
This is what we are now seeing in gays. They have rejected normal
argumentation in favour of causing extreme harm to those they regard as
opponents. When this occurs, five changes can be observed:
1.
2.
3.
4.
10.
A move from ‘light’ tactics (e.g. persuasion and
argumentation) to ‘heavy’ (threats, power plays,
and violence).
The original dispute is expanded to include many
other sources of supposed conflict (whether or
not they are real).
The row goes from being specific to being
general. "What starts out as a small, concrete
concern tends, over the painful history of an
escalating exchange, to be supplanted by
grandiose and all-encompassing positions and
by a general intolerance of the other party."
(166)
The number of factions grows from one to many,
as more and more people and groups are drawn
into the conflict.
The goal of the antagonist moves from "doing
well" to winning and, finally, hurting the other.
(166)
This is exactly what we are seeing in the growing homosexual lobby.
None of it is helpful. But, as we know from dialecticism, the whole point is to
destabilise society so that a new synthesis can take control of behaviour and
norms. “The result of escalation is that a conflict can grow out of control very
246
quickly. Escalated conflicts cease to be focused on the parties' original
problems or goals, nor do they provide a way for those goals to be realized.
Rather, they provide only costs and continued conflict, with little benefit for
anybody.”
“Yet, escalated conflicts are very hard to reverse. Once relationships
have been broken, once distrust, fear, and hatred grow, and especially, once
violence has occurred, it is very difficult to back away from an escalated
conflict and resolve it constructively. Rather, people tend to continue the fight,
if possible, even escalating it further, as this usually seems less risky than
‘showing that you are weak’ by trying to initiate de-escalation.”
Gay activists are not in the least interested in stopping their maniacal
drive to eliminate all and every opposition. In ‘X’s opposition, for example, she
restricted it to a presentation of literary arguments. But, gays are so hyped,
they drove her out of employment with lies and fierce hatred. The hope of
gays, of course, is that if they are fierce enough, they will eventually (and
quickly) gain whatever they want, possibly by public approval.
As I said earlier in this book, it simply does not work that way. Push
ordinary people into a corner with repression and suppression and there can
be only one result, an uprising and an attack on those who impose their will on
others.
“Despite the dangers of escalation, advocates frequently escalate a
conflict intentionally, thinking that they can harness the power of escalation to
mobilize support for their side. While this strategy may appear to work well, it
is also likely to build support for the opposition. Thus the common result is the
intensification of the conflict, not victory.” Gays would do well to look hard at
this evidence, because they are building-up an antagonism that will bring their
downfall!
Christians and others who reject homosexuality as acceptable, do not
impose their will on gays. Rather, they speak against it. Gays, wanting an
ever-increasing notoriety and collection of sins, continually push the limit of
decency and impose their will by violence and illicit laws.
For a while, as the essay says, this might appear to work well for a
while. But, then, those they victimise are joined by others, who, seeing the
wickedness of what is done, turn against the enforcers. The net result is a
reversal of any gains secured by the enforcers and a continuing of conflict.
In the issue of racial inequality, where injustice was not just perceived
or imagined, but very real, non-violence was the better approach. Then, when
Martin Luther King was killed, extremist groups such as Black Panther, moved
in with violence.
But, “that shift in power strategies was very costly for them and society
generally.” (167). This is what is happening in society right now, because
authorities have given gay activists freedom to do harm to the rest of society.
In this way gays have crossed the taboo line of violence almost without a
border-guard check! Without a doubt, the media have all helped to keep the
issues at boiling point by offering sympathy for gay intimidation.
Crossing the sexual taboo line is the same. Once the line is crossed,
the one who crosses it heads not for satisfaction, but for ever-increasing
desires and permissiveness, leading to extremes. It also leads to anger
against anyone who questions what is happening, and even violence.
247
The taboo against homosexuality has existed for thousands of years.
As with many taboos, there is a good reason for it. Whether that reason is
God’s, or society’s, it is there for a good reason, to stop excesses and harm to
all people. In the Christian sense, a taboo is put there by God and is to be
obeyed.
The Sex Taboo
I regularly receive questions from Christians about their sex lives. Many
obviously have ‘hang-ups’ and so I try to alleviate their anxiety with the truth.
This is what I am now doing with homosexuality. It is a sin.
Sexual activity must only be within heterosexual marriage, and many
sexual activities within those boundaries are permissible. I have already
mentioned that anal sex should never be given credence. It is harmful and
against nature. There are one or two other ‘no go’ areas, too. I know there are
Christians who indulge in certain sexual activities they should not commit, but
that is up to their own consciences. They think that so long as an activity is
‘behind closed doors’ it is okay. This is an error, biblically speaking.
A married couple should enjoy their time together, but properly.
Homosexual groups are trying to remove all sexual taboos for everyone, so
they will not be censured for what they do. The reason they try to ‘free’
heterosexual sex practices is that they can then do the same things
themselves!
Homosexuality is not different. It is just illicit (That it is presently ‘legal’
does not change this – it only proves how brainless governments can be at
times). Every person chooses what aspect of sexual activity he or she
indulges in. If the person remains true to nature, he or she will only use
heterosexual activities, e.g. male and female. Prostitution between males and
females is not acceptable and is immoral, but is at least within the realm of
natural use of the body. Other activities are both immoral and unnatural,
homosexuality being one of them, and have no place in society.
248
Appendix 2
The Homosexualisation of Society
Film Review of blatant homosexual propaganda
27th December 2005 (168)
David Kupelian, author of the best-selling book, ‘The Marketing of Evil’,
was widely quoted in the news media for his criticism of the new film
‘Brokeback Mountain’. Here, Kupelian explains how and why the controversial
movie is “one of the most powerful homosexual propaganda films of our time.”
He successfully describes how gay propaganda works, through
homosexuals’ use of state-of-the-art cinema techniques and plenty of bigbudget money. The idea is very simple, to break-down public antagonism to
homosexuality through music, film and drama. For years the rock music scene
has done this successfully. Whilst I, as a Christian, will not listen to gay
groups or singers, most others do, ‘for the music’. In this way they support and
condone gays.
As you read the outline of the review, think carefully of the ways gays
are infiltrating society using these methods, not just in one film, but in every
part of our lives. Read and beware! Read and weep, not for the two main
characters in the film, who deserve nothing but disdain and rebuke, but for our
own loss of morality and truth.
You might think I have been extravagant to include such a long review
in a book. My response is, anything that shows the sheer evil of
homosexuality is to be commended and shown to the public. If the review
stops just one person from caving-in to homosexual propaganda, then it’s
inclusion in this book is worth it. Always read between the lines! Look for the
principles being cleverly inserted into everything!
Review
" ‘Brokeback Mountain’, the controversial ‘gay cowboy’ film that has
garnered seven Golden Globe nominations and breathless media reviews and has now emerged as a front-runner for the Oscars - is a brilliant
propaganda film, reportedly causing viewers to change the way they feel
about homosexual relationships and same-sex marriage. (Ed. at least that is
what homosexuals will claim; it doesn’t have to be true!)
And how do the movie-makers pull off such a dazzling feat? Simple.
They do it by raping the ‘Marlboro Man’, that revered American symbol of
rugged individualism and masculinity.
We all know the Marlboro Man. In ‘The Marketing of Evil’, I show how
the Philip Morris Company made marketing history by taking one of the most
positive American images of all time - the cowboy - and attaching it to a
negative, death-oriented product: cigarettes.
249
Hit the pause button for a moment so this idea can completely sink in:
Cigarette marketers cleverly attached, in the public's mind, two utterly
unrelated things: 1) the American cowboy, with all of the powerful feelings that
image evokes in us, of independence, self-confidence, wide-open spaces and
authentic Americanism, and 2) cigarettes, a stinky, health-destroying waste of
money. This legendary advertising campaign targeting men succeeded in
transforming market underdog Marlboro (up until then, sold as a women's
cigarette with the slogan ‘Mild as May’) into the world's best-selling cigarette.
It was all part of the modern marketing revolution, which meant that,
instead of touting a product's actual benefits, marketers instead would
psychologically manipulate the public by associating their product with the
fulfilment of people's deepest, unconscious needs and desires. (Want to sell
liquor? Put a seductive woman in the ad.) Obviously, the marketers could
never actually deliver on that promise, but emotional manipulation sure is an
effective way to sell a lot of products.”
“The ‘Marlboro Man’ campaign launched 50 years ago. Today, the
powerful cowboy image is being used to sell us on another self-destructive
product: homosexual sex and ‘gay’ marriage.
In ‘Brokeback Mountain’, a film adaptation of the 1997 New Yorker
short story by Annie Proulx, two 19-year-old ranchers named Ennis Del Mar
(Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (Jake Gyllenhaal) have been hired to guard
sheep on a rugged mountain in 1963 Wyoming. One night, the bitter cold
drives Ennis into Jack's tent so they can keep each other warm. As they lie
there, suddenly and almost without warning, these two young men - both of
whom later insist they're not ‘queer’ - jump out of the sack and awkwardly and
violently engage in anal sex.”
“Ultimately, Ennis ends up alone, with nothing, living in a small,
secluded trailer, having lost both his family and his homosexual partner. He's
comforted only by his most precious possession - Jack's shirt - which he
pitifully embraces, almost in a slow dance, his aching loneliness masterfully
projected into the audience via the film's artistry.
Yes, the talents of Hollywood's finest are brought together in a
successful attempt at making us experience Ennis's suffering, supposedly
inflicted by a homophobic society. Heath Ledger's performance is brilliant and
devastating. We do indeed leave the theater feeling Ennis's pain. Mission
accomplished.”
“Lost in all of this, however, are towering, life-and-death realities
concerning sex and morality and the sanctity of marriage and the
preciousness of children and the direction of our civilization itself. So please,
you moviemakers, how about easing off that tight camera shot of Ennis's
suffering and doing a slow pan over the massive wreckage all around him?
What about the years of silent anguish and loneliness Alma stoically endures
for the sake of keeping her family together, or the terrible betrayal, suffering
and tears of the children, bereft of a father? None of this merits more than a
brief acknowledgment in ‘Brokeback Mountain’.”
“What is important to the moviemakers, rather, is that the viewer be
made to feel, and feel, and feel again as deeply as possible the exquisitely
painful loneliness and heartache of the homosexual cowboys – denied their
truest happiness because of an ignorant and homophobic society.
250
Thus are the Judeo-Christian moral values that formed the very
foundation and substance of Western culture for the past three millennia all
swept away on a delicious tide of manufactured emotion. And believe me,
skilled directors and actors can manufacture emotion by the truckload. It's
what they do for a living.
Co-star Jake Gyllenhaal realized the movie's power to transform
audiences in Toronto, where, according to Entertainment magazine, "he was
approached by festival-goers proclaiming that their preconceptions had been
shattered by the film's insistence on humanizing gay love."
" ‘Brokeback Mountain’, said Gyllenhaal, ‘is that pure place you take
someone that's free of judgment. These guys were scared. What they feared
was not each other but what was outside of each other. What was so sad was
that it didn't have to happen like that.’ But then, said the article, Gyllenhaal
jumped to his feel and exclaimed triumphantly: ‘I mean, people's minds have
been changed. That's amazing.’
Changed indeed. And that's the goal. Film is, by its very nature, highly
propagandistic. That is, when you read a book, if you detect you're being lied
to or manipulated, you can always stop reading, close the book momentarily
and say, "Wait just a minute, there's something wrong here!" You can't do that
in a film: You're bombarded with sound and images, all expertly crafted to give
you selected information and to stimulate certain feelings, and you can't stop
the barrage, not in a theater anyway. The visuals and sound and music - and
along with them, the underlying agenda of the filmmakers - pursue you
relentlessly, overwhelming your emotions and senses.
And when you leave the theater, unless you're really objective to what
you've experienced, you've been changed - even if just a little bit.
Want to know how easily your feelings can be manipulated? Let's take
the smallest, most seemingly insignificant example and see. Sit down at a
piano and play a song, any song - even ‘Mary Had a Little Lamb’ - as long as
it's in a major key. Then, play the same song, but change from a major to a
minor key; just lower the third step of the scale by a half-step so the melody
and harmony become minor. If you watch carefully, you'll note this one tiny
change makes the minor-key version sound a bit melancholy and sad, while
the normal, major-key version sounds bright and happy. (As the expression
goes, ‘Major glad, minor sad.’
Now take this principle and apply it to a feature film by expanding it a
million-fold. A movie's musical score has one overriding function - to make the
viewer feel a certain way at strategic points during the story. And music is just
one of dozens of factors and techniques used to influence audiences in the
deepest way possible. Everything from the script to the directing to the
camera work to the acting, which in ‘Brokeback Mountain’ is brilliant, serve the
purpose of making the movie-makers' vision seem like reality - even if it's
twisted and perverse.
Do we understand that Hollywood could easily produce a similar movie
to ‘Brokeback Mountain’, only this time glorifying an incest relationship, or
even an adult-child sexual relationship? Like ‘Brokeback’, it too would serve to
desensitize us to the immoral and destructive reality of what we're seeing,
while fervently coaxing us into embracing that which we once rightly shunned.
All the filmmakers would need to do is skilfully make viewers
experience the actors' powerful emotions of loneliness and emptiness -
251
juxtaposed with feelings of joy and fulfilment when the two ‘lovers’ are
together - to bring us to a new level of ‘understanding’ for any forbidden ‘love’.
Alongside this, of course, they would necessarily portray those opposed to
this unorthodox ‘love’ as Nazis or thugs. Thus, many of us would let go of our
‘old-fashioned’ biblical ideas of morality in light of what seems like the more
imminent and undeniable reality of human ‘love’ in all its diverse forms.
A ‘Brokeback’-type movie could easily be made, for instance, to portray
a female school teacher's affair with a 14-year-old student as ‘a magnificent
love story’. And I'm not talking about the 2000 made-for-TV potboiler, ‘AllAmerican Girl: The Mary Kay Letourneau Story’, about the Seattle school
teacher who seduced a sixth-grade student, went to prison for statutory rape,
and later married the boy having had two children by him. I'm talking about a
big-budget, big-name Hollywood masterpiece aimed at transforming America
through film, just as Hitler relied on master filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl to make
propaganda films to manipulate the emotions of an entire nation.
In place of ‘Brokeback Mountain's’ scene with the castrated
homosexual, the ‘adult-child love story’ could have a similar scene in which,
as a young girl, the future teacher's mother took her to see the body of a
woman who had fallen in consensual ‘love’ with a 14-year-old boy, only to be
brutalized, her breasts cut off, and bludgeoned to death - all by Nazi-like
bigoted neighbors. (So that's why she couldn't be honest and open about her
later relationship with her student). Inevitably, such a film would make us
doubt our former condemnation of adult-child sex, or at least reduce our
outrage as we gained more ‘understanding’ and sympathy for the participants.
It would cause us to ask the same question one reviewer asked after seeing
‘Brokeback Mountain’: ‘In an age when the fight over gay marriage still rages,
'Brokeback Mountain,' the tale of two men who are scarcely even allowed to
imagine being together, asks, through the very purity with which it touches us:
When it comes to love, what sort of world do we really want?’
OK, I'll bite. Let's talk about love. The critics call ‘Brokeback Mountain’
a ‘pure’ and ‘magnificent’ love story. Do we really want to call such an
obsession - especially one that destroys marriages and is based on constant
lies, deceit and neglect of one's children – ‘love’?
What if I were a heroin addict and told you I loved my drug dealer?
What if I told you he always makes me feel good, and that I have a hard time
living without him, and that I think about him all the time with warm feelings of
anticipation and inner completion? And that whenever we get together, it's the
only time I feel truly happy and at peace with myself?
Oh, you don't approve of my ‘love’? You dare to criticize it, telling me
my relationship with my drug dealer is not real love, but just an unhealthy
addiction? What if I respond to you by saying, ‘Oh shut up, you hater. How
dare you impose your sick, narrow-minded, oppressive values on me? Who
are you, you pinch-faced, moralistic hypocrite, to define for me what real love
is?’
Don't laugh. I guarantee Hollywood could make a movie about a man
and his drug dealer, or an adult-child sexual relationship, that would pull on
our emotions and create some level of sympathy for the characters.
Furthermore, in at least some cases, it would make us doubt our conscience a gift directly from God, the perception of right and wrong that he puts in each
252
one of us - our inner knowing that this was a totally unhealthy and selfdestructive relationship.
Ultimately, propaganda works because it washes over us,
overwhelming our senses, confusing us, upsetting or emotionalizing us, and
thereby making us doubt what we once knew. Listen to what actor Jake
Gyllenhaal, who plays Jack, told the reporter for Entertainment magazine
about doing the ‘love’ scenes with Heath Ledger:
‘I was super uncomfortable . [but] what made me most courageous was
that I realized I had to try to let go of that stereotype I had in my mind, that bit
of homophobia, and try for a second to be vulnerable and sensitive. It was f--in' hard, man. I succeeded only for milliseconds.’
Gyllenhaal thinks he was ‘super uncomfortable’ while being filmed
having simulated homosexual sex because of his own ‘homophobia’. Could it
be, rather, that his conflict resulted from putting himself in a position, having
agreed to do the film, where he was required to violate his own conscience?
As so often happens, he was tricked into pushing past invisible internal
barriers - crossing a line he wasn't meant to cross. It's called seduction. (Ed.
See Appendix 1, on Taboos!).
This is how the ‘marketers of evil’ work on all of us. They transform our
attitudes by making us feel as though our ‘super uncomfortable’ feelings
toward embracing unnatural or corrupt behavior of whatever sort - a
discomfort literally put into us by a loving God, for our protection - somehow
represent ignorance or bigotry or weakness.
I wrote ‘The Marketing of Evil’ to expose these people, and especially
to reveal the hidden techniques they've been using for decades to confuse us,
to manipulate our feelings and get us to doubt and turn our backs on the truth
we once knew and loved. Indeed, whether they're outright lying to us, or
ridiculing us for our traditional beliefs, or trying to make us feel guilty over
some supposed bigotry on our part, the ‘marketers of evil’ can prevail simply
by intimidating or emotionally stirring us up in one way or another. Once that
happens, we can easily become confused and lose the inborn understanding
God gave us. We all need that inner understanding or common sense,
because it's our primary protection from all the evil influences in this world.
As I said at the outset, Hollywood has now raped the Marlboro Man. It
has taken a revered symbol of America - the cowboy - with all the powerful
emotions and associations that are rooted deep down in the pioneering
American soul, and grafted onto it a self-destructive lifestyle it wants to force
down Americans' throats. The result is a brazen propaganda vehicle designed
to replace the reservations most Americans still have toward homosexuality
with powerful feelings of sympathy, guilt over past ‘homophobia’ - and
ultimately the complete and utter acceptance of homosexuality as equivalent
in every way to heterosexuality.
If and when that day comes, America will have totally abandoned its
core biblical principles - as well as the Author of those principles. The radical
secularists will have gotten their wish, and this nation - like the traditional
cowboy characters corrupted in ‘Brokeback Mountain’ - will have stumbled
down a sad, self-destructive and ultimately disastrous road.”
253
Advice:
David Kupelian watched this film for review purposes. I reviewed many
unsavoury pieces of information for this book. But, Christians in general are
strongly advised not to watch films or videos with homosexual themes. Don’t
read literature by homosexuals. Don’t gather socially with them. Do not give
them credibility at all, not even the tiniest of acknowledgements. Gays can be
as industrious and talented in everyday things as anyone else, but in matters
of homosexuality they must be totally shunned and ignored.
David asks if anyone can watch such a film, so engulfed in homosexual
film-making techniques, and come away without being changed. Perhaps all it
takes is to be a victim of homosexual hatred and deception, to be objective! I
could watch the film (though I will not) and come away even more hardened to
the supposed ‘plight’ of the two cowboys, because I know the truth about
homosexual perversion and what it really means for society. It would simply
strengthen my resolve. But, I take his point: most folk know nothing about the
reality behind homosexuality, so they will be swayed by emotional themes
used by film-makers.
Possibly the best defence is to keep telling yourself the truth:
homosexuality is unnatural, false, a deception, hateful, a blot on society, a
major health risk, the cause of many marriage break-ups and the trauma of
children. There is nothing in homosexuality to elicit emotional or any other
kind of support. It must remain condemned, as God decrees and the truth
demands.
254
Appendix 3
The Gay ‘Rights’ Charter
Everywhere, gays (male and female) are claiming their ‘rights’. Below is
an accurate portrayal of what these ‘rights’ are:
“ As homosexuals we have the following inalienable rights:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
Not to be questioned on anything, no matter how stupid is our claim
To lie to governments and people, without being accountable
To intimidate and commit acts of violence without restraint
To willingly contract fatal diseases, without blame
To willingly pass-on fatal diseases to all of mankind, without blame
To misrepresent the facts, whether social, scientific or theological.
To force governments to ignore actual facts and to be as stupid and
unbalanced as we are
To reject all and any rational examination of the falsity we care to
shove down the throats of all and any people and official bodies
To bring mayhem and havoc to the streets of all countries, by flouting
their laws, and then shouting ‘abuse’ when their police are rough with
us
To demonise those countries if they resist, so that other deluded
countries force them to give in and allow us, as immoral people, to
flood their country with evil, leading to disease
To bring about media control so that no media ever produce anything
contradictory to what we really do or want, and suppress facts
To control business and university policies, so that those who know the
truth cannot speak them, but are demonised
To control law so that those who know the truth are criminalized or lose
their jobs if they dare to speak out
To scream, shout, and abuse and offend anyone we wish
To seek legal and police action if anyone does the same back
To do the same even if people do nothing at all
To deny freedom of speech to all and any peoples, because we say so
To introduce false data to universities, medical, psychological and
scientific circles, so that these will be used against the population and
in our favour
To prevent opposing views from surfacing and ruining our carefully
constructed lies, and to subvert genuine research
To make immorality moral
To pretend unnatural acts and thoughts are natural and good
To seduce children so that we can have as much illegal sex as possible
To teach children in schools that we have a right to sodomise and
otherwise sexualise them, even though parents object and common
sense and morality reject our values
To be thoroughly objectionable and evil and not to face the
consequences of our actions
255
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
To pretend to be happy when we are all miserable
To pretend, against the facts, that our sexuality is fixed
To twist all known facts so that they are unrecognisable
To spread lies and deceit in such a way as to bring about a ‘following of
fools’ (politicians, medics, scientists, police) who support our false
cause, making them more stupid than we are
To crush all Christians in particular, and to erect a false gay
‘Christianity’ in its place, so that we may ease our consciences our own
way.
To do the same with any religion that opposes us
To build societies completely under our control, with official sanctions
These are our inalienable rights, because we say so and idiots support
us. We uphold the freedom of fascists and the individuality of Marxists,
and denounce everything we have not constructed on the failing
foundation of the rotting flesh of homosexuality. Anyone who rejects
this Charter will be attacked with ferocity and foul-mouthed abuse.
Furthermore, those officials and governments we have already
brainwashed will NOT repeal pro-gay laws after being shocked by the
truth of what we truly are, because we command them not to.”
256
Appendix 4
Big Girl’s Blouse Award
‘Big girl’s blouse’ is one of those cute British sayings. Apparently, it is
used to describe a wimpish man who complains like a snivelling schoolgirl
about something he doesn’t like. Maybe we should run an annual award for
the gay who is the ‘Big Girl’s Blouse’ of the Year.
The choice for 2006 is a certain Professor (yes, someone of stature…
excuse me, I’ve just started to splutter and cough) in the USA, for being afraid
of sheets of paper. No, I’m not kidding. This stalwart of University life, whose
keen mind trawls academia to bring the very best to his students, is deeply
afraid of a book! Yes, that’s right, a book. Oh, and he’s gay.
The book is ‘The Marketing of Evil’ by David Kupelian (who also
provided the excellent review of ‘Brokeback Mountain’). The university
librarian who suggested the book to a freshman was disciplined heavily
merely for suggesting it!
The Prof., that towering (or tottering) symbol of all that is wonderful in
free thought, actually told everybody - get ready - that he was ‘threatened’ by
the book! But nay, forsooth, he goes even further and says he ‘no longer feels
safe in his job’ because he says he is ‘harassed’ by the book. (Excuse me, I’m
spluttering and coughing again. No, I’m NOT laughing uncontrollably at
someone’s girly flounce).
I know what he means. I went into a library the other day and I am
convinced a book on the right side, top shelf, glared at me threateningly. I’m
not kidding. I mean it. I felt so threatened and harassed, I ran out screaming
like a BGB. I sued the librarian for stocking it, the publisher for publishing it,
and the trees in the Amazon for growing wood to make the paper. And I was
successful. So, I completely understand my fellow BGB.
In those moments of despair that accompany such awful trauma as
seeing books on a shelf, I am sure the Prof. wept tears of terror as he sipped
his Martini and laughed with his gay friends about the time he managed to
prove to his university that he was a BGB.
Does our terribly maimed and injured Professor manipulate minds?
Does he indoctrinate students and staff by intimidating them with gay threats?
Does he promote gay over heterosexual? Does he destroy freedom of speech
and thought, so essential in any university? (Yes, he does, by the way). Is he,
indeed, the ideal candidate for the BGB Award 2006? We’ll take a vote (but
not from gays, who might just be biased). If he reads this and screams in
absolute fear, the choice will be confirmed as suitable.
One day, people like our scaredy-cat Professor will be savaged. Then,
they will have plenty of reason to scream and simper like a BGB. If he wins
the award, he will be savaged by those he has manipulated and threatened.
Of course, we all know that the very terms he used to attack Kupelian are
stock phrases taken from the gay agenda written by Kirk and Madsen.
Wherever you go, BGB gays bleat and simper about being ‘harassed’ or
‘feeling unsafe’ and ‘uncomfortable’, and so on, because they know these are
the buttons to get someone dismissed or disciplined or attacked. They are
257
playing a great game and, at the moment, they are winning, because so many
people are duped by their marketing ploys.
The Prof. does not care less about a book, or a librarian. He only wants
to enforce gay fascism in his university, so that no-one will dare to oppose or
even think against homosexual propaganda. For this he is more than willing to
win the BGB Award for 2006.
It’s a pity the university does not act responsibly, with sense and
intelligence, and dismiss the Professor for creating such a rumpus for no
reason. Even better, they should tie him to a chair in the library and surround
him with books until he cries himself to sleep.
Isn’t it interesting? This childish Prof can get his own way by claiming
(though this is only a ploy of his) to feel ‘uncomfortable’ because of Christiantype objections. But, the fact that people like me are repulsed and feel sick to
our collective stomach by homosexual perversions makes no difference. It is
about time we took this up as an human right!
For more details, see WorldNewsNet.com
Hatred?
All gays follow their gay activist advisers, particularly when it comes to
use of language. For gays foul and pornographic language is a given. It is as if
filth is just waiting to pour out. I am not talking about this, but about the way all
gays use any stupidity activists think will gain a point or two.
Thus, one of the most prevalent words used by gays is ‘hatred’.
Everything and anything is now ‘hatred’! Like little kids who learn a new word,
gays all fall in line to utter the same words. So, today, everything said by the
opposition is ‘hatred’, or ‘hate speech’!! It is so boring! But, it is also effective,
and that is why a warning is necessary here.
Gays are successfully telling politicians and all in power that the giving
of facts about homosexuality is ‘hatred’ (oh yes, and to use that stupid word,
‘homophobic’). Pro-gays do not bother to look at this claim.
A doctor examines a patient and finds he has cancer. Now, according
to gay logic, if the doctor tells the man he has cancer, he is using ‘hate
speech’! And if he dares to say the cancer is caused by smoking, it is doublehate speech!
An homosexual is in an unnatural relationship. This is as plain as day.
It is also unsafe. All the statistics prove it. Yet, if we quote those statistics and
give our logical conclusions, it is ‘hate speech’! Eh? Are pro-gay tiny-tots
conducting an examination of the facts, or grown adults?
Gays are deliberately causing riots in countries that do not accept
homosexuality. Then they accuse those countries of hatred when their police
clamp down. Eh?
In the UK police chiefs allow their gay officers to attend obnoxious gay
pride parades. In those parades lewd and obscene actions are engaged in,
yet the police do not arrest anyone. Eh?
Gays are responsible for the majority of AIDS cases in the west. Gay
men are responsible for the vast number of paedophile crimes. But, if anyone
dares to simply point these facts out, it is ‘hatred’! Eh?
I have suggested that aliens must have sucked the brains out of the
heads of those in power. How else can they explain their blatant ignoring of
the truth? It’s about time our Masters grew up and acted responsibly.
258
Appendix 5
Gay Equality – Just an Illusion!
(Extract from ''How America Went Gay'', http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/)
“My wife, Clare, who has an unerring aptitude for getting to the heart of
things, said one day recently in passing, "I think everybody's being
brainwashed." That gave me a start. I know "brainwashing" is a term that has
been used and overused. But my wife's casual observation only reminded me
of a brilliant tract I had read several years ago and then forgotten. It was
called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays
in the 1990's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.
That book turned out to be the blueprint gay activists would use in their
campaign to normalize the abnormal through a variety of brainwashing
techniques once catalogued by Robert Jay Lifton in his seminal work, Thought
Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China.
In their book Kirk and Madsen urged that gay activists adopt the very
strategies that helped change the political face of the largest nation on earth.
The authors knew the techniques had worked in China. All they needed was
enough media-and enough money-to put them to work in the United States.
And they did. These activists got the media and the money to radicalize
America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion.
They would desensitize the public by selling the notion that gays were
"just like everyone else." This would make the engine of prejudice run out of
steam, i.e., lull straights into an attitude of indifference.
They would jam the public by shaming them into a kind of guilt at their
own "bigotry." Kirk and Madsen wrote: ‘All normal persons feel shame when
they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like one of the
pack....The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting
twinge of shame...when his homohatred surfaces. Thus, propagandistic
advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude
loudmouths....It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict
gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatredsuffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause.’
The best thing about this technique, according to Kirk and Madsen: The
bigot did not even have to believe he was a loathsome creature: ‘ Rather, our
effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. Just as the
bigot became such, without any say in the matter, through repeated
infralogical emotional conditioning, his bigotry can be alloyed in exactly the
same way, whether he is conscious of the attack or not. In short, jamming
succeeds insofar as it inserts even a slight frisson of doubt and shame into the
previously unalloyed, self-righteous pleasure. The approach can be quite
useful and effective - if our message can get the massive exposure upon
which all else depends.’
Finally - this was the process they called conversion - Kirk and Madsen
predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among bigots, ‘if
we can actually make them like us.’ They wrote, ‘Conversion aims at just
259
this...conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through
a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation
via the media.’
In the movie "Philadelphia" we see the shaming technique and the
conversion process working at the highest media level. We saw Tom Hank's
character suffering (because he was gay and had AIDS) at the hands of
bigots in his Philadelphia law firm. Not only were we ashamed of the
homophobic behavior of the villainous straight lawyers in the firm; we felt
nothing but sympathy for the suffering Hanks. (Members of the Motion Picture
Academy felt so much sympathy they gave Hanks an Oscar). Our feelings
helped fulfill Kirk and Madsen's strategy: ‘to make Americans hold us in warm
regard, whether they like it or not.’
Few dared speak out against "Philadelphia" as an example of the kind
of propaganda Kirk and Madsen had called for. By then, four years after the
publication of the Kirk-Madsen blueprint, the American public had already
been programmed. Homosexuality was now simply ‘an alternate lifestyle.’
Best of all, because of the persuaders embedded in thousands of media
messages, society's acceptance of homosexuality seemed one of those
spontaneous, historic turnings in time-yes, a kind of conversion.
Nobody quite knew how it happened, but the nation had changed. We
had become more sophisticated, more loving toward all, even toward those
‘afflicted’ with the malady - excuse me, condition.
By 1992 the President of the United States said it was time that people
who were openly gay and lesbian should not be ousted from the nation's
armed forces. In 1993 the nation's media celebrated a huge outpouring of gay
pride in Washington, D.C. Television viewers chanted along with half a million
marchers, ‘Two, four, six, eight! Being gay is really great.’
We felt good about ourselves. We were patriotic Americans. We had
abolished one more form of discrimination, wiped out one of society's most
enduring afflictions: homophobia. Best of all, we knew now that gay was good,
gay was free.
Excuse me. Gay is not good. Gay is not decidedly free. How do I know
this? For more than 40 years, I have been in solidarity with hundreds of
homosexuals, my patients, and I have spent most of my professional life
engaged in exercising a kind of "pastoral care" on their behalf. But I do not
help them by telling them they are O.K. when they are not O.K. Nor do I
endorse their ‘new claim to self-definition and self-respect.’
Tell me: Have we dumped the idea that a man's self-esteem comes
from something inside himself (sometimes called character) and from having a
good education, a good job and a good family-and replaced that notion with
this, that he has an affinity to love (and have sex with) other men?”
Editor: This, and all the other pieces of information above, is nothing
compared to what you will now read in the final section, Appendix 6.
260
Appendix 6
Homosexuality – the Disgusting Reality
Unequal. Unsafe. Unnatural.
For any sane person, everything shown thus far is bad enough. In this
last section, you will read about the really ‘bad stuff’ homosexuals say they will
force on society once they have obtained their initial legal ‘rights’ and removed
freedom of speech.
As you read this section, you are warned that, at some point, you
may not just have a feeling of nausea, but you might physically vomit.
Be prepared for some of the most disgusting information you will ever
come across… and what you will read is only a partial story – there is far
more, equally disgusting and vile.
I ask all who still remain pro-gay to this juncture, even though all
the evidences shown to you indicate that homosexuality is a black stain
on humanity, how you can justify your support of homosexuals in the
light of what you will read next?
Furthermore, I ask all governments in the world to justify pro-gay
laws and support. What you will read should cause deep revulsion in
you, enough to remove your support and to repeal all pro-gay laws. If
you do not, then I fear for your sanity and ability to reason.
Source: http://www.pathlights.com/Public%20Enemies/Homo-sheet.htm
Used with permission. Comments added by author/editor.
Homosexual Fact Sheet
Before you read this, remember the warning
This fact sheet has been prepared because, throughout the nation, in
the churches, and in my own denomination, there is an increasing acceptance
of homosexuality as a normal and acceptable way of life.
Here is information to read and share with others. Make copies and
distribute them. You have loved ones who need to be warned.
A number of in-depth studies have, for decades, been carried outdirect medical studies, analysis of obituaries in homosexual magazines (which
list the age at death and cause), and questionnaires distributed in a number of
U.S. cities. From this, extensive data have been collected. You will not read
about it in the public press because, frankly, the media today favors
homosexuality.
Here are these facts:
A GAY LIFESTYLE LEADS TO AN EARLY DEATH
Stay away from homosexuality, if you do not want to have a miserable,
disease-ridden life and an early death - avoid it as the plague.
261
Whenever you see photos of men and women who admit they are gays
or videos of them marching in Washington, D.C., New York City, San
Francisco, or elsewhere - you only see young ones. Most are in their twenties,
and a few are in their thirties. The older ones are generally dead or in such
bad shape they can no longer take part in such marches. Many of the younger
ones are also sick with various diseases or dying in hospitals, and not in
attendance.
Everyone knows that smoking, alcohol, and fast driving will kill you. But
sodomy will kill you quicker.
The median (average middle number) age of death for gays is about
the same nationwide: Less than 2% survive until old age. The average
American now lives to be about 70. For male gays who die of AIDS, the
median age is 39. For male gays who die of something else, the median age
at death is 42. The median age at death of lesbians is 44.
WHY GAYS DO NOT LIVE VERY LONG
Surely, inner-city violence ought to kill people off quicker than
homosexuality, yet the average person living in a crime-ridden district of New
York, Chicago, or Los Angeles will live longer than a practicing homosexual.
Why is this?
Gays engage in very strange activities, which produce infections and
diseases of various types - and they are indulging in those dangerous
activities about as much now as before AIDS entered the picture.
Dr. William Haseltine, of the Harvard Medical School, concluded his
1993 study by noting that gays are just as intensively involved in their
activities as ever; the increase of AIDS and other diseases has not stopped
them a bit (AIDS prognosis, Washington Times, Feb 13, 1993). (Editor: This is
confirmed in figures 12 years later, as recent as 2005. See relevant chapter.
In fact, gays are indulging in their risky behaviours even moreso nowadays).
The average homosexual has 50 to 70 different "partners" every year,
year in and year out. You can see why the average 20-year-old who begins
the gay lifestyle will have AIDS, another very serious disease, or be dead by
the time he is 30. (Editor: Now, gays are trying their best to hide this image of
promiscuity – but it remains a steady fact of homosexuality).
Gay activists often argue that what consenting adults do in private is
nobody else's business. Yet they have sex with so many different partners (P.
Gebhard & A. Johnson, Kinsey Data, 6; K. Jay & A. Young, Gay Report, 7; P.
Cameron, Psych. Reports, 1989, 64:1167-1179) that they increase their risk of
getting, or giving sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) to husbands, wives,
children, etc.
Researchers have found that homosexuals have more STDs than
non-homosexuals (P. Cameron, Nebr. Med. J., 1985, 70:292-299).
Studies reveal that gays do these things all over the world; that is why
gays in one country are as sick as those in another country.
We would rather not even mention their activities (they are all so
horrible), but it is difficult to explain why gays have so many terrible diseases,
without briefly mentioning the causes.
There are several main types of homosexual activities:
262
1.
Oral sex. This is the primary method used, and it involves swallowing
sperm. Because semen contains many of the germs found in blood, eating it
is essentially the same as drinking someone else's raw blood. This is a very
unhealthy, dangerous practice. The penis is often infected, and has often
been placed in another person's rectum.
As a result, oral sex leads rather quickly to hepatitis A, gonorrhea, HIV,
and/or hepatitis B, unusual cancers, and more.
Because they have sex with so many different people (over 70% admit
that, with over half their partners, they have had sex only once [A. Bell & M.
Weinberg, Homosexualities, p. 18], the risk of infection is quite high. Gays
average between 10 and 110 partners per year).
2
Rectal sex. About 90% of gays have done this (New Engl J. Med.,
1980, 302:45-48). About two-thirds do it regularly. The rectal lining is only one
cell thick, and semen readily penetrates it, transmitting AIDS and other
diseases. It is quite common for the rectal wall to be torn, which causes direct
rectal infections, plus transmitting hepatitis B, HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea and
other diseases. (Editor: rectal sex is a primary cause of spread of HIV. It is
just as immoral in heterosexual sex).
3.
"Fisting". The insertion of the fist, hands and whole forearms, bottles,
carrots, and even live gerbils [C. Adams, The Reader, Mar 28, 1986] is also
done. This not only increases contamination, but can result in a person having
to wear a colostomy bag and diapers for the rest of his life. By 1977, over a
third of gays admitted to having done it. By 2005 – far more do it!
4
Faecal sex. Oddly enough, those who enter upon homosexual
activities like to eat human manure, and spray urine in one another's face!
There is supposed to be happiness in doing this. (Editor: This is not odd at all.
It is the result of following a depraved lifestyle and sin to its bitter end).
Faecal sex involves licking the anus and/or eating faecal matter. In a
diary study, 70% of gays had engaged in this (and half regularly) in the
previous 6 months (New Engl J. Med., 1980, 302:45-48). (Editor: I have
observed this behaviour – eating faeces – only in mentally deranged patients,
who also have many other bizarre and obnoxious habits).
The result is hepatitis A, a dangerous liver infection. In addition, certain
enteric parasites enter the body (the medical term for the infection is "gay
bowel syndrome").
Eating faeces also results in typhoid fever, herpes, and cancer. One
study found that 10% of the gays with some of these infections (including
amoeba, giardia, and shigella) "were employed as food handlers in public
establishments" (New Engl J. Med., 1980, 302:45-48). (Editor: For these
reasons I will not eat with homosexuals, or eat food they have cooked,
prepared, or served, or otherwise handled. Anyone who reads this and throws
caution to the wind is insane! That goes for all who are pro-gay, whether
politicians, doctors, lawyers, law-makers, etc. Remember – it is YOUR mouth
organisms are passed into! And, what about old people’s rest homes, or
children’s hospitals, etc., who employ gays? Ever wondered why there are so
many stomach ailments? Do you now want to eat at a gay’s house or
eatery?).
263
A January-June 1991 CDC report found that 66% of the hepatitis A
cases in New York were gays. Rates for other U.S. cities were comparable
(CDC Report, MMWR 1992, 41:155-64). A 1982 study noted that gays are
spreading hepatitis A to the general population. Let us all give thanks to them!
5
Urine sex. The largest gay survey to date found that 23% drank, or
splashed one another with, urine. This adds to the rate of infection from
various diseases. Their "pleasures" are utterly weird. (Editor: Can you now
see why homosexuality was once classed as a mental disturbance? Nothing
has changed, so it should be placed back into the ‘mental’ classification).
A San Francisco study of 655 gays summarized the above practices:
5% drank urine, 7% did "fisting," 33% ate faeces, 53% swallowed semen, and
59% received semen in their rectums, during the previous month alone (Amer.
J. Public Health, 1985, 75:493-496). (Editor; THIS is ‘normal’?? Pro-gays
should ask themselves why they would wish to shake hands with, or eat the
food of, gays, when one third of them eat faeces and over half drink semen! If
this is normal, I hope you all enjoy the organisms you take in from your
friends. Can YOU tell which one third of your gay associates do these things?)
(Editor: February 2002. health.NSW.gov.au: Health experts in Australia
warned homosexuals to get vaccinated against hepatitis A before the
infamous Mardi Gras revelries began. Why? Because of their appalling sexual
habits. Faecal contact was especially mentioned as a cause for the rise in
infections! Have a great Mardi Gras – eat faeces and drink semen!
A case control study (med.monash.edu.au), to be undertaken by
Monash University wants to quantify infection by Cryptosporidium in
homosexuals, which leads to early death as well as horrid symptoms. One of
the biggest factors is – faecal ingestion (oro-faecal contact). This disease
occurs in men who already have HIV! Thus, not only do they have a total lack
of morality, they also add to their maladies by indulging in even more sexual
perversions! [Euphemistically called ‘faecal exposure during sex’!]. It is
sufficiently common amongst gays, to be mentioned in travel health material.
Contracting this bug accidentally by poor hygiene is one thing – deliberately
eating garbage is quite another, deserving only of disgust and shunning!
Many young people think oral sex is okay. But not if the ones indulging
already have a disease, or have anal sex! (unesco.org). Oral sex can transmit
HIV just as easily as anal sex! Of course, homosexuals will not advise their
young victims of the risks. Why not? Because they simply don’t care.)
The Seattle sexual diary study reported that, in one year, just one gay
fellated 108, swallowed semen from 48, exchanged saliva with 96, penetrated
68 anuses, and swallowed faecal matter from 19 others (New Engl J. Med.,
1980, 302:45-48).
Now you can understand why homosexuals get sick and die far more
quickly than nearly any other group of people in the nation! The fear of AIDS
has hardly reduced the amount of gay activities or varied contacts. (Editor:
Latest figures show that gays are increasing their riskiest activities, mainly
thanks to pro-gay supporters and pro-gay laws, whilst demanding equal health
cover and state benefits!)
(Editor: eurosurveillance,org: There was a 187% rise in syphilis
amongst homosexuals in Wales, copying similar outbreaks in London and the
North West of England. Yes, that’s right – 187%!! Gonorrhoea cases rose by
264
20%. The increases amongst gays is very much higher than amongst
heterosexuals. What a surprise! It was noted that the greater the number of
STD’s, the higher the incidences of HIV. Another disease, Shigellosis, is also
increasing amongst homosexuals. Oro-anal contact is again implicated.)
Surveys reveal that between a third to a half of gays do it in public
restrooms; 45-90% in gay bathhouses, and 45-90% also use illegal drugs (K.
Jay & A. Young, The Gay Report; P. Gebhard & A. Johnson, The Kinsey
Data, p. 17).
The public health bill for treating people who invite such infection is
enormous. Guess who pays it?
(We will not discuss the political ramifications of the Gay Rights
Movement, but they are demanding fuller medical coverage and more legal
rights to have sex in the military and with underage children). (Editor:
Ultimately, all this will send our tax and health cover bills rocketing).
Health care workers are at greater risk in caring for such people. As of
1992, over 100 had been infected with AIDS by gays in medical settings (CDC
HIV/AIDS Surveillance, Feb 1993). Tuberculosis and new strains of other
diseases are also moving into the general population from gays (S.W. Dooley,
J. Amer. Med. Assn. 1992. 264:2632-35). Those housed with gays in homes,
hospitals, etc., are also at risk (Ibid). (Editor: Which is why many health
workers refuse to care for infected gays. They say they do not want HIV
themselves and do not want to put their families in danger. Many leave
nursing rather than treat gays).
"Aids has already led to other kinds of dangerous epidemics… If
AIDS is not eliminated, other new lethal microbes will emerge, and
neither safe sex nor drug free practices will prevent them" (Dr. Max
Essex, chairman of Harvard AIDS Institute, Testimony before House
subcommittee, Feb. 24, 1992). (Editor: This, pro-gays, is what you are voting
to give freedom to. This is what you are inflicting on society with your
liberalism. AIDS is eradicated if homosexuality is eradicated)
As if to add to this massive public health problem, gays frequently work
in restaurants; and, every year, a quarter or more of homosexuals visit
another country; there to infect still more people - and bring back - new ones
to America (J. Amer. Med. Assoc., 1984, 251:1444-46; Geni=ADtourin Med.,
1994, 70:12-14). (Editor: It is the opinion of Dr N from the UK, that if we trace
statistics backwards, using the UK figures as evidence, and its early pattern of
spread, that AIDS in Africa was initially caused by homosexuals. When you
note the obnoxious and unnatural sexual habits noted above, it is easy to see
how this can have happened). (Editor: Be careful who cooks and serves food!)
Most of the Americans who got AIDS from contaminated blood
transfusions (6,349 by 1992 alone) received it from gays. It is known that gays
like to sell blood.
VIOLENCE IN THE GAY LIFESTYLE
Another strange aspect of this is that a person who enters the ranks of
homosexuals, enters, at the same time, a world of remarkable violence.
(Editor: Remember the first chapter on fascism?). This aggression takes
several forms:
265
One is sadomasochism. A large minority of gays engage in torture "for
fun." Studies on this reveal that 25% of adult white gays admitted to sex with
boys 16 or younger (A. Bell and M. Weinberg, Homosexualities, p. 18).
(Editor: This figure has risen substantially).
One study of teachers, covering 9 states, found that 33% of the 181
males, and 22% of the 18 females, caught molesting students, did so
homosexually (S. Rubin, Sex education: Teachers Who Sexually Abuse
Students, Psychology Congress, Aug. 1988). Compare that with the fact that,
in the general population, less than 3% of men and 2% of women are
homosexual. (Editor: With adjustments, the figures are very much lower –
probably less than 1% at any one time. Even this figure fluctuates, because all
homosexuals change back to normality at some time, if not permanently).
In a national survey of random samples of homosexuals and
heterosexuals, 32% of those males calling themselves homosexual or
bisexual vs. 5% of heterosexual males reported having engaged in
sadomasochism; 17% of lesbians vs. 4% of heterosexual women also
admitted it (P. Cameron, Psychol. Rpts., 1989, 64:1167-79).
The 1980 CBS-TV documentary, Gay Power, Gay Politics, reported
that about 10% of the accidental deaths among young men in San Francisco
resulted from sadomasochistic sex. In one study, 27.5% of gays said they
liked to place people in bondage, and then mistreat them in various ways (P.
Cameron, Psychol. Rpts., 1989, 64:1167-79). (Editor: This is normal? The
figures clearly indicate that homosexuals have serious psychological
problems. Again, also note how all this fits the fascist mind-set of
homosexuality).
Evidence indicates that, compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals are
more likely to deliberately harm their sexual partners with beatings or by
infecting them with disease (P. Gebhard & A. Johnson, Kinsey Data, 6; P.
Cameron, Psych. Reports, 1985, 57:1227-36). Examples of gays who were
deliberate spreaders of AIDS have been documented (History of AIDS,
Princeton Press, 1990, 19.). (Editor: note the latest figures and facts, and the
way gays are deliberately contracting HIV ‘for fun’! Note also the way gays will
deliberately goad heterosexuals into attacking them. This goes on every day
in different parts of the world – see news items of gays provoking police in
foreign countries where homosexuality is illegal! This enjoyment of violence is
typical of homosexuals and homosexual fascism).
By 1993, over 100,000 U.S. gays had died of AIDS and tens of
thousands had died of hepatitis B. Many were deliberately infected by other
homosexuals (just as they deliberately pass on AIDS). (Editor: There is now a
sudden upsurge in this deliberate infecting of others, with mutual consent!)
Then there are the murders of homosexuals by other homosexuals.
(Murders of non-gays by homosexuals will be mentioned later.) A study of
6,714 obituaries in gay newspapers throughout America (P. Cam=ADeron,
The Homosexual Life=ADspan, Eastern Psych. Assn., Apr. 17, 1993)
revealed that (1) 1.4% of gays and 7% of lesbians were murdered; this is over
a hundred times the rate for non-homosexuals. (2) 0.6% of gays and 5.7% of
lesbians committed suicide, about 50 times that of non-homosexuals. (3) 0.6%
of gays and 4.3% of lesbians died in motor vehicle accidents, 18 times more
than non-homosexuals.
266
(Editor: surely even the most ardent pro-gay can see why this is
happening? Given their predilection for violence, their choice of disgusting
habits shown above, and their wild eagerness for self-inflicted diseases, is it
any wonder they loathe their own lives? No, it is natural in this context for
people to commit suicide. It has nothing to do with the views of others. It is a
part of the homosexual sociopathic-style psyche).
It is for such reasons as these, along with all their diseases, that the
median age of death for male homosexuals is 40 and 45 for female
homosexuals. (Editor: I repeat – lesbians are no safer than gay men!).
Compare those mortality statistics with married non-homosexuals: 75
for men and 79 for women.
CHILD MOLESTATION AND OTHER VIOLENCE
Many studies of child molestation have been carried out, and the
results are both consistent and startling. Between 15-40% of statutory rape
(child molestation) involves homosexuality (P. Cameron, Psych. Reports,
1985, 57:1227-36). A survey of white gays found that 25% admitted to having
sex with boys 16 or younger, when they were 21 or older (A.P. Bell, Sexual
Preference, 1981, 19). (Editor: All these figures increased substantially by
2005. Again, note that in this time period gays won ‘rights’ in law. So, the
increase can be blamed on legal ‘rights’ given by barbaric governments).
Entire studies have been written on the large number of child
molestations done by homosexuals. In their magazines, gays admit that one
of their objectives in doing this is to increase the number of homosexuals.
Some of these studies were about homosexual school teachers. It
is known that they prey on the children. So, why have gay teachers?
Aside from unbridled lust, there are two special reasons why gays do
this: (1) By sodomizing children, they increase the number who will grow up to
be homosexuals. (2) Children have fewer, if any, diseases to transmit.
NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) has, as its goal, the
removing of laws prohibiting gays from having sex with minors. In 1990, the
age of consent for homosexual sex in Holland was lowered to 12! (Editor:
Note that in 2006 paedophiles started their own political party, specifically to
remove the age of consent and punishment for sex with children! This is not
freedom of speech, but a prostitution of proper laws and thinking, enabling
even more gays to hunger after children).
The National Crime Survey reported that about 7% of rapes are
homosexual. They have dramatically increased with the rise of the gay rights
movement. This crime is twice as common in urban areas where gays
congregate (C.W. Harlow, U.S. Dept. Justice, 1991, NCJ-126826). (Editor;
The figures are now very much higher. Expect an increase in this crime as
gays obtain even more ‘rights’).
A study of 518 mass murders in the U.S., from 1966 to 1983, revealed
that 350 (68%) of the victims were killed by those who practiced
homosexuality (P. Cameron, Midwestern Psych. Assn., 1983). (Editor: you are
probably aware that gays are currently trying to persuade pro-gay supporters
that they are ‘victims’ of heterosexual hatred. This is farcical! Look at the
figures of actual crimes!).
267
WHAT ABOUT HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGES?
"Living by oneself is probably the chief residential pattern for male
homosexuals. It provides the freedom to pursue whatever style of homosexual
life one chooses, whether it be furtive encounters in parks or immersion in the
homosexual subculture. In addition, homosexual relationships are fragile
enough to make this residential pattern common whether deliberate or not."
(M.S. Weinberg & C.J. Williams, Male Homosexuals: Their Problems and
Adaptations, 1975). (Editor; Note that the singer, George Michael, was again
arrested for having sex in a public toilet with someone he had just picked up!
The first time he was arrested, he whined that it was because he had to hide
his sexuality. What’s his excuse this time? There is none! He went to a public
toilet because it adequately reflects the pitiful nature of the acts. Even with his
money, he resorted to the deadly ‘thrill’ of a pick-up in a lavatory!).
Most gays and lesbians are not in monogamous relations, and
generally live alone by preference. A 1970 San Francisco study found that
about 61% of gays and 37% of lesbians were living alone (A.P. Bell & M.S.
Weinberg, Homosexualities, 1979). The 1977 Spada Report found that only
8% of gays had just one live-in partner. The same year, only 40% of lesbians
said they had only one lover (J. Spada, The Spada Report, 1979).
A gay newspaper survey, of nearly 8,000, found that gay couples
lasted 3.5 years at the most, and lesbian couples lasted 2.2 years (P. Blum,
Adstein & P. Schwartz, American Couples, 1983). Although half of lesbians
may be in a one-to-one basis, these partnerships only last two or three years,
then break up. (Editor: yet our foolish governments are giving these people
equal rights in matters of pensions, state benefits, etc!! What’s wrong with
them? Are they mad? Or do they just like to waste our tax-money?)
Most homosexuals, whether male or female, prefer variety. Even if
homosexual marriages could last, which they do not, both partners would be
dead within a couple of decades.
Oddly enough, the practices of those in "monogamous relationships"
were found to be more unhealthy than the rest of the homosexuals. They
drank urine and had grotesque sex even more frequently. In a London sample
of gays, those infected with HIV were more likely to have regular partners than
those not so infected (A.J. Hunt, Genitourinary Med. 1990, 66:423-427). An
Italian study showed similar results (S. Franceschi, Lancet, 1989). Disease
among gays is rampant, regardless of how many partners they have. The
problem is an entire way of life, based on immorality and sexual incontinence.
Then there is the violence that occurs by homosexual lovers toward
one another. Homosexual marriage has the highest rate of domestic violence!
And this is especially true among lesbians.
Susan Holt, coordinator of the domestic violence unit of the Los
Angeles Gay & Lesbian Center, said this: "Domestic violence is the third
largest health problem facing the gay and lesbian community today and trails
only behind AIDS and substance abuse… in terms of sheer numbers and
lethality." (S. Holt, Gay and Lesbian Times, Sept. 26, 1996).
In 1988, a nationwide survey of 6,779 married couples by the federal
government (J. Sorenson, Amer. J. Public Health, 1996, 86:35-40) established
that, in traditional, heterosexual marriages, the average rate of domestic
violence is less than 5% a year (2% of husbands and 3.2% of wives said that
they were hit, shoved or had things thrown at them). But homosexuals
268
cohabiting with one another reported far higher rates of violence: 20% to 25%
per year (D. Ellis, Violence and Victims, 1989, 4:235-255).
Applying the same standards to homosexual couples that are applied
to the usual marriage violence, 48% of 43 lesbian and 39% of male couples
reported domestic violence (R. Gardner, U. Georgia, 1988).
Another found 43% of the relationships of 284 lesbians "in a
committed, cohabiting, lesbian relationship" during the previous 6 months
were violent (L. Lockhart, Interpersonal Violence, 1994. 9:469-492).
A 1990 Los Angeles study found that nearly half of 90 lesbian couples
reported domestic violence yearly (V. Coleman, Ca. Violence in Lesbian
Couples, Sch. Prof. Psych, 1990). That study also revealed that the violence
was just as intense when children were, or were not, in the home. (Editor: And
our stupid authorities actually sanction gay adoptions and fosterings?)!
Homosexual partnering actually increased the dangers associated with
being a gay. In marked contrast, research into "gay bashing," found that
homosexuals claim to be persecuted by non-gays far more than they actually
are. Most of it amounts to name calling, and little more; violence rarely
occurred unless the homosexual tried to seduce someone. (Editor:
Homosexuals are usually very good liars! They are deliberately spreading the
idea that they are being hounded from all quarters, when there is no real
evidence to prove their case. Yet, governments are taking notice!)
HOMOSEXUAL TREATMENT OF CHILDREN
Many studies have been conducted on this; but we will briefly note that,
in the largest study, only one-half of a percent of Americans have had a
homosexual parent. Those who did were more likely to (1) be sexually
molested, (2) report having had sex with a parent, (3) experience
homosexuality as their first sexual experience, (4) become homosexual or
bisexual, and (5) report dissatisfaction with their childhood (P. & K. Cameron,
Homosexual parents, Adolescence, 1996, 31:757-776).
The various studies reveal that children of gays are more than 3 times
as likely to become homosexual than children in traditional homes (P. & K.
Cameron, J. Psychology, 1997, 131:1-20). Dozens of court cases show that
children of homosexuals are more apt to be sexually molested by a parent
(Ibid.)
HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT BORN THAT WAY
The evidence solidly supports the fact that people choose to be
homosexuals; they were not born that way.
No researcher has found provable biological or genetic differences
between heterosexuals and homosexuals, that were not caused by their
behavior. Studies show that parents recognize that the orientation of their
children was learned. In research after research, from the 1930s until the early
1970s (when a "politically correct" answer emerged), only about 10% of
homosexuals claimed they were "born that way."
Most gays become that way, because an older person initiates them
into it - and they decide they like it. Most admit that their first partner was an
older gay (I. Bieber, et. al., Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study, 1962).
Frequently, a key factor was whether it was the person's first sexual
experience. Parents, guard your children! (Editor: remember – today gays tell
269
us openly they are after our children, and governments are helping them to
get their way. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!)
Religious convictions are a factor. Those raised in non-religious homes
are more likely to become gay.
Many gays and lesbians change their sexual preference, back and
forth. Many leave sodomy forever, never to return.
Other factors, predisposing to homosexuality, include: gay teachers
and authority figures, severe problems in the home, exposure to pornography,
and rape. (Editor: Which is why homosexuals are desperate to control schools
and colleges, etc). Many studies have been done on this.
HOW TO ESCAPE FROM HOMOSEXUALITY
It is obviously a miserable way of life. How can one escape from it?
(Note: Even those who do not become Christians can choose to escape from homosexuality,
as an earlier section proves, and as many similar testimonies show).
1
Recognize it is a choice, and that you can have the power to control
your choices. Determine that you want to change, and are going to change.
2
Go to God and ask Him for help! Cry and plead with Him alone in your
room. Read the Bible and claim its promises. God promises you enabling
strength to resist temptation and overcome sin, through the empowering grace
of His Son, Jesus Christ. The change can be made; you can do it-as you
continue, moment by moment, to rely on God for strength. You will not give
up; you will keep crying for help and taking hold of His strength.
3
Keep praying. Keep your thoughts on the right things; and, if they begin
to stray, bring them back to good subjects. Sing a hymn. Send up a prayer.
Read a Bible promise you marked or recite one you have memorized. Reach
for a pocket Bible or New Testament and begin reading it and praying. As you
continue doing this, the old way of life will gradually fade away. We all have
temptations to resist; gays are not unique! Everyone can be helped equally by
the God of heaven.
4
In 1980, a friend told me her brother was a homosexual, and that he
really wanted to escape it. I told her the strange things homosexuals did
revealed it was devil-possession, and to tell her son to plead with God and tell
the demon to leave.
She went home and phoned her brother. Alone, in a distant city, he got
down on his knees and pled with God for help, meant it, and then commanded
the devil to leave.
He said that he felt something coming out through the top of his head,
and as it was departing, said in a deep man's voice, "My name is Queer!"
The young man was perfectly freed from that bondage. Unfortunately,
he did not maintain that close walk with God, and several years later chose to
return to it. He died in 1992 with AIDS. (Read Matthew 12:43-45).
My friend, whoever you are, whatever your problem - there is
deliverance in Jesus Christ! Go to Him just now, cling to Him day by day,
study and obey His Word.
(Editor: It might seem far-fetched to say homosexuality is the result of
demon possession, but not if you know something about these things. It
makes perfect sense, when you consider how abnormal homosexuals are, in
270
their characters and actions. Are all homosexuals possessed? I do not think
so, simply because Satan does not need to possess people when
governments allow them freedom to do whatever they like and give them
support. On the other hand, they are at an extreme of psychological and
spiritual deficit. How else can you explain eating faeces and drinking urine,
being violent, lying and deceiving and generally doing and saying things that
are senseless and beyond human reason and rationality?)
Another gay trick is to try and say homosexual sex is just on the same
continuum as heterosexual sex. This is a lie. One does not just move from
one to the other naturally or easily. Heterosexual sex is a natural ‘given’. But
homosexual sex is a choice to deviate from what is normal. One has to
deliberately cross a powerful taboo line before indulging in homosexuality,
which is outside what is normal, safe and moral. Even if we remove the
morality of the situation, homosexuality is abnormal, unsafe and unnatural!
CALL TO GOVERNMENTS
AND THOSE IN AUTHORITY
You now have the facts before you. They give you ample reason
to remove all pro-gay laws. If you already knew these facts before
making such laws, then you are shameful and deceiving towards the
public and should never be in power.
The facts in this book are sufficient for you to act immediately. If
you do not, you must explain yourselves to the public, who should be
treated better than mere objects to be manipulated to maintain your vain
power base, and the disgusting habits of homosexuals. (And they ARE
disgusting! This is a matter of fact, not ‘hate speech’).
There is NO WAY that what gays do is normal or safe. There is NO
WAY that what they do is sane. Far from it – it all shows mental
imbalance. I defy you to say otherwise, given all the descriptions of
gayness in this book! Earlier experts were indeed correct. If you reject
their expertise, then you are deliberately foisting a coming super-bug
onto all the world, and destroying our children and economies.
I will watch what the world and governments now do, with
immense interest… will they remain ignorant and barbaric? Or will they
come down on the side of rational thinking?
Let homosexuals live as they wish – but do not ever again give
them power or ‘rights’ over and above rights given to all people.
271
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
‘The Pope in Winter’, J. Cornwell, Penguin, 2004, p115.
BBC News, 6th November, 2000: Ref. Prof. Faraneh Vargha-Khadem,
Institute of Child Health.
7th December, 2005
‘The Pope in Winter’, p179-80
‘Men Are Good. Period.’ Translated from the French by Eric Cottes,
1997, scarabee.com
‘Fascism Anyone?’, Free Enquiry, 2003, p20
JohannHari.com
‘What Causes Homosexuality?’, Part 1, Dr John Ankerberg.
For a full evaluation of LeVay’s findings, read ‘Homosexual Brains’,
Family Research Report, June/September 1994, Family Research
Institute.
Dr Joseph Nicolosi (Author of ‘Reparative Therapy and Male
Homosexuality’. This therapy is hated by gays).
Dr Charles Socarides, Prof of Psychiatry, Albert Einstein College of
Medicine, New York.
Newsweek, 24th February, 1992
‘Salk and Pepper’, M. Botkin, Bay Area Reporter, 5th September 1991.
Also in ‘Homosexual Brains’.
Newsweek, 24th February, 1992.
Ankerberg, as above.
Interview on the John Ankerberg Show, USA.
Cited in ‘Dr Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research’, Harper & Row,
1970.
‘Twins Born Gay?’, Family Research Report, January/February, 1992.
‘Perpetuating Homosexual Myths’, Richard Cohen, Seattle, WA: Public
Education Committee, 1992.
Taped interview for the John Ankerberg Show.
‘Human Sexuality’, Matters, Johnson, Kododny, Boston: Little, Brown &
Co., 1984.
‘Homosexual Behaviour: A modern Reappraisal.’, J Money. Judd
Manner (Ed); Basic Books, New York, 1980.
‘Perspectives in Human Sexuality’, J Money, Behavioural Publications,
New York, 1974.
Journal of Homosexuality, quoted in USA Today, 1st March, 1989.
‘Born That Way’, Family Research Special Report, 1991.
‘Abnormal Psychology’, Lecture 21, re DSM-3-R.
Such as Beiber, 1976, who saw homosexuality as the sign of a
disturbed childhood and/or poor relationships with same-sex peers.
Davidson, 1976.
‘Remove Gender Identity Disorder from DSM’, R Isay, Psychiatric
News.
‘Psychiatric Clinics of North America’, Pillard & Bailey, 1995.
‘Archives of Sexual Behaviour’, Van Wyk & Geist, 1984.
‘Archives of General Psychiatry’, Byne & Parsons, 1993.
Journal of Homosexuality, 1995, 28 (1-2): 115-45.
272
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
49.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
jmm.aaa.net.au
‘Born Homosexual? Prove it.’ Dewy Kidd, August 2004, in
dewy.com/200409211535.html
biblebelievers.com
The Times, as in timesonline.co.uk/D,7-1689843,oo-html
‘Are People Born Gay?’ newdirection.ca/a_biol.html
‘The Sexual Brain’, p122.
‘Born Gay’, waynebeson.com
Japan Today, 7th October, 2002.
‘Neurogenetic Determinism & the New Euphenics – Clinical Overview.’,
Steven Rose, BMJ, 19th December, 1998.
The Advocate, 27th March, 1997.
‘Sexual Ecology’, Gabriel Rolello.
‘Beds, Bathrooms & Beyond; the Return of Public Sex.’, Rod Dreher,
National Review, 12th August, 2002.
‘The Pope in Winter’.
‘Gay Sluts Are Back’, Simon Sheppard, San Francisco Bay Guardian.
48.
‘When Rubbers Hit the Road’, Andrew Webb, Washington
Monthly, November 2001.
‘Sexual Ecology’.
50.
11th Conference on Retroviruses & Opportunistic Infections, San
Francisco, February, 2004.
‘Incidence of Non-AIDS-Defining Malignancies in the HIC Outpatient
Study’, Abstract S6. P Patel et al. 11th Conference (as 50).
‘Homosexuality, HIV/AIDS & Young Gay Men’, teensforteens.net
‘A History of Discrimination’, aidslaw.ca
‘Zimbabwe Prisons – AIDS – Health: Homosexuality Rampant in
Zimbabwe’s Prisons: Report. AFP. 14th October, 2003.
The Independent, 5th November, 2005.
Camperio Ciani, responding to an article, news@nature.com
dwp.gov.uk
‘Food & Behaviour Research’, fabresearch.org
Daniel Wegner, Prof of Psychology, Harvard University.
Dr Stephen Edelson, autism.org
Mood Disorders Society of Canada.
‘After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear & Hatred of Gays in
the 90’s.’ 1990.
albatrus.com
‘The New Thought Police’, 2001, p196.
albatrus.org/lien_of_oz
‘The New Thought Police’. p188.
‘After the Ball’, p149.
‘After the Ball’, p178.
‘After the Ball’, p177.
‘After the Ball’, p146.
‘After the Ball’, p151.
‘After the Ball’, p184.
‘Vamps & Tramps’, Camille Paglia, 1994. p70-2.
‘After the Ball’, p276.
‘After the Ball’, p121-7.
273
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
‘After the Ball’, p28-9.
‘The Pope in Winter’, p218-on.
‘The Changing Face of the Priesthood’, Donald B Cozzens, 2002.
BBC 1, ‘Question Time’.
Letter from a consultant histopathologist, 17th April, 2004, in bmi.com
Dr Ralph Underwager: interview with Paidika, an European paedophile
publication.
nostatusquo.com
‘The Pope in Winter’. Also see Malta Today, 4th December, 2005.
albatrus.com
See ‘The Homosexualisation of America’, Dennis Altman (gay activist).
Advocate, Carl Maves, 1992, p85.
albatrus.com
Straits Times, 28th October, 2005.
NSW Legislative Council Hansard, 23rd June, 1997.
thebyteshow.com
UK Channel 4 News Forum, 12th December, 2005.
galha.org
Gay & Lesbian Humanist, Spring 2002.
‘Nucleus’, July 1998, CMF. Also quoted in the Daily Mail, 9th July, 1988.
‘Sexual Attitudes & Lifestyles’, Johnson, Wellings, et al, Blackwell,
1994, p213.
‘The Sexual lifestyles of Gay & Bisexual Men in England & Wales’,
Weatherburn et al, HMSO, 1992, p13,14,29.
‘Medical problems of the Homosexual Adolescent’, Owen, Adolescent
Health Care, 1985, p278-85.
‘Sexual Health: A Health of the Nation Failure’, Adler, MBJ, 1997,
314:1743-47.
‘Sexual Behaviour in Britain’, Wellings et al, Penguin, 1994, p203.
‘Demography of Sexual Orientation in Adolescents’, Remafedi et al,
Paediatrics, 1992:89:714-721.
‘The Proportions of Heterosexual & Homosexual Paedophiles Among
Sex Offenders Against Children’, Freund & Watson, J. Sex Mar. Ther.
1992:18:34-43.
Paedophilia & Heterosexuality vs Homosexuality’, Freund et al, J. Sex
Mar. Ther. 1984:10:193-200.
Daily Mail, D Farson, 15th July, 1997.
‘Safer Sex Maintenance Among Gay Men: Are We Moving in the Right
Direction?’, Davies, AIDS 1993:7-280.
105. ‘The End of Innocence: Britain in the Time of AIDS’, Garfield,
Faber & Faber, 1994, p106.
‘Sex Offender Treatment Programs’, John Howard Society of Alberta,
2002.
‘Homosexuality & Child Sexual Abuse’, Dr T Dailey, Family Research
Council, 16th December, 2005.
‘Sexual Offending Against Young Children’.
‘Sexual Abuse of Young Children: Evaluation, Treatment’, Kee
MacFarlane et al.
Friends of Liberty, sianews.com
274
111.
112.
113.
114.
115.
116.
117.
118.
119.
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
128.
129.
130.
131.
133.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
Brian Rushfeldt, Executive Director of Canada Action Coalition, when
addressing Canadian government ministers, 1999.
Festival of Light questionnaire prior to election, Australia, 2005.
dwightlongenecker.com and also The Universe.
‘The Organised Homosexual Movement: Its Methods & Goals’, Islamic
Party of Britain, November, 2002.
Time, 7th February, 1994.
‘The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations, 2003.
‘The Employment Equality (Religion & Belief) Regulations, 2002.
A UK ‘Women & Equality Unit’ statement.
A ‘Labour Campaign for Lesbian & Gay Rights’ statement.
traditionalvalues.com
‘The Gulag Archipelago’, A Solzhenitsyn.
Articles appeared in The Daily Telegraph and several newspapers.
‘Homosexuality & American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis’, Dr
Ronald Bayer, 1981.
‘Sexual Politics & Scientific Logic: the Issue of Homosexuality’, Dr
Charles Socarides.
‘Abnormal Psychology’, John Wiley, 1998, p358.
‘Homosexuality & Psychiatry’, Pravin Thevatheson, Catholic Medical
Quarterly, February 2000.
‘Clinical Psychiatry’, Slater & Roth, Bailiere-Tindall, 1986, p174.
‘Homosexuality’, Michael Rose.
‘Essentials of Post-Graduate Psychiatry’, Hill, Academic Press, 1979,
p271.
O’Connor, 1948.
‘Clinical Psychiatry’ (as 127).
132. ‘Homosexuality in a Changing World; Are We Being
Misinformed?’, 17th February, 2003, islamonline.net
‘The Assault on the First Amendment: public Choice & Political
Correctness’, Paul Rubin, Cato Journal, Vol. 14, No. 1.
‘Beware of the Thought Police’, John Flintoff, Sunday Times Review,
18th December, 2005, as in intimesonline
John McDonnell MP, Chairman, Socialist Campaign Group of Labour
MP’s.
Speech given in Leeds, UK, 12th December, 2005.
Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 13th December 2005.
‘Psychopolitics: Erasing Christianity Through the Consensus Process’,
Linda Kimball, 13th December, 2005, opinioneditorials.com
‘Russian Manual on Psychopolitics’, Laventy Pavlovich Beria. He was
head of the Soviet secret police and Stalin’s right-hand man, known for
his extreme cruelty.
‘UNESCO: Its purpose & Its Philosophy’, Julian Huxley, 1947. Written
when he was head of UNESCO.
‘What We Can’t Not Know’, J Budziszewiski, p187.
Bertrand Russell (philosopher).
‘Churches: Reintroduce Sin to do God’s Work’, John Boyanowski, 10 th
December, 2005, fortwayne.com
Fr Igor Vyzhanov, Eastern Orthodox Church, Moscow.
20th September, 2005, virtueonline
275
146.
147.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
168.
From an internal Wal-Mart memo, 8th December, 2005.
Reuters, 17th December, 2005.
‘Guide to First Year Orientation & Thought Reform on Campus’, Jordan
Lorence & Harvey Silvergate (attorneys), thefire.org
‘Rights Group Criticize Chinese Crackdown on Gay Festival’,
Stephanie Ho, 20th December, 2005, newsva.com
‘The Trampling of Free Speech’. Comment page, Daily Mail, 23rd
December, 2005.
Hernando Today, December 2005, Joseph Tomaselli.
‘Campus Conscience Police’, Wendy McElroy, 22nd December 2005,
The American Daily.
thefire.org/index.php/article/5063.html
‘Cultural Competence: Coming to a School Near You?’, Wendy
McElroy, Fox News, 19th October, 2005.
Norman Levitt, Prof of Mathematics, Rutgers University.
Gazette Times, Corvallis, Oregon.
American Civil Liberties Union, home page, aclu.org/free speech
Evelyn Beatrice Hull (writing as S. G. Tallentyre), 1906.
US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Holmes, in United States v
Schwimmer, 1929.
‘The Education of a Prince’, Erasmus, 1516.
Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Stanford University.
wikipedia.com
‘Morality’ R P Nettilhurst, theology.edu
‘Legalising Immorality’, Napier, Bible Theology Ministries, A/118, May
2002.
‘General Information on Escalation’, International Online Training
Program on Intractable Conflict, University of Colorado.
Pruitt and Rubin, 1986, p64.
‘Power Mixes in the US Civil Rights Conflict’, Paul Wehr.
worldnetdaily.com
Linda Kimball (Foreword)
Her articles should be read by all who think!
Linda Kimball is a conservative Christian columnist, whose writings are featured on
web sites around the world. Her writings have been translated into Italian, Polish, Spanish,
German, and Russian.
She is a contributing columnist on many of the most highly-read websites, e-zines,
and blogs. Her writings revolve around socialism, globalism, exposing the Left and its
communist roots, and the deference to special interest at the expense of values, culture, and
freedom. She uses the worldwide internet as her mission field, with well researched articles
that expose the darkness to the light…. and to truth.
Her articles are in:
The Conservative, VoiceChronwatch, News by Us, Opinion Editorials
The Daley Times-Post, The Post Chronicle, The Reality Check, American Daily
Christian News in Maine, NoDNC.com
WebCommentary, Bloggingman2007
The Land of the Free, The Sierra Times, ThenReport, MichNews
Real Clear Politics, Red State, Free Republic