Schwarzenegger Caves to the Radical Gay, Bi-Sexual,Lesbian, Transgender Lobby
I think that even the most ardent defenders of “gay rights” may find this recent development in California to be troubling.
An international organization promoting families says California families have no choice but to abandon the public school system after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a new “anti-discrimination” bill into law, effectively making terms like “mom” and dad” obsolete.
As WND has reported, some family advocates in California already had come to the same conclusion as that reached now by the World Congress of Families.
World Congress of Families Global Coordinator Allan Carlson said the measure, SB 777, is “a blatant attack on the natural family orchestrated by the alternative-lifestyles lobby.”
The exodus call had been issued just one day earlier by Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families. “We’re calling upon every California parent to pull their child out of California’s public school system,” he told WND.
“The so-called ‘public schools’ are no longer a safe emotional environment for children. Under the new law, schoolchildren as young as kindergarten will be sexually indoctrinated and introduced to homosexuality, bisexuality, and transsexuality, over the protests of parents, teachers and even school districts,” he said.
This is insanity. Take the time to read the entire article here
October 17, 2007 7:43 pm 
I do know what is right from wrong. I am 42 years old and I didnt know what a gay or a queer meant until I was 13. I had heard the word. But still didnt know the depth of it. Well in 1979 when I was in the 8th grade in whitfield county schools system the federal government sent in a Sex education teacher. They not only taught but they had a film to educate us. They made us watch and learned us that being Gay was okay. I knew by the film it was 2 guys or 2 gals instead of one man and one women. I had sense enough then to know that it was wrong. It was condemned by a Holy God. That is part of what formed my basis for how my children would be educated if I had any. Well when I was 19 years old I found out that in 1948 and in 1963 that the Supremem court made it against the law to pray in public school and to read the Bible. If Bible reading is not aloud I thought and prayer is not welcome then God is not welcome. If God is not welcome even though a sinner I told myself that my children which I did not have would never set foot in a public shcool. I got out of the Navy In 1985 and Married in 1988. I am still married to my same wife whom I love from the depths of my heart. But the point is this I sacrificed to send my children to a private christian school. I could have afforded a new car instead of a clunker and I say this not being proud but it is something I am proud of. But I chose to drive junk cars that often broke down. Me and my wife did without so that our children would have a proper education. My wife and my children our sweet christian people. O that I could find the Lord and the peace they have found. But I loved my children enough to make sure that they were schooled at a christian school. When we couldnt afford a christian school we taught them at home homeschooling them. I wanted to protect my children from the government. The gay agenda seeds were planted long ago. It was started being planted in 1979 when Carter was in office. Now it has snowballed and look how far we have come in 28 years. If you say the word queer you are scorned. It is not calling them names. I dont believe in calling people names but all it means is they are odd diffrent Queer. Look how far we have came. Now today it is accepted by the majority of the people from young to old. Our television programming pumps it into the minds of the unwitting masses everyday. It will grow now faster than it ever has because the medium of television is spreading it and after all if it is on tv it has to be right. I didnt not let a tv be hooked to the outside world. I still havent got one hooked to the outside world. Look how far we come. Gay marriage and Civil unions are spreading like wildfire in the United States and if you dont think that they have changed peoples minds upon the subject a minority of 30% of chruch going folks I would say it is higher than that thinks it is ok for 2 men or 2 women. Because of the medium of it being taught from the daycare, kindergarten through college: along with the medium of television and internet it is going to grow twice as fast. They already have it mandatory in most states for the children to be taught this. Anybody who has any sense knows if you control the children you control the future. Look down the road they are trying now to silence Christian people by passing a hate crimes bill that will be just the beginning of the thought police. In another 10 years true christian people who love the Bible and the Word of God will be jailed because they are a terroist who hates. The children will rise up to murder the older Generation or persecute them at least because they are being taught the new slogan “Hate speech is not free speech” If we dont take a stand now. I mean right now and galvanize America to do something about this. The America of our forefathers who were of a Christian heritage will be forever gone. God help us raise up politicians with back bones who will not backpeddle on the issues. And if it takes the support of Gays to get elected bless God I just wont be elected. A person asked me after the Columbine massacare where was God. Ill tell you where they kicked him and his rules out of school. If God is gone it leaves a vacume. Instead of them reading Thou shalt not Kill this generation has not been taught that. They have been taught If it feels good do it. Well Ill shut up. By the way if your a praying man I do need your prayers. Signed Forrest Kevin Langley US Army Ret.
The Born “Gay” Hoax
The born “gay” hoax was invented in 1985 by Dr. Marshall Kirk and Dr. Hunter Madsen. Dr. Kirk graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1980 majoring in psychology. Dr. Madsen received a PhD in politics from Harvard University in 1985. Dr. Madsen is an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing and has designed commercial marketing on Madison Avenue. He has also served a consultant to pro-sodomy media campaigns across the country.
In 1985, Kirk and Madsen co-authored a low-profile document entitled The Gay Agenda in a pro-sodomy magazine called Christopher Street. In short, the article emphasized the strategic importance of shifting the central issue in the debate over “homosexuality” away from sodomy and morality and toward a sexual pseudo-identity called, “gay.” The goal was to force opponents into a position where they would be seen as attacking the civil rights of so-called “gay” citizens, rather than opposing a specific antisocial behavior (sodomy). The Gay Agenda also outlined the strategy that would eventually be used to convince the public that individuals are born “gay.”
Initially, there was no enthusiasm for a born “gay” strategy within the pro-sodomy movement. In fact, many considered the proposed strategy degrading because they viewed “rights related to sexuality as analogous to the constitutional rights to association, expression, or religion.” Initially, there were strong reservations in against adopting such a strategy. However, these initial reservations would not last for long.
In 1986, the pro-sodomy movement lost Bowers v. Hardwick; the United States Supreme Court case which upheld the rights of individual states to criminalize sodomy. The loss was devastating. Desperate, angry, and galvanized pro-sodomy activists learned that if they could make a compelling case that they were born “gay,” they could become eligible for “Minority Status” as a “Suspect Class” under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If Minority Status were granted, it would force the courts to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick, thus legalizing sodomy. It must be noted however, that the Civil Rights Act recognizes Minority Status only for those groups who:
1) Have suffered a long history of discrimination
2) Are powerless to help themselves as a community
3) Are born that way
The legalization of sodomy, by way of “Minority Status,” is the secret to understanding why pro-sodomy activists adopted the strategy outlined in “The Gay Agenda” in the late 1980’s and once again began to promote the Ulrichsian claim that people are born “gay.”
Wasting little time, Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Madsen writing under the pseudonym Erastes Pill) published a follow-up to The Gay Agenda entitled The Overhauling of Straight America. The article, which appeared in the pro-sodomy publication Guide in November of 1987, outlined a point-by-point strategy that could be used to convince who the authors refer to as “straight America” that men and women who engage in sodomy were born “gay.”
The following year, 1988, a “War Conference” of 175 leading pro-sodomy activists, representing organizations from every part of the United States convened in Warrenton, Virginia. The purpose of the conference, according to Kirk and Madsen, was to establish an official agenda for the newly conceived “gay” movement. At this “War Conference” pro-sodomy activists adopted the identity politic strategy outlined in both The Gay Agenda and The Overhauling of Straight America. The born “gay” hoax’s time had come.
Subsequently, in 1989, Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen expanded their article The Overhauling of Straight America into a book entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gays in the 90s. In this deliberately deceitful agenda for America, Kirk and Madsen write that they intend to “get tough” on straights. They further write, “…it is time to learn from Madison Avenue and to roll out the big guns. . . . We are talking about propaganda.”
Kirk and Madsen explained the central tenant of their strategy:
“The public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. (We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been ‘born gay’–even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.)”
Here, the authors admit that human sexuality is the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors, yet they urge readers to abandon the truth for “practical purposes,” i.e. furthering “The Gay Agenda.” The activists could not have been clearer about their plan to deceive Americans. The “Gay” Agenda, its cumulative post-luminaries, and efforts to employ the tactics outlined in these documents is what I refer to as the born “gay” hoax. The following excerpts from the After the Ball will exemplify the manipulative tactics Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen enticed pro-sodomy activists employ.
“The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays…To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally we would have the straight register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream…”
“The masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself…the imagery of sex should be downplayed…”
“…gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector…”
“…make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower its guard…”
“…replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt…”
“Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible…” “The principal behind this advice is simple: almost all behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.”
Unfortunately, this social learning principle has proven itself time and time again throughout history, as various inhumane and outrageous behaviors have become commonplace and ordinary. The authors continue.
“Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject…”
Madsen and Pill (Kirk) explain their scheme in greater depth when they write:
“Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message–of normalcy. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream.”
“Not so many years ago, all of these statements would have been unbelievably offensive to most Americans, even if they contained no reference to ‘homosexuality,’ precisely because they all advocate coercive tampering with peoples most private domain, their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs, Kirk and Madsen call it ‘transforming the social values of straight America…’” Let’s look at the mechanics of their strategy for ‘transforming’ society into what they feel would be a more acceptable form. The authors continue.
“Would a desensitizing campaign of open and sustained talk about gay issues reach every rabid opponent of homosexuality? Of course not. While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency. Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed “secular humanism”). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here.”
“…the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know – this trick is so old it creaks”
“…it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified.”
“…we intend to make anti-gays to look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types…”
“Each sign will tap patriotic sentiment; each message will drill a seemingly agreeable position into mainstream heads…”
“The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America…the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern [sic] ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs and convicts…Nazi concentration camps…”
This behavior-modification mentality, combined with the isolation of “straights” and others as groups or classes who assume the status of dehumanized targets of one sort or another continues, undisturbed in intensity.
“These images (of anyone opposed to homosexual behavior) should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the ‘bracket technique.’ For example, for a few seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is seen pounding the pulpit in rage about ‘those sick, abominable creatures.’ While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to pathetic photos of gays who look decent, harmless, and likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher, and so forth. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating.”
A group called Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) actually used this technique in an advertising campaign in the fall of 1995 against Pat Robertson, Jesse Helms, and Jerry Falwell. As reported in the San Francisco Examiner, Sunday, November 12, 1995… “a new television ad campaign [portrays scenes of] a teenage girl contemplating suicide with a handgun, [and] a young man being beaten by a gang as his attackers shout slurs…interspersed with actual clips of the Rev. Pat Robertson and other conservatives deploring homosexuality. Most stations turned down the ads, but they ran in Tulsa, and Washington D.C. A print version of the ad (much less emotionally effective) was run in USA Today, November 21, 1995.”
It is absolutely appalling to hear the tactics promoted by Marshall Kirk (MCkusick) and Hunter Madsen. The pro-sodomy activists who have employed these techniques have nothing to be proud of. These soi-disant propagandistic tactics and even the verbiage in which they are couched represent a twisted and fascist, deceitful and degrading approach to the winning of American public opinion.
In specialized press pro-sodomy activists speak candidly about the movement’s practical purposes for promoting the idea the people are born “gay.” In doing so, they admit that public born “gay” rhetoric is a complete fabrication, contrived and carried out for specific political ends; mainly, the overturning of Bowers and the normalization of sodomy.
Dr. Lillian Faderman, who has won the Monette/Horwitz Award from the same-gender sex activist group Lambda Literary Foundation, states: “And we continue to demand Rights, ignoring the fact that human sexuality is fluid and flexible, acting as though we are all stuck in our category forever.” She further states, “The narrow categories of identity politics are obviously deceptive.” It becomes obvious later in the article that Dr. Faderman sees a political threat from the truth, from the fluidity of human sexuality. “I must confess that I am both elated and terrified by the possibilities of a bisexual moment. I’m elated because I truly believe that bisexuality is the natural human condition. But I’m much less happy when I think of the possibility of huge numbers of homosexuals (two-thirds of women who identify as lesbian for example) running off to explore the heterosexual side of their bisexual potential and, as a result, decimating our political ranks.” Later in the article Dr. Faderman writes, “The concept of gay and lesbian identity may be nothing but a social construct, but it has been crucial, enabling us to become a political movement and demand the rights that are do to us as a minority. What becomes of our political movement if we openly acknowledge that sexuality is flexible and fluid, that gay and lesbian does not signify ‘a people’ but rather a ‘sometime behavior’?”
Dr. John DeCecco is a psychologist, Director of the Center for Research and Education in Sexuality at San Francisco State University, and Editor of The Journal of Homosexuality. Dr. DeCecco calls himself “gay” but insists that such attractions are a changeable preference not an orientation. He explains in his book entitled, If You Seduce A Straight Person You Can Make Them Gay, that, the whole born gay and immutable characteristic idea is just “gay and lesbian politics” and is aimed at achieving “gay” rights.
Dr. Vera Whisman writes in her book, Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity, “The political dangers of a choice discourse go beyond the simple (if controversial) notion that some people genuinely choose their homosexuality. Indeed, my conclusions question some of the fundamental basis upon which the gay and lesbian rights movement has been built. If we cannot make political claims based on an essential and shared nature, are we not left once again as individual deviants? Without an essentialist [born gay] foundation, do we have a viable politics?”
Lesbian writer Jennie Ruby admits, “I don’t think lesbians are born…I think they are made… The gay rights movement has (for many good, practical reasons) adopted largely an identity politics.”
Jan Clausen, lesbian author of the book Apples and Oranges writes, “What’s got to stop is the rigging of history to make the either/or look permanent and universal. I understand why this argument may sound erotic to outsiders for whom the public assertion of a coherent, unchanging lesbian or gay identity has proved an indispensable tactic in the battle against homophobic persecution.” Later, Clausen quotes the popular lesbian poet Audre Lorde, who admits the lies associated with the born “gay” hoax as well, when she writes, “I do not believe our wants have made all our lies holy.”
Lesbians Lyne Harne and Elaine Miller explain their feelings regarding the born “gay” hoax: “There’s nothing natural in lesbianism, ‘it’s a positive choice,’ and a political one.” Yet another admission appeared in the homosexual magazine Girlfriends; it states, “No wonder lesbians are so nervous. What makes the lesbian movement strong is the formation of a collective identity, unified behind sexual orientation as a category. If bisexuality undoes that, it kicks the lesbian movement where it really hurts: in the heart and soul of identity politics.”
The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) is one of the homosexual activist organizations that pressure the American Psychiatric Association to reject homosexual reparative therapy. The NCLR claims that the “gay” identity is innate and unchangeable. JoAnne Loulan is one of the psychotherapists who served on the board of directors for this organization. Loulan made hypocritical headlines on the February 18, 1997 edition of the homosexual magazine The Advocate because she reportedly changed her own sexual orientation when she, fell in love with a man…?
Further, Kate Kendall, the Director of the NCLR, who in the spirit of Ulrichs, and Kirk, and Madsen, argued that the so-called “gay” person was endowed with a fixed, innate, and unchangeable, “sexual orientation” and commanded the American Psychiatric Association to halt all forms of reparative therapy for all people, including those desperately looking to get help, actually wrote an article for Frontiers Magazine, arguing that sexual orientation is fluid, not fixed.
Kate Kendall and Joanne Loulan stood before the American Psychiatric Association with straight faces declaring reparative therapy to be the dangerous equivalent of pouring bleach on a dark person’s skin to make them lighter. Then, one of these self-proclaimed “gays” went out and changed her own so-called “sexual-orientation” by falling in love with a man, and the other took the time to write an article for an insiders’ magazine arguing that sexuality is changeable. Is it possible, for us to continue to trust these activists when say that they are “born gay?”
Those who have been tricked by the born “gay” hoax have little for which to be ashamed. There is no shame in believing a lie until you learn the truth. The truth is that beginning in 1985, the born “gay” hoax was sold to the American public by pro-sodomy propagandists. The carefully calculated lies of these propagandists are blatant, and have been admitted in numerous pro-sodomy publications. It is obvious however, that born “gay” propagandists from Kirk and Madsen on, keep the fact of choice secret from the straight community for political reasons. Pro-sodomy activists however, as evidenced by their own articles, talk about the born “gay” hoax and the realities of sexual choice regularly amongst themselves.
4
The Studies Exposed
By 1986 sentiments were galvanized in favor of implementing the strategy outlined in The Gay Agenda. In an effort to combat the legal precedent left in the wake of Bowers v Hardwick, a public relations campaign began to unfold. Soon, millions would be left deeply conflicted; eventually some would be inclined to accept what before seemed so rationally unacceptable. Activists capitalized on multiple pseudo-scientific studies to mislead the public. None of which are legitimate. The following analyses, will demonstrate both the moral bankruptcy and scientific inefficacy of every study of this sort, beginning with the three most cited.
The Hypothalamus Study
First we will examine the Hypothalamus Study,” conducted in 1991, by Dr. Simon LeVay, who worked at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. LeVay’s study analyzed size differences in neurons in the anterior hypothalamus of cadaver brains. LeVay publicized his study in an effort to persuade the public to develop the view that men who develop same-sex attraction do so because of the size of the hypothalamus in the brain.
LeVay, it should be noted, had strong personal and political incentives to pursue research in this area. According to a Newsweek cover story in 1992, LeVay engaged in sodomy himself and lost his partner to AIDS. The article states that when his partner, “Richard Heresey, died of AIDS, LeVay went into deep depression. Hospitalized for two weeks, he began reevaluating his goals. ‘It makes you think of what your life is about,’ he says. Around that time, a UCLA lab announced its finding that a portion of the male hypothalamus was more than twice as large as woman’s. Suddenly, it seemed LeVay had a research area to pursue: was it also larger than that of gays?” LeVay told reporters: “I felt if I didn’t find anything, I would give up a scientific career altogether.”
LeVay also seemed to understand the impact that his study would have on society. In reference to this study he writes, “It’s important to educate society. I think this issue does affect religious and legal attitudes.” The Advocate, a pro-same gender sex movement magazine, asked LeVay if he thought “that grounding homosexuality in biology could help win political equality.” LeVay responded:
“All the civil rights legislation passed in the ’60s is based on the knowledge that there is a genetic and immutable difference between blacks and whites. Of course, blacks are still discriminated against, but the legal advances they’ve made are based on those genetic differences. And I think that is a major stumbling block for our gaining the same protection as other groups. There is a survey in the New York Times that broke down people on the basis of whether they thought gays and lesbians were born that way or whether it was a lifestyle choice. Across the board, those who thought gays and lesbians were born that way were more liberal and gay friendly.”
LeVay’s hypothalamus study received widespread media attention and, as a result, catapulted the idea that some men are born “gay” into prominence. Although the misinformed still quote the study today as proof that some men are born “gay,” it was actually discredited shortly after its release for several reasons.
First, LeVay compared the brains of nineteen men whose sexual habits he did not know, (he only knew that they had died of AIDS, which is known to ravage the brain) with the brains of thirteen men whose sexual habits he did not know. It is therefore impossible to draw any conclusion from his study. Second, although LeVay argued that a small INAH3 (hypothalamus) “caused” men to be “gay,” some of the men who, according to his guess work, had sex with men, had a hypothalamus that was larger than the average size of the hypothalamus of the men that, according to his guess work, had sex with women. Further, some of the men who he guessed had sex with women had a hypothalamus that was smaller than the average size of the men who according to his guess work had sex with men. So, some of his “gay” subjects should have been straight, and vice-versa. Third, Simon LeVay himself admitted in 2001 that the study was inconclusive, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.” Fourth, the results of the hypothalamus study are not repeatable.
Simon LeVay’s hypothalamus study confused the public. Hopefully the truth will finally set the record straight.
The “Gay” Gene Study
The next and probably most influential study reported a “gay” gene and was lead in 1993 by another pro-sodomy activist, Dr. Dean Hamer, and his team of geneticists at the National Cancer Institute. Hamer and his colleagues reported that a “gay” gene seemed to be maternally linked and could be found on the Xq28 stretch of the X chromosome.
Hamer, who has testified in opposition to Colorado’s Amendment 2, which sought to keep same-gender sex activists from winning minority class status, has played an enormous role in the born “gay” hoax. Then Senator Robert C. Smith (R-New Hampshire) knew this and even accused the doctor of “actively pursu[ing] a gay agenda.”
Immediately after Hamer’s study was published, a media explosion ensued. But like the Hypothalamus study before it, Hamer’s results were eventually discredited. The title of an article appearing in the same-gender sex movement magazine the New York Native is worth a thousand words:
“‘Gay Gene’ Research Doesn’t Hold Under Scrutiny, Chicago Tribune’s John Crewdson Uncovers Possible Scientific Misconduct by NCI Researcher.”
First, the article informs the reader of the following:
“In addition to the political and social firestorm Hamer’s research has ignited, he has also been criticized by numerous scientists for not performing what seems to be an obvious control experiment: examining the genes of heterosexual brothers. Those scientists, including two prominent geneticist/biologists at Harvard University [Richard Lewontin and Ruth Hubbard], were not government researchers.”
This omission is significant. If Hamer was refusing to use a control group in his experiment, he must have refused for a reason. But, what could that reason have been? According to the New York Native article, another researcher that worked on the project had attacked Hamer’s honesty and integrity over this issue. The article states:
“Even worse for Hamer, the National Institute of Health’s Office of Research Integrity is now investigating his ‘gay gene’ research, according to Crewdson. The inquiry concerns allegations that Hamer was selective about which data he chose to report (i.e., that he ignored data that didn’t support his contention that homosexuality is genetically determined).
The data manipulation was reported to NIH’s integrity office by a junior researcher who performed research crucial to Hamer’s claimed discovery, according to Crewdson.”
Aside from the fact that it appears as though Hamer threw out cases which contradicted his pre-planned experimental outcome, if a study such as Hamer’s is scientifically valid, other researchers should get the same results with duplicate experiments. But this has not happened. The article continues:
“‘It troubles some scientists that Hamer has not published his original data,’ according to Crewdson. Additionally, at least one lab that has tried hard to replicate his findings has been unsuccessful.”
“Only one independent laboratory has reported attempting such a replication, and it has found no evidence to support Hamer,” Crewdson reported. “We can’t reproduce Hamer’s data,” said George Ebers, a neurogeneticist from the University of Western Ontario, who has searched unsuccessfully for a Hamer-style genetic link to homosexuality in more than 50 pairs of gay Canadian brothers.
In fact, Ebers found the genetic markers cited by Hamer in “exactly half of his brother pairs” according to Crewdson—precisely what the laws of chance would predict, if the ‘markers’ had no significance.”
Only four months after the New York Native article was printed, the November 1995 edition of Scientific American reported that Hamer actually was “being charged with research improprieties and was under investigation by the National Institute of Health’s Federal Office of Research Integrity.” According to allegations, Hamer deliberately and deceitfully excluded pairs of brothers whose genetic makeup contradicted his pre-planned experimental outcome. NIH never released the results of the inquiry, but Hamer was shortly thereafter transferred to another section. He had done his “gay” gene research under a grant to work on Kaposi’s sarcoma, a skin cancer that inordinately afflicts men who have sex with men.
In April of 1999, George Rice and George Ebers, both neurogeneticist’s from the University of Western Ontario, finally discredited Hamer’s results for the record when they published their review of Hamer’s study in Science Magazine. The scientists stated that the results of Hamer’s study “did not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality.” They found that the brothers observed by the Hamer group were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by chance. These results officially sounded the death-knell for Hamer’s outrageously effective yet deliberately deceptive “gay” gene study. Another group of researchers (Sanders, et al.) eventually tried to replicate Hamer’s study yet again; they too failed to find a genetic connection to homosexuality. Some once believed that a “gay” gene would be found hiding amidst other chromosomes analyzed in the Human Genome Project. However, according to the National Center for Bio-Technology Information, neither the map for the X nor the Y chromosomes contains any “gay” gene.
Hamer eventually admitted that his study did not support a genetic cause for homosexuality and that female homosexuality was “culturally transmitted, not inherited” and that “There is not a single master gene that makes people gay…I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay,” he says. However, Hamer continued to publicly claim that male “homosexuality” was about 50 percent genetic, 50 percent environmental. Where did he get this 50 percent statistic from? Hamer’s claim that male “homosexuality” is about 50 percent genetic is based on the “gay” twin study, which has also been discredited.
The “Gay” Twins Study
The “gay” twins study was conducted by doctors Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard, from Boston University in December of 1991. The Advocate reported the results. Bailey and Pillard “found that 52% of the identical twin brothers of gay men were gay, as were 22% of fraternal twin brothers, and 11% of genetically unrelated brothers.”
Once released, the results were spun into sales, as magazine covers, newscasters, and radio broadcasters cited the results as proof that same-sex attractions are genetic. In scientific circles however, problems were surfacing.
First, in order to show that “homosexuality” is genetic using identical twins, one must demonstrate that when one twin is “gay” the other will also be “gay” 100% of the time. The results of this twins study however, fell a long way below the mark. Further, genetics tells us that if one fraternal (non-identical) twin is “gay,” then other non-twin brothers should also be “gay” exactly as often as are the non-identical twin brothers, since non-identical twins and regular brothers are equally genetically different. In this study, 22 percent of fraternal twins both claimed to be “gay.” Therefore, their non-twin brothers should also have claimed to have been “gay” 22 percent of the time. If the non-twin percentage was lower, some environmental cause must have been at fault, not a hidden “gay” gene. But this was not the case. Yet readers could not have known that this was not the case, because Bailey and Pillard left the numbers for the genetically related non-twin brothers out of their original report. Why? If this data had supported their agenda, would they not have included it as well?
According to The Advocate the researcher’s withheld important information about the non-twin brothers in their study, the article states: “According to Bailey, a heterosexual, the released data did not include another group in the study: 142 genetically related non-twin brothers of gay men, of whom only 13—or about 9 percent were also gay.”
Obviously, if this data had been released with the original results, it would have been immediately clear that Bailey and Pillard did not prove that there is a “gay” gene. The percentage of homosexuality in non-twin brothers is so low (9 percent) that had the study been properly conducted and reported, it would actually have demonstrated that homosexuality is not caused by a “gay” gene.
Why? Because if 11 percent of non-related step-brothers were both “gay,” then, if genetics were a factor, more than 11 percent of genetically related brothers should have reported being “gay,” but the study does not show this. Only 9% of genetically related brothers reported both being “gay.” So, this study actually shows the opposite of what is claimed to have shown. This study shows that unrelated step-brothers are both “gay” more often than genetically related brothers. This study, had it been properly reported, actually demonstrates that environment is the cause for same-sex attractions, not genetics. But the researchers left this out.
Awash in error, according to The Advocate, this study did not have a proper sample: “Bailey and Pillard’s study has come under attack in scientific circles…Gay scholars have called their sample, culled through advertisements in gay and lesbian newspapers, unrepresentative and their data inconclusive.”
Not only did these “scientists” use unrepresentative samples, they also used a curious, self-serving definition of “gay.” Bailey admits that he and “Pillard ‘lumped the bisexuals in with the gay men.’” This is critical. If the men that Bailey and Pillard were using to show that same-sex attractions are genetic and unchangeable were actually still attracted to opposite sex, then this not only destroys their results, but it destroys their credibility as scientists as well.
In conclusion, all studies which have claimed to have found an immutable cause for same-sex attractions and behaviors have crumbled under the scrutiny of peer review. Same-sex attractions are not genetic -there is no scientific evidence which shows that they are, none, not a single person has been found with any innate “gay” gene, organ, hormone, chemical, or combination thereof.
In the light of Truth we can see why activists have failed to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Bowers v Hardwick by way of minority status. They have not been able to scientifically prove that people are born “gay.” The concept was completely fabricated. The born “gay” hoax failed in that sense, however it prevailed in another. Individual emotions and opinions are not as solid, girded for work, or hard-pressed to correspond with reality as science. As the years went by, the public was never told the truth behind the headlines. America became intoxicated with the notion that persons must be born “gay.” There was no one to break the spell. The studies went publicly unchallenged, and a generation grew amidst the lies, which still regularly appear in college textbooks across the nation. These pseudo-studies have both directly and indirectly convinced millions; including one judge in Texas that some people are born “gay” and that therefore, sodomy ought to be decriminalized.
In 2003, Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned by one activist judge in Lawrence v. Texas. Under the full faith and credit clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Lawrence v. Texas took the power to criminalize sodomy away from every state in the union. Now, sodomy is legal in every state. Born “gay” propagandists know they will never prove scientifically that anyone is born “gay,” so in the present; they have largely abandoned their direct quest for traditional minority status.
Ironically, after the legalization of sodomy activists slammed the brakes on the born “gay” hoax –The “Gay” Agenda. Today the once unimpeachable propaganda has been set aside by its own inventors. Elite activists are now turning their attention toward a new goal: recruitment and retention. As a result, a far more brutal force lurks just over the horizon of mainstream American consciousness: “Queer Theory.”
“Queer Theory” holds that there is no such thing as gender or a fixed sexual affiliation. The contemporary “Queer” holds that his or her identity is a fluid social construct. In other words, the “Queer” identity is actually the rejection of an intrinsic identity altogether. In order to understand that recruitment is possible by way of “Queer Theory,” and through general recruitment and desensitization via the mass media and porn industries, we must identify some of the contemporary and classic causes of both same-sex attractions and sodomy. We must also become aware of how the late modern “gay” identity and its diametric opposite, the post-modern “Queer” anti-identity actually develop. Further we must acknowledge that reversals are possible, and how political activists might use public ignorance about the fluidity and potential irrationality of sexuality to their advantage, to recruit unsuspecting youth.
Ryan,
Wow, a lot of great information.
I have heard all of what you posted before. As a result of reading many books about the militiant homosexual community’s agenda and being knee deep in protecting traditional marriage and family in Massachusetts, I have seen and heard some very DISTURBING stories about the attack on the traditional family and their values.
I must admit that with all the stories and situations I have heard of regarding the vitriol attacks on the traditional family, I have never heard of anything as abhorant as what is going on in California. What a disgrace.
Hopefully SB777 will go before the voters such that it will be destroyed and more people will get involved in protecting the values that make this country tick.
Love your passion,
Scia
The WND (I’ll pronounce it “Wind”) report doesn’t have the courage, or smarts, or whatever their editorial team is missing, to link to he actual legislation online. So how can I judge or comment on what the actual legislation says? Certainly not from the clearly biased article, or from the anti-gay blogorrhea sufferers commenting above.
Unfortunately, some basic online journalism practice– hell, basic smart blogging/online publishing common sense– is lacking here.
So might I (or Kevin) find this actually troubling? Can’t tell from any source linked here.
“If you want to use a restroom that matches your gender identity … you should be allowed to do so…” (taken from this WND article that Gregg has posted)
Recently, I heard a California talk host defend the idea of gender choice restrooms. You use the facility where you “feel” most comfortable. Doesn’t matter how you are dressed or how you look. If you are a man but are dressed totally like a woman and you want to use the men’s restroom, so be it.
The detailed posts above help me to understand me why it is so important for the gay, lesbian, transsexual, bisexual movement to break down the natural , protective barriers our society established for the common good. I’m outraged that the unnatural is trying to be forced on people. So, I’m just wondering if this bill should pass in CA, what’s next? Stalls, no walls? What if heterosexuals use facilities where there is only one restroom with a door. Will those restrooms be outlawed because they allow privacy?
Listen up! Freedom is not about “feeling” free. It’s about being free and there’s a huge difference. Being free necessitates restraint and consideration for the common good.
I can prove that the homos were not born that way. When you see 2 Sodomites together and you will find one playing the male and the other the female. Ever wondered why they do that. Because that is normal and natural and God placed that inside of them showing to themselves and to the world they know the right normal and natural way but have perverted it.
Here is the language of SB777 in full detail:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0751-0800/sb_777_bill_20070223_introduced.html
PRETTY sick!!
Thanks for the link, Scia. So, basically the antidiscrimination law is amended to add “sexual orientation” to the list along with ehtnicity, race, religion,disability, etc.
I read it through twice, and missed the part where they outlawed “Mom and Dad” and mandated.
So, in conclusion, not troubled– sorry to disappoint.
I can probably prove that intolerant religious hypocrites were not born that way either, but you probably don;t want to hear it.
I read the bill and the only thing I found objectionable is this,
“210.7. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not
stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.”
What the hell does that mean? That could apply to pretty much anything. It is too broad.
Other than that, I don’t see anything in here that outlaws mom and dad. To me, it seems like a formality to add “sexual orientation” to the list along with ehtnicity, race, religion,disability, etc.”
I agree that there is a culture war going on, and I am generally on the side of the conservatives in that battle. Not as completely as they would like, but I certainly want their beliefs advanced more than liberal beliefs.
Every interest group pushes their cause too far, and then takes what they can get. Gays included. The advancement and push back will continue for as long as we have a free society.
The question is how do we deal with it?
Kevin
Ryan,
Superb post, thanks so much!
In Luke 17:26-30 Jesus tells us that the days before His coming will be as the times of Noah and Lot, times of demonic penetration into the human race and militant homosexuality.
Thank you for helping me understand how America has been duped.
One of my friends told me she found her mother is a bisexual. I just come across http:www.bimingle.com and find her mother’s profile and pics there. She feel it’s incredible. She never knows that, and keep on asking me “how i can accept my mother’s feeling and her love to the other one.”
One of my friends told me she found her mother is a bisexual. She just come across http:www.bimingle.com and find her mother’s profile and pics there. She feel it’s incredible. She never knows that, and keep on asking me “how i can accept my mother’s feeling and her love to the other one.”