Chapter 4
Homosexual Tactics
|
Contents
"You can forget about trying right up front to persuade folks that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can get them to think it is just another thing — meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders — then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won."
— Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.[1] Become Familiar With the Homosexual Tactics.
Your Advantages. Before you enter the battle against "gay rights," you must become intimately familiar with all of the major tactics that the homophiles commonly employ, because these are the "weapons" that they are going to use against you every day.
You have three great advantages in this fight: (1) Your opponents have used the same set of tactics for the past three decades and are thus quite predictable; (2) You can easily defeat all of these tactics if you are adequately prepared; and (3) These tactics have always worked well for the homophiles, and when you thwart them you will throw your opponents into absolute confusion. If you know the standard tactics used by members of the "gay rights" movement, you can anticipate them and you can plan to defeat them.
Your Mission. As you will see, homophile strategists are very adept at manipulating public opinion with an arsenal of tactics that are all based — without exception — upon deceptions and half-truths.
One reason that these tactics have worked so well and so universally is that the homosexuals have succeeded in marketing a harmless and friendly image. They have lulled people into thinking that they will not be adversely affected by the homophile social agenda. The homosexual strategists have toned down their extreme rhetoric and have cloaked their radical agenda in soothing language. Over time, people begin to assume themselves to be "homophobes" or "haters" if they oppose any aspect of the "gay" agenda — or, incredibly, even if they question it in their own minds.
As Mahatma Gandhi acknowledged, "Man must choose either of the two courses, the upward or the downward, but as he has the brute in him, he will more easily choose the downward course than the upward, especially when the downward course is presented to him in beautiful garb. Man easily capitulates when sin is presented in the garb of beauty."[2]
St. Francis de Sales reveals the one who schemes to entrap souls in this way; "Just as Satan cannot procure the commission of evils but by making it appear agreeable, so he cannot divert us from good but by making it appear disagreeable."[3]
It is your job to expose the rotten foundations and baleful social impacts of the "gay agenda." This is a difficult mission, but if you follow certain procedures and learn the battlefield before taking action, you cannot fail.
Read Their Books. The handbook you are reading is a concise summary of hundreds of books and articles written by experienced activists on both sides of the "gay rights" battle. If you would like to gain a deeper understanding of how homosexual activists and their allies think, you may be interested in some of their books. They are always readily available on Amazon.com and many other Internet outlets. • If you are going to read only one book, make it Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen's After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s [New York: Penguin Books, 1989]. We often hear that homosexuals do not have an "agenda." Well, here it is in black and white for everyone to see — a detailed strategy for using the media to propagandize normal Americans into tolerating and then accepting homosexuality. This well-researched and written book is absolutely essential reading for anti-"gay rights" activists. • Saul D. Alinsky's Reveille for Radicals [Vintage Books, 1969] and Rules for Radicals [Vintage Books, 1972] describe the nuts and bolts of left-wing union organizing, philosophy, and tactics, much of which could also be used by pro-family groups. • George Hayduke's The Complete Book of Dirty Tricks describes interesting tactics that have been used by radicals to confuse and hamper "big business" and the opposition. The book cover advises that it was written "strictly for entertainment purposes," but the tactics described give valuable insight into the methods used by radical homosexual groups. • Sun Tzu's The Art of War [New York: Oxford University Press, 1973] was written by one of the greatest strategists of all time more than 2,500 years ago. Sun's classic treatise addresses the basics of war and how to win victories when you have scant resources and time. • You can often find excellent sources of information in homophile organizing manuals posted on the Internet. Two examples are (1) the very detailed Out Against the Right: A Hands‑On Guide by the Lesbian Avengers, and (2) the "Fight the Right Action Kit" by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) Policy Institute. Both of these resources are posted on many Web sites. The Six Primary Tactics Used by Homosexual Extremists. "I have been struck, in my brief encounters over the years with a half-dozen prominent gay male activists, by the frightening coldness and deadness of their eyes. Behind their smooth, bland faces I saw the seething hatreds of Dostoevskian anarchists. Gay crusading, I concluded, was their way of handling their own bitter misanthropy, which came from other sources. I found these men more spiritually twisted than anyone I have encountered in my life."
— Self-described bisexual Camille Paglia, on Salon.com, June 23, 1998. Brains — or Hate? Out of necessity, homosexual extremists have become excellent strategists, as demonstrated by their many victories in the legal and public arenas. However, their high-visibility members, including the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), RATS (Radical Activist Truth Squad), the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Dykes on Bikes, organized transvestites and transsexuals, and the many homosexual child molesters, are beginning to attract a little too much public attention. Therefore, the "gay Napoleons" are mapping out a new, more sedate, but very sophisticated campaign whose objective is to subtly "desensitize" the American public to their anti-democratic and anti-American agenda.
The Overall Strategy. Generals and attorneys often wish that their opponents would write a book. The "gay rights" movement has fulfilled this wish by making vital information on their strategies available to the public. This is a grave strategic error.
The "gay agenda" is very compactly and clearly laid out in the "marching orders" of the movement, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s.[4] This volume represents an absolute treasure chest of information for those pro-family stalwarts who are actively fighting the "gay" agenda.
The six primary tactics used by the modern homosexual-rights movement are listed below in approximate order of their importance. Keep in mind the difference between a strategy — the overall, long-term plan — and a tactic, which is a day-to-day procedure used to support the strategy. The pro-family activist must be intimately familiar with all of the homophile tactics, because he will encounter all of them.
Full Equality? Homosexual activists say that all they want full equality with "straights."
Chapter 3 of this book, "Objectives of the Homosexual Movement," reveals that the truth is far more ominous.
There really is a "gay agenda," despite left-wing sneering at this term, and it is after much more than equality — it demands special privileges that no sane person would grant to any other special interest group. The leading thinkers of the "gay rights" movement are actively planning a true social revolution that will result in what they call a "queer planet."
In summary, homosexuals want to be declared a special and privileged class of people, free of all responsibility for its actions.
In order to achieve this ultimate goal, the homosexuals depend upon six primary tactics, as follows; (1) Exploit the victim status (2) Use the anti-life media (3) Confuse and neutralize the churches (4) Slander and stereotype Christians (5) Bait and switch (hide their true nature) (6) Intimidation Tactic #1: Exploit the Victim Status.
Statement of the Tactic. BECAUSE gay men and lesbians are discriminated against in housing and employment and because how we act is more important than who we are and if we get harassed it's our problem and if we get attacked we provoked it and if we raise our voices we're flaunting ourselves and if we enjoy sex we're perverts and if we have AIDS we deserve it and if we march with pride we're recruiting children and if we want or have children we're unfit parents and if we stand up for our rights we're overstepping our boundaries and because we are forced constantly to question our own worth as human beings and if we have a relationship with someone of the same sex it is not recognized and we are told our love is not "real" and if we come out of the closet we're just going through a phase and because lesbian and gay history is virtually absent from literature and because homophobia is sanctioned by the Supreme Court and ... for lots and lots of other reasons, I AM PART OF THE LESBIAN & GAY CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT.
— The world champion run-on sentence, printed on a homosexual
rights T-shirt marketed by the Northern Sun Products for
Progressives Retail Catalog, Spring/Summer 1997, page 7. Homosexual activists use the victim status as a tactic at the highest levels to gain sympathy for their movement. They will also use it against you if you oppose them, because they know it is a very powerful, almost paralyzing, weapon that gives them a distinctly unfair advantage in the public square.
As things now stand in North America and Europe, when a normal person calls a homosexual a "queer" or "faggot," he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because he has committed a Federally-classified "hate crime." However, when homosexuals attack St. Patrick's Cathedral, physically assault its parishioners, and desecrate the consecrated Host, they are, according to local politicians, merely "expressing justifiable outrage." Then they are sentenced to a few hours of community service (which they naturally never perform) by a sympathetic judge who compares them to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King. This is the main problem with "hate crimes" laws — they are always selectively enforced in favor of homosexuals.
Kirk and Madsen summarize the potent effectiveness of the victim status in their book; In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. If gays present themselves, instead, as a strong and arrogant tribe promoting a defiantly non-conformist lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that warrants resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our gay pride publicly to such an extent that we undermine our victim image.
The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable; that is, to jam with shame the self-righteous pride that would ordinarily accompany and reward their antigay belligerence, and to lay groundwork for the process of conversion by helping straights identify with gays and sympathize with their underdog status.
... Persons featured in the media campaign should be wholesome and admirable by straight standards, and completely unexceptional in appearance; in a word, they should be indistinguishable from the straights we'd like to reach.
In practical terms, this means that cocky mustachioed leathermen, drag queens, and bull dykes would not appear in gay commercials and other public presentations. Conventional young people, middle-aged women, and older folks of all races would be featured, not to mention the parents and straight friends of gays. ... it cannot go without saying, incidentally, that groups on the farthest margins of acceptability, such as NAMBLA [the North American Man-Boy Love Association], must play no part at all in such a campaign. Suspected child molesters will never look like victims.
Now, two different messages about the Gay Victim are worth communicating. First, 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). To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled "moral choice and sin" and give the religious Intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it. And since no choice is involved, gayness can be no more blameworthy than straightness. In fact, it is simply a matter of the odds — one in ten — as to who turns out gay, and who straight. Each heterosexual must be led to realize that he might easily have been born homosexual himself.
Second, gays should be portrayed as victims of prejudice. Straights don't fully realize the suffering they bring upon gays, and must be shown: graphic pictures of brutalized gays, dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, public humiliation, etc.
... For some critics, it isn't so much the idea of victim imagery that offends, but whom we will present as victims: all-American types so starchily conformist in appearance that they can barely bend their knees, let alone stoop to fellatio. ... Our ultimate objective is to expand straight tolerance so much that even gays who look unconventional can feel safe and accepted. ... In time, as hostilities subside and stereotypes weaken, we see no reason why more and more diversity should not be introduced into the projected image. This would be healthy for society as well as for gays [pages 184 to 186, emphasis in original]. Analysis of the Tactic. Note the extraordinary similarity to the tactics used by pro-abortionists. Neatly tailored attorneys are the stormtroopers who have made all the pro-abortion gains in court, not snarling feminists — and these advances have been based upon always-false claims of hundreds or even thousands of women dying of botched illegal abortions. Likewise, homophile lawyers have bullied legislatures all over the world into enacting restrictive laws based on invariably exaggerated claims of violence against "gays."
Homosexual radicals are compelled to be free of responsibility for their actions, so they blame everyone else for their troubles. They never mention the "gay" bathhouses in New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco and elsewhere, where homosexuals can congregate for anonymous group sex at any time. They never talk about the "glory hole" guides they publish, which list thousands of places where homosexuals have drilled holes in restroom stall walls so that they can commit oral sex on one other anonymously. And we never hear about cities such as Portland, Oregon, where families are afraid to enter public parks where homosexual group sex ("dogging") is common.
|
The following paragraphs describe a number of situations in which homosexuals have used the victim status to suppress opposition and attack their opponents. Since the victim status is so important, and since it is the tactic the anti-"gay rights" activist is most likely to encounter in everyday conflict with the homosexuals, a fairly large number of case studies are presented below.
Example #1: Hate Crime Statistics. Perhaps the most common lament of the garden-variety homosexual activist revolves around the alleged "tidal wave" of "anti-gay" hate crimes that are occurring in the United States.
The press unthinkingly parrots the homophile claim that "hate crimes against gays" are increasing at the astronomical rate of 20 percent (30 percent, 50 percent, pick a nice round number) each year, and this is supposed to galvanize "straights" into taking action to protect their persecuted brethren.
If the media would take the time to check the figures, it would find that the reality surrounding "hate crimes" is far different from what the homopropagandists would like us to believe.
Table 4-1 shows official U.S. government hate crime statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for the years 2001 to 2005.[5] |
Table 4-1
FBI Statistics on Hate Crimes Committed Against
Self-Described Homosexuals and Heterosexuals, 2001-2005 |
Annual Hate Crimes
Committed Against: |
2001
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
| Averages,
2001-2005 |
|
|
Male Homosexuals | 980 | 825 | 783 | 738 | 621 | 789 |
Lesbians | 205 | 172 | 187 | 164 | 155 | 177 |
Homosexuals (no sex given) | 173 | 222 | 247 | 245 | 195 | 216 |
Bisexuals | 17 | 15 | 8 | 17 | 25 | 16 |
Total "Anti-Gay" | 1,375 | 1,234 | 1,225 | 1,164 | 996 | 1,198 |
Total "Anti-Straight" | 18 | 10 | 14 | 33 | 25 | 20 |
|
|
Based on these FBI statistics, we can see that;
(1) Despite all of the propaganda we are constantly bombarded with, the number of hate crimes against homosexuals is dramatically decreasing, not increasing, each year. In fact, the number of hate crimes against homosexuals has decreased 28 percent in just four years, from 1,375 in 2001 to 996 in 2005. If someone challenges these FBI numbers, demand to know where their bstatistics originate. If they are prepared enough to offer a set of numbers, it will always be from a homophile organization, which has an interest in inflating its statistics as much as possible. You can point this out, and also emphasize the fact that the FBI is an impartial source. (2) The probability of any individual homosexual becoming the victim of a hate crime during his or her entire life span is less than one percent. In other words, only one in 77 homosexuals are ever victims of hate crimes.[5] Remember, though, that homophiles don't go by FBI definitions, or by any definition, for that matter; they go by their feelings only. In other words, if their feelings are hurt, then they are victims of a "hate crime." They think that acts as trivial as having an anti-"gay-rights" bumpersticker on one's car are hate crimes. So, during any discussion of "hate crimes," you must get homophiles to define what a "hate crime" really is. (3) If a homosexual had an infinite lifespan, he or she would only be the victim of a hate crime once every four thousand years.[5] (4) Interestingly (and we never hear about this!), "gays" are slightly more likely to commit hate crimes against "straights" than "straights" are to commit hate crimes against "gays." There are 4.17 hate crimes committed by each million homosexuals annually against homosexuals, and there are 4.08 hate crimes committed by each million heterosexuals annually against homosexuals.[5] Violence against homosexuals by others gets all the press, but it is interesting to note that the great majority of anti-"gay" violence is committed by other "gays." The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP) bills itself as "National Advocacy for Local LGBT Communities," and is the leading tracker of violence against "gays" in the United States. According to the NCAVP's statistics on anti-"gay" violence, 83 percent of all violence committed against "gays" is carried out by other "gays" in domestic situations. This does not even count "gay-on-gay" violence committed outside the home.[6]
Example #2: A Phony "Fourfer:" Azalea Cooley. In the Fall of 1992, Oregonians witnessed perhaps the most vicious political campaign ever waged in the USA. The Oregon Citizens Alliance (OCA), a conservative group opposing special rights for homosexuals, placed Ballot Measure 9 before the people, which would declare homosexuality "abnormal and perverse." The purpose of this ballot measure was to protect school children against often-pornographic homophile propaganda.
The reaction to this ballot measure was entirely predictable. Almost every political, religious, fraternal, and business organization in Oregon condemned the measure as "hateful," "bigoted," "ignorant," "mean-spirited," and every other nasty adjective in the book. Homophile groups used vandalism, death threats, propaganda and slander in order to intimidate the supporters of the ballot measure.
One of the most powerful tools used by the homophiles was the allegation that "hate crimes" were on the increase as a direct result of Ballot Measure 9. The "No On Hate" Campaign claimed that the ballot measure had led to a 23% increase in hate crimes in the single year between 1991 and 1992.[7]
The most powerful spokesperson for the "No on Hate" Campaign emerged in the person of Azalea Cooley, a "quadruple victim" in a liberal's eyes (female, minority, handicapped and lesbian). Cooley, sitting in a wheelchair, made dozens of speeches before large crowds, describing the terror she continually suffered as a result of the more than twenty hate crimes that "hate-filled bigots" had committed against her, including death threats, cross burnings and vandalism of her property. These crimes were always prominently listed near her on a huge foam poster board.
The day before the 1992 elections, a police surveillance team filmed Cooley briskly stepping out of her house, walking into her front yard, and setting up a cross for burning. Less than two weeks later, Cooley not only admitted to staging all of the hate crimes herself, but confessed that she was not really crippled after all. Her wheelchair was just a prop. She had shaved her head to make it look like her hair had all fallen out as a result of chemotherapy for alleged brain cancer. Additionally, the seizures that conveniently gripped her whenever someone asked her uncomfortable questions were faked.
She then clumsily (and ineffectively) attempted suicide in order to try to get even more sympathy, and claimed that she was "just sick and looking for attention." Finally (apparently secure in the belief that Oregonians have IQs two points above broccoli) she strongly asserted that her activities had no political purpose whatsoever![7]
Yet the homosexuals did not disavow Cooley's activities — they expressed sympathy towards her instead and staged the usual outpouring of manufactured emotion so that they would look good to the public. Predictably, there was absolutely no condemnation from the press, except for a few of the more honest progressive magazines like the Willamette Week, which conferred upon her its "Butthead of the Year" award.[7]
If an Oregon Citizens Alliance member had staged such hate crimes, the press would have undoubtedly called for a jail term if he or she had been caught in the act as Cooley had been.
Incidentally, the 22 hate crimes committed by Cooley against herself are still listed by Oregon homosexual groups. And liberals, of course, eagerly excused her lies and hypocrisy. For example, rape counselor Evelyn C. White asked "What would have to happen to a person, what pain would she have had to suffer, what wounds would she have had to endure, to make her commit such atrocities against herself? Who or what betrayed Azalea Cooley?"[8]
|
Example #3: Padding the Numbers. In the 1990s, the Lesbian Community Project (LCP) of Oregon kept careful tallies of what it called "hate crimes" committed against homosexuals.
For 1992, the LCP reported 970 "bias crimes" in Oregon. The National Gay & Lesbian Task Force reported even more at 1,176. However, the Oregon Department of Justice compiled just 95, and the Portland Police Bureau recorded only 146.
Yet all major Oregon newspapers and television and radio stations used the LCP's statistics exclusively, and completely ignored those of government agencies. Even the New York Times reported that more homosexuals were attacked in Oregon in 1992 than in New York, a state with 15 times as many people.
Naturally, Donna Red Wing of the LCP adamantly refused to substantiate her group's wild claims. When reporters called her to inquire about her statistics, Red Wing simply said that "I don't want to talk to you."[9]
There are two primary reasons why the Lesbian Community Project and National Gay & Lesbian Task Force "bias crime" figures are so grossly inflated;(1) Their numbers were based upon reports called in to a so-called "Homophobic Violence Reporting Hotline." Homosexual hysteria and paranoia was extreme during the Ballot Measure 9 campaign, but no effort was made by Hotline workers to confirm if the reported incidents of "violence" had actually occurred. Red Wing admitted that "We don't ask someone if it really happened. Why would someone make that up?"[9] Well, it should be obvious to any thinking person why people would make up hate crimes — to gain political advantage through the use of the victim status. (2) The hotline callers got to report whatever they thought was "homophobic violence." Red Wing confessed that "We do not define the term "violence." We allow our callers to do that."[9] Almost all of the incidents reported were incredibly trivial in nature, i.e., a person reporting just seeing someone wearing a "Yes on 9" T-shirt, or a person being upset by a "Yes on 9" bumpersticker was dutifully recorded by Hotline workers as a "victim" of a "bias crime." The absurdity of such claims is highlighted by trying to imagine the reaction of the Lesbian Community Project if a "straight" person subsequently claimed that just seeing a homosexual wearing a "No on 9" T-shirt or button was a "bias crime" based on sexual orientation. Example #4: Rooney's "Mistake." For homophiles, the treasured victim status is much more than a ceremonial title. It is a formidable weapon that allows "victims" to use brute force in order to accomplish their objectives by simply sidestepping the usual social "rules of play."
Radio personality Andy Rooney found out firsthand that the rights of free speech and association have been discarded in favor of politically correct (P.C.) views.
In 1990, Rooney had the audacity to suggest that sodomy and cigarette smoking might be unhealthy. After outraged homosexuals attacked him on every available public front, The Wall Street Journal voiced its disapproval of this new brand of McCarthyism as it editorialized that Certain offenses, those of racism and homophobia in particular, now have such status that it is necessary only to be accused of them to be found guilty or at least irremediably tainted. ... Today, the universities and the academies are the main perpetrators of thought control and repression — places where even small deviations from the established orthodoxies on women, homosexuality or race bring instant retribution and threats to job security.[10] However, don't expect the same attacks on a left-wing celebrity who makes an authentically racist statement. His liberal peers will excuse him for having suffered "just an uncharacteristic slip of the tongue" or "a momentary lapse in judgment." For example, CBS correspondent Mike Wallace, who made a career of relentlessly ridiculed conservative beliefs, commented on the difficulty Blacks and Hispanics had in understanding complex sales contracts. Wallace said that "You bet your ass they [the contracts] are hard to read ... if you're reading them over watermelon and tacos."[11]
It is almost impossible to imagine a more brutally racist statement, but not a murmur was heard from liberal groups or from Wallace's fellow journalists. Contrast this to the treatment that Rooney received, and the liberal double standard is glaringly highlighted once again.
Example #5: Crushing Opposition at Colleges. The classical notion that universities should be "arenas for the free exchange of ideas" has been completely discarded in the United States and Europe. More than three-fourths of the USA’s colleges and universities now possess codes of conduct that ban behavior and speech based upon, including many other things, "homophobia."
The danger that these codes represent to academic freedom far outweighs their usefulness. This has already been amply demonstrated, because many colleges have severely punished students for merely desiring to debate the topic of homosexuality; • A student at the University of Michigan announced his intention to establish a counseling program to help homosexuals leave their lifestyle. He was dragged before a panel of university administrators, unanimously found guilty of "sexual harassment," and was thrown out of the university.[12] • A Yale student met the same fate after he merely posted a notice of a debate about whether or not the Central Intelligence Agency policy of discriminating against homosexuals was legitimate.[12] • Teresa Polenz of Dartmouth attended a meeting of the Gay Student Alliance as a reporter for The Dartmouth Review in order to try to find out what the organization did with the $500 it received from the college every year. In a rare moment of honesty, a homosexual student revealed how the money was put to use: "We have parties. Wait until you see our parties."[13] The day after the meeting, Dean Edward Shanahan of the school told Polenz if she were not in his office in 15 minutes, she would be suspended. Shanahan demanded that she sign a sworn affidavit stating that nothing that happened at the meeting would be published in the Review. She refused, and so the college put her on trial for "eavesdropping," even though she had openly attended the homosexual meeting. The college gave her no right to call or cross-examine witnesses and no right to a lawyer; and, even more incredibly, the prosecution was given the right to act as judge in the case! In other words, this was a Dartmouth homosexual Kangaroo Kourt. Administrators told her that suspension was a foregone conclusion. The only thing that saved Polenz was a blistering assault by The Wall Street Journal on the Dartmouth "justice system."[14] Political science professor Jean Betheke Elshtain, while highlighting the dangers presented by codes against racism, also points out the difficulties associated with all punitive codes of this nature; "My hunch is that, over the long haul, the upshot of such endeavors [college speech codes] will not be a purified, racist-free, collective student consciousness, but a simmering backlog of resentment at being labeled as a racist, even if one has never committed a racist act or uttered a racist slur."[15]
As the American Civil Liberties Union commonly asserts, if unpopular ideas are banned today, the more popular ones will inevitably be banned in the future.
Naturally, Christianity is fair game on universities, and commonly suffers the most outrageous insults, slanders and lies. But nobody cares about the Christians — except for the Christians.
The Conclusion. In summary, the point of all of these examples is quite clear: All anti-lifers, whether they be "sexologists," pro-abortionists, homosexuals, or euthanasiasts, will grossly inflate statistics and lie repeatedly in order to gain public sympathy, and then will hide whatever scanty documentation they have when questioned. Pro-family activists should vigorously call into question all statistics presented by homophiles, because their numbers are, without question, completely false. After all, the actual documented hate crimes figures are not impressive enough to elicit the desired degree of sympathy from the general public.
Tactic #2: Manipulate the Media with Pro-"Gay" Propaganda. "Do you know the most powerful lobby in the entertainment business? Bigger than blacks or women's lib or any nationalist or racist group. It's the gays. If you don't have the approval of the Gay Media Task Force, you don't go on the air."
— Television producer James Komack.[16] Statement of the Tactic. Kirk and Madsen recognize the absolute necessity of having the liberal media in the homosexual camp, as outlined below. We have in mind a strategy as calculated and powerful as that which gays are accused of pursuing by their enemies — or, if you prefer, a plan as manipulative as that which our enemies themselves employ. It's time to learn from Madison Avenue, to roll out the big guns. Gays must launch a large-scale campaign — we've called it the Waging Peace campaign — to reach straights through the mainstream media. We're talking about propaganda. ... The purpose and effect of progay propaganda is to promote a climate of increased tolerance for homosexuals. And that, we say, is good. ... First, propaganda relies more upon emotional manipulation than upon logic, its goal is, in fact, to bring about a change in the public's feelings. Recognition is dawning that antigay discrimination begins, like war, in the minds of men, and must be stopped there with the help of propaganda. ... Conversion is more than merely desensitizing straights or jamming their homohatred: it entails making them actually like and accept homosexuals as a group, enabling straights to identify with them. ... One of the special advantages of a media campaign is that it can — and should — portray only the most favorable side of gays, thereby counterbalancing the already unfairly negative stereotype in the public's mind. When this is done, the picture labeled "queer" is aggressively painted over; prior images of dirty old queens or coarsened dykes are overlaid with pleasing new images of all-American and Miss America types.
... The goal here is to forge a little entente of conspiracy with the power elite, to jump ahead of public sentiment or ignore it altogether. Sometimes the tactic works: many executive orders (which sidestep the democratic process) and ordinances passed by city councils now protect certain limited civil rights for gays in selected cities.
It will be easiest to approach the print media first, encouraging magazines and newspapers to accept gay money by showing them ads whose messages are pure white bread — that is, completely unobjectionable and only obliquely concerned with homosexuality. At the same time, however, these ads must manage to get the word "gay" into the headline or tagline. Ideally, straight Americans will begin to see them everywhere: small print ads (and, if we have the money, large highway billboards) that earnestly propound appealing truisms, the safer and more platitudinous, the better. IN RUSSIA, THEY TELL YOU WHAT TO BE.
IN AMERICA, WE HAVE THE FREEDOM TO BE
OURSELVES ... AND TO BE THE BEST
— The National Gay & Lesbian Community proudly
joins America in celebrating July 4.
THREE THINGS MAKE AMERICA GREAT: DIVERSITY, FREEDOM, AND COMMUNITY
America, You Make Us Proud Too
— Your National Gay & Lesbian Community.
PEOPLE HELPING INSTEAD OF HATING —
THAT'S WHAT AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT.
— Your National Gay & Lesbian Community. And so forth. Turns the stomach, doesn't it? But remember, mainstream Americans have been raised on a diet of precisely this sort of corn, to which they have the fondest of associations — so corn is what we'll feed them. ... each brief message should tap public sentiment, patriotic or otherwise, and drill an unimpeachably agreeable proposition into mainstream heads — "a public service message" suited to our purposes [emphasis in original]. Analysis of the Tactic: Bad Guys But No Bad Gays. Pro-homosexual ads have been appearing in hundreds of magazines and newspapers all over the United States for more than a decade. A typical piece shows several women smiling into the camera. They are all, of course, dressed in clothing that demonstrates that they are from all walks of life — welder, doctor, lawyer, and so on. The banner headline challenges readers to "GUESS WHICH ONE IS THE LESBIAN," and concludes with "SURPRISE!! THEY ALL ARE!"
The ad goes on to describe how lesbians are just like you and me in every way. It is worth noting that virtually all of these ads have featured women only, because they appear much less threatening than men.
Experienced pro-family activists are acutely aware of the fact that homosexuals are utterly exempt from any form of criticism in the media.
Individual members of virtually every group of any imaginable description are at least occasionally identified on television as "bad guys." This is not necessarily bad, since bad guys do, indeed, come from every group in society. The media shows us Jewish bad guys, Catholic bad guys, black, red, yellow, white, even extraterrestrial bad guys — but there is one group that is automatically and completely exempted from any negative connotation whatever in the media, even on a purely individual basis.
You will never see a homosexual "bad guy" in the media.
Why is this?
Because homosexuals have very heavy influence in the media, and (as shown by the above Kirk/Madsen quotes) they know that it is absolutely vital to their cause to convince the public that their condition is genetic and not acquired. It is also absolutely essential to ensure that no homosexual is ever depicted as having any character flaw or undesirable characteristic, so that the public will be lulled into believing, perhaps subliminally, that all homosexuals are sweet-natured, harmless folks who should be fully integrated into society without delay.
This type of media manipulation is fully recognized by the homosexuals as an essential means to convincing the American public that sodomy is "just another lifestyle."
As an example of such domination, the powerful homosexual lobby will never permit the release of any Hollywood or television movie or show that features any homosexual being "cured" or turning away from his lifestyle in any way. In a 1987 series of TV Guide articles, a large group of television executives agreed that it would be literally impossible to produce a show with the "ex-gay" theme.[17]
Crushing Media Dissent. Homophiles ruthlessly crush any free media expression that is not in lockstep with their peculiar worldview; • A summer 1988 episode of NBC's Midnight Caller originally portrayed a homosexual in less than glowing terms, so a handful of homosexuals quickly organized and loudly demonstrated outside the set. The script was immediately changed, and the program executives apologized profusely.[18] • Anita Bryant had been the Orange Bowl Parade commentator for NBC for nine years, until she began to fight the radical "gay" agenda. NBC immediately dumped her and hired Rita Moreno, who had always been sympathetic towards homosexuals, and who had starred in the first widely-distributed major movie about homosexuality, The Ritz. • The Sacramento Union published several editorials against California pro-homosexual initiatives during the summer of 1990. Shortly thereafter, vandals destroyed more than a hundred of the paper's vending machines, causing more than $45,000 of damage. The wrecked machines were plastered with ACT-UP stickers. ACT-UP is the group AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, a homosexual activist group that physically and violently attacks those individuals who dare to oppose its radical agenda in any way.[19] Screenwriter Earnest Kinov has complained that "You can handle homosexuality — as long as you handle it in a loving, tolerant fashion that will not upset the gay liberation lobby."[20] In June of 1990, none other than The Wall Street Journal editorialized that it seems to be entirely permissible to discuss homosexuality, race, or gender, but only if you hold "the approved point of view."[21] No other group of people receives such "kid glove" treatment by the media.
Kirk and Madsen have done their work very well indeed.
Tactic #3: Confuse and Neutralize the Churches.
Statement of the Tactic. Kirk and Madsen concisely summarize the strategy of infiltration and subversion — especially against the churches, the "gay agenda's" greatest enemy — in their book, as follows; ... Yet, two things can be done to confound the homohatred of the moderately religious. First, gays can talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that "justify" religious bigotry and so jam some of its psychic rewards. This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings. It also means exposing the inconsistency and hatred underlying antigay doctrines. Conservative churches, which pay as much lip service to Christian charity as anybody else, are rendered particularly vulnerable by their callous hypocrisy regarding AIDS sufferers.
Second, gays can undermine the moral authority of homohating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying such institutions as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of Old Time Religion one must set the mightier pull of Science and Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed 'secular humanism'). Such an 'unholy' alliance has already worked well in America against churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work for gays [page 179]. The Use of "Desensitization." Homophiles are successfully using the same "desensitization" tactic against the Church that they employ against the American public. As Kirk and Madsen correctly assert, the same tactic worked to neutralize the churches on divorce and abortion.
Desensitization is effective on a general scale, but homophiles additionally target specific areas of the Church with two other devastatingly effective tactics.
First, they organize pseudo-religious organizations for the specific purpose of creating confusion among Christians regarding authentic Biblical teaching on homosexuality. Such groups include Affirmation (Mormon), Dignity-USA (Roman Catholic), Integrity (Episcopalian), and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (formerly the Sodomy Churches).
Secondly, the homosexuals use the influence of child molesters in the Church to undermine its moral authority. Hundreds of homosexual Catholic priests and hundreds of homosexual mainline Protestant ministers in the USA have been charged with child molestation. Imagine the incredible damage that has been done to the image of the Christian Church and to the credibility that priests and ministers have enjoyed until this time.
If it is true that homosexuals were "born that way," as they so boldly assert, then every one of these priests and ministers knew that he was a homosexual before he entered seminary!
Homosexuals Ridiculing Christian Beliefs. As we saw in Chapter 3, Michael Swift claims that homosexuals are "masters of wit and ridicule." He is certainly right on that score.
Take for example the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," a self-described "order of gay male nuns" whose vows are to "expiate stigmatic guilt and promulgate universal joy." These homosexuals dress up as Catholic nuns, and then take names like "Sister Homocycle Motorsexual;" "Sister Sleaze Du Jour;" "Mother Inferior;" "Sister Florence Nightmare, R.N.;" "Sister Boom Boom;" "Sister Mad, Power-Hungry Bitch;" "Sister Rosanna Hosanna Fellabella;" "Sister Missionary Position;" "Sister Chanel 2001;" "Sister Sadie Sadie the Rabbi Lady;" "Sister Helen Damnation;" "Sister Opiate of the Masses;" "Sister Atrociata von Tasteless;" "Sister Exposia;" and "Sister Perpetually Pruretic Prostate."[22]
As comedian Dave Barry says, "I swear I am not making this up." If you have the stomach for it, visit the "Sister’s" Web site at http://www.theabbey.org.
Other gaggles of religious-hating transvestites include the "Sisters of the Guiltless Procession" of Virginia Beach, the "Sisters of Perpetual Motion" of Atlanta, and the "Sisters of Constant Pleasure" of Washington, D.C.
The "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" often mock the Catholic Mass in public. They hand out foil-wrapped condoms at "communion," and refer to them as "our holy savior," who "vouchsafes the safety of our sexual play." The "Sisters" then instruct the enthusiastic "congregation" to inflate the condoms with "the guilt and shame organized religion has foisted" on them, and then pop them.[23]
The "ministries" of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence include "blessing" venereal disease clinics and assuring everyone that having various STDs is "nothing to be worried or ashamed about."
The official slogan of the "Sisters" is "Go and sin some more."
It would be interesting indeed to see how far free speech rights would really go if a group of fed-up Catholics decided to do street theater mocking promiscuous homosexuals and their bizarre lifestyles.
Tactic #4: Slander and Stereotype Christians. "Nothing I can say will change your little mind.
Take your immortal thoughts and you won't be left behind.
But you're weak!
Equalities are stripped and all your friends agree.
But freedom's just not hip when it's of sexuality.
So you hate!
I hope I live to see the day when your
sexually-repressed hatred is finally washed away.
It seems it's unprivy to yourself but you're just like everybody else.
So with your fist you wave your f—ing flag.
You'll prove it to me now you're no fag."
— Lyrics to the song "Homophobes Are Just Pissed
`Cause They Can't Get Laid," by the group Propagandhi. Statement of the Tactic. Kirk and Madsen further refine their tactic of taking advantage of the victim status by distorting the image of their opponents to make them look like they are the perverts; The real target here is not victimizers themselves but the homohatred that impels them. Understand this point clearly: while it will be a sheer delight to besmirch our tormenters, we cannot waste resources or media access on revenge alone (indeed, the media will not allow us to do so). The objective is to make homohating beliefs and actions look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from them. This, of course, is a variant on the process of jamming. We also intend, by this tactic, to make the very expression of homohatred so discreditable that even Intransigents will eventually be silenced in public — much as rabid racists and anti-Semites are today.
The best way to make homohatred look bad is to vilify those who victimize gays. The public should be shown images of ranting homohaters whose associated traits and attitudes appall and anger Middle America. The images might include: • Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered or castrated; • Hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; • Menacing punks, thugs, and convicts who speak coolly about the "fags" they have bashed or would like to bash; • A tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. In TV and print, images of victimizers can be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the 'bracket technique.' For example, for several seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is shown pounding the pulpit in rage against 'those perverted, abominable creatures.' While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to heart-rending photos of badly beaten persons, or of gays who look decent, harmless and likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating.
The viewer will ordinarily recoil from these images of victimizers, thinking automatically 'I don't like those maniacs, don't want to be like them, and would be ashamed if others thought I was like them. Surely I'm more compassionate and sophisticated, because I don't share their irrational hatred of gays.' Every time a viewer runs through this comparative self-appraisal, he reinforces a self-definition that consciously rejects homohatred and validates sympathy for gay victims. Exactly what we want.
A campaign to vilify victimizers will only enrage our most fervid enemies, of course. Yet the shoe surely fits, and we should make them try it on for size, with all America watching. ... At least at the beginning, the broadcast media — which have not yet permitted gays even to say nice things about themselves on the air — certainly not will allow any direct attacks on archconservatives. On the other hand, they just might permit some mention of Nazi atrocities, the pink triangle as a symbol of victimization, and so forth. If so, the Nazi story alone will be a significant opening wedge into the vilification of our enemies. After all, who on earth would choose to be associated with the Nazis? [pages 189 and 190]. Analysis of the Tactic. Notice how the homosexual strategists, who constantly stress non-judgmentalism and compassion as the highest goods, feel perfectly free to slander, vilify, and lie about Christians. This is an outstanding example of the pervasive homophile double-standard.
Pro-family activists have a great advantage in using the Kirk/Madsen "bracket technique," because we have so much more to work with. A thirty-second pro-family TV spot would hit 'Middle America' with the force of a bomb and would be devastating to the "Gay Rights" movement if it showed; • A shot of a couple of male homosexuals in black leather planting a sloppy French kiss on each other's lips; • A view of the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) marching in a "gay pride" parade, while the voice-over reads its claim that sex with adults will cure thumb-sucking; • Brief descriptions of a few of the many deranged homosexual mass murderers and child molesters, along with bloody pictures of their victims; • A lingering shot of a few obese and truly ugly male "drag queens" and transvestites; and • A view of a typical S&M dungeon (preferably spattered with fresh human blood). When the homophiles criticize this tactic, all pro-family activists have to do is point to the relevant quote by Kirk and Madsen encouraging the use of the "bracket technique."
The Trigger Words. Those people who have the courage to fight coercive and unjust "gay rights" laws are invariably pigeonholed by the homophile press and, of course, by "tolerant" homosexuals themselves. This is a purely offensive tactic and is meant to cast "gay rights" opponents in the role of oppressors of helpless, innocent, cowering "gays."
In the opening salvo of any "gay rights" battle, homosexuals splatter their opponents with a standard slew of uncomplimentary labels, the most popular of which are; • "homophobes;" • "bigots;" • "Nazis;" • "Ku Klux Klansmen;" • "anti-diversity;" • "intolerant;" • "Puritans;" • "hate-filled;" • "discriminatory;" and • "ignorant." Pro-family activists should know what these words mean and should be able to turn them against their users in a form of verbal karate. The following paragraphs examine some of these labels in detail.
"Homophobe." The word "homophobe" in its current context did not even exist until Time Magazine coined it in its October 31, 1969 issue. It was designed by homophile propagandists purely as a device to label, pigeonhole and dismiss those who opposed them. It always implies the irrational dislike of or aversion to homosexuality, and does not even allow the possibility that one might have good motives for opposing the "gay agenda." In other words, according to the homophiles, there is no such thing as a rational dislike of homosexuality or homosexuals, no matter how vicious or thuggish they may be.
This is the only one of the above labels that has some truth to it. Many people are frightened and disgusted by what homosexuals do to each other and to innocent people, and are worried about the implications that their strange morality has for society and especially for children.
If an anti-"gay rights" activist can effectively describe homosexual activities to an audience, he might want to proudly claim the title "homophobe," just as the homosexuals have claimed the label "queer" for themselves. But this must be done only after he has properly defined to an audience just what it is that he is alarmed about.
If pro-homosexual activists insist upon labeling their opponents "homophobic," we might respond in kind by labeling them "homomaniacs," which means "a person who is unduly and unthinkingly fond of homosexuals and what they do," or "heterophobes," people with an irrational hatred of normal people, many examples of which are shown below in Table 4-2.
"Bigot." The Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines a "bigot" as "one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion."
Real Christians (not pro-homosexual "children of a looser God") are certainly "obstinately" devoted to their churches and their beliefs, but, by the same token, homosexuals are also committed to their beliefs. After all, what is actually wrong with "obstinately" clinging to the truth?
The key word here is "intolerantly," which, according to the Webster's, means "unable or unwilling to endure criticism." "Intolerance" is certainly an ingrained characteristic of every homosexual activist. Any debate will clearly demonstrate this fact. If the pro-family activist criticizes any aspect of the homosexual lifestyle, or if he dares to go so far as to make fun of some ridiculous homosexual blunder or practice, homophiles in the audience will go absolutely crazy. By contrast, the homosexual debater will incessantly attack Christian beliefs and the Christian debater himself, but will get only a calm and rational answer.
This contrast will decisively demonstrate to an audience who the real bigots are.
To further demonstrate the reality of homosexual bigotry, the anti-"gay rights" activist should challenge his opponent to name a single instance where a large crowd of Christians have broken into a homosexual meeting and disrupted it with violence and harassment. Then the Christian can describe some of the incidents where homosexuals have blocked highways, broken into churches and assaulted parishioners, and shouted down speakers who had messages that they did not like. He might read a couple of the homosexual "vows of violence" listed in Table 4-2 and challenge his opponent to name a similar vow made by any Christian. |
Table 4-2
Some Homosexual Vows of Violence |
|
|
"If [AIDS] research money is not forthcoming at a certain level by a certain date, all gay males should give blood. Whatever action is required to get national attention is valid. If that includes blood terrorism, so be it."
— Homosexual activist Robert Schwab, quoted in Kirk Kidwell. "Homosexuals
Flex Muscle in Washington." American Family Association Journal, January
1988, pages 6 to 8.
|
"I think the time for violence has now arrived. I don't personally think I'm the guy with the guts to do it, but I'd like to see an AIDS terrorist army, like the Irgun which led to the state of Israel."
— Homosexual playwright Larry Kramer, founder of ACT-UP (the AIDS Coalition
to Unleash Power), in the Wall Street Journal, May 8, 1990 [the Irgun was a
Zionist army originating in the mid-1930s, which slaughtered and maimed
hundreds of women and children].
|
"I think we should blow up Gracie Mansion [the New York governor's residence] ... One of my favorite notions is that we make fake blood and throw bottles of it in public places, and shout, "This is AIDS blood!" Let them think that it is. We have to scare people. We have to make their lives uncomfortable. I think we should be tying up whole cities. We should cripple this country. We should throw bombs. We should set fires. We should stop traffic. We should surround the White House."
— Larry Kramer, The Advocate, August 18, 1987.
|
"We should have shut down the subway and burned down city hall. I think rioting is a valid tactic and should be tried ... If someone took out [killed] Jesse Helms or William Dannemeyer of California, I would be the first to stand up and applaud."
— ACT-UP member Michael Petrelis, quoted in Michael Willrich. "Uncivil
Disobedience." Mother Jones. December 1990, page 16.
|
"It's hard to refrain from taking this man [Pat Buchanan] by the throat and squeezing as hard as you can while you look into his ugly, disgusting face and watch the eyeballs burst and pop out of their sockets. Or maybe you feel like stepping on his face and squishing his demented brain until the rot oozes out of it and onto the pavement. I have no problem with imagining violence against this wacko ..."
— Michelangelo Signorile, editor-at-large of the homosexual magazine Outweek,
quoted in National Review, June 24, 1991.
|
"At least in my ungoverned imagination I can f— somebody without a rubber or I can, in the privacy of my own skull, douse [Senator Jesse] Helms with a bucket of gasoline and set his putrid ass on fire or throw [Congressman] William Dannemeyer off the Empire State Building ... [Cardinal John O'Connor] is the world's most active liar about condoms and safer-sex. ... This fat cannibal from that house of walking swastikas up on Fifth Avenue should lose his church tax-exempt status and pay retroactive taxes from the last couple centuries. Shut down our clinics and we will shut down your church."
— Homosexual David Wojnarowicz, writing in an NEA-funded art catalog, quoted in Congressman Dana Rorhabacher. "Congress Continues Funding Pornographic, Anti-Christian 'Art' With Tax Dollars." American Family Association Journal, January 1990, page 20. "I shall torture you during the daytime, and will keep you from a peaceful sleep at night."
— From Larry Kramer's open letter to New York Mayor Ed Koch, quoted in John
Leo's "When Activism Becomes Gangsterism." U.S. News and World Report,
February 5, 1990, page 18.
|
|
|
"Nazi." Homosexual activists commonly cast their opponents in the role of "oppressive, dominating Nazis/Fascists." During any drive to repeal or oppose laws enacted under the auspices of "gay rights," a favorite tactic of the homosexuals is to plaster pictures of Adolf Hitler literally everywhere and compare him and his Nazis to whatever group is taking a stand against them.
This is an absolutely textbook-perfect example of transference, where a group of people project their most undesirable qualities onto their opponents in an attempt to pull them down to a common low moral level.
The very best way to shoot down the derogatory "Nazi" comparison in a debate is to quote the homosexuals themselves and show one or two transparencies of Nazi-related homosexual advertisements.
Eric Pollard, a charter member of ACT-UP, revealed in the homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade that "ACT-UP's subversive tactics ... were drawn largely from the voluminous Mein Kampf, which some of us studied as a working model."[24]
Mein Kampf, of course, was Adolf Hitler's magnum opus, describing his time in prison and his vision and tactics for implementing the climb of the Third Reich to absolute power.
It is interesting to note the reaction of homosexuals when someone brings up the fact that Hitler's strongarm specialists, the Brown Shirts, were basically a homosexual club.[24]
It is also interesting to note that about five percent of the sexual advertisements and classified ads in The Advocate Magazine — considered to be the "voice of the mainstream gay rights movement" — feature a strongly Nazi theme. For example, the April 9, 1991 issue of The Advocate featured a number of Nazi-related ads, including "NAZI ANYONE? For Info write to: National Socialist League, Box 26496A, CA 90026," and "ACHTUNG! Teutonic Lord Muscle Master..."[25]
Note that no mainstream heterosexual publication like Time or Newsweek carries recruiting ads for Nazi or White supremacist organizations.
Interestingly, one of the most popular "gay" comics is Donna Barr's Desert Peach, the story of Erwin Rommel's fictional "gay" brother, the Nazi Manfred Pfirsich ["Peach"] Marie Rommel (see http://www.toonpedia.com/d-peach.html).
|
"Hate-Filled." One of the most effective tactics used by homosexuals is their pitiable bleating about the "tidal wave of hate crimes" directed against them by "homophobic bigots." In many cities (San Francisco included, of course), homosexuals use permanent paint and templates to make two-dimensional monuments to "bashed gays" on city streets, and God help anyone who paints them over or defaces them.
Homosexuals have sworn vengeance against their enemies, have promised mass murder, have rioted in the streets and stormed churches, and do things to each other for fun that a normal person would not even do to his worst enemy.
And then they turn around and call Christians "full of hate!"
The proper response to the "hateful" accusation is a vigorous and decisive condemnation of the "gay rights" advocate as a hypocrite, followed by a vivid description of an example of hateful anti-homosexual behavior directed against Christians (such as the repulsive caperings of the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence," as described above). This could be wrapped up with a couple of quotes by homosexuals swearing violence and with a description of homosexuals disrupting a church service and assaulting parishioners.
After describing certain homosexual activities involving physical violence, it is amusing indeed to sit back and watch a homosexual try to explain to an audience why some people like to be beat up and abused in homosexual "dungeons" built specifically for that purpose, but when somebody does exactly the same thing to them on the street, then it is suddenly a "hate crime" and "gay bashing."
Any homophile will ridicule and label his opponent and his philosophy a dozen or more times during any public discussion. The pro-family debater can write all of these names down and list them near the end of the discussion, and then ask the audience exactly who is "full of hate."
The pervasive liberal double standard is particularly strong among homosexuals, who feel free to ridicule and slander their opposition, but squawk loudly and indignantly when anyone pokes fun at them.
One of the most egregious examples of this double standard was recently produced by the San Francisco video game company RJ Best when it released the action game "Gay Blade." The first screen of this game tells the player that his assignment is to eliminate "Bible-thumping lunatics, rabid politicians, and other vile entities."[26]
The mainline press did not make a peep about this game.
Now try to imagine what the media moguls would have done if some Christian group had produced a video game that instructed the player to kill "simpering queers, faggots, transvestites, drag queens, and other sex perverts."
"Discriminatory." The Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines "discrimination" to mean "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit."
The problem here is that homosexuals and Christians have radically different definitions of "individual merit." Homosexuals think that their private lives should be judged entirely separately from their public lives.
A classic example is the homosexual Congressman Gerry Studds, whom one major newspaper described as "The avowed homosexual who was censured by the House of Representatives for having had sex with a teen-age male Congressional page. In fact, Studds had seduced the page, after giving him dinner and drinks at his apartment, and tried to seduce two others. Studds showed no remorse over his behavior."[27] Studds also ran a homosexual prostitution ring out of his Washington, D.C. apartment.
After this repulsive episode, one homosexual political action committee (PAC) poured $10,000 into Studds' reelection fund, urged voters to "reward his courage," and asked them to "help make Gerry Studds a symbol of hope for all gay men and lesbians."[27]
Studds went on to serve 24 more years in Congress.
The term "discrimination" is popular with the average promiscuous homosexual because he really believes that a person's moral life can be separated from his practical life, i.e., we shouldn't believe that a person will lie and cheat at work just because he lies and cheats in sexual matters.
Christians and pro-family activists tend to look at the "whole man," which is a common-sense approach to life. If a person (whether homosexual or heterosexual) has made a mess of his personal life because he cheats on his wife, is an alcoholic, and beats his kids, we believe that he will be less than an ideal employee (or renter), and we are generally correct.
A second point to remember when considering the term "discrimination" is that it is traditionally associated with the repression of the civil rights of genuine minority groups. Homosexuals are certainly not a genuine "minority" or "civil rights group," because their behavior is elective, not inborn, as described in Chapter 2. Homosexuals are trying to paint themselves as a group worthy of legal protection under civil rights laws, but this makes no more sense than a parallel attempt by any other group that engages in illicit or illegal behavior — rapists, embezzlers, and White supremacists, to name a few.
To imply that homosexuals are somehow economically disadvantaged like many real minority groups is absurd. Most normal people are sick of hearing homosexuals snivel about how hard it is for them to hold jobs and how they occupy the lowest rung of the ladder in many corporations.
The truth is exactly the opposite of what homosexuals would like us to believe. According to the Wall Street Journal, homosexuals had a much higher per-capita income and rate of college graduates than the rest of the population way back in 1991, before the "gay rights" movement really began to gather steam. Homosexuals also hold more high-level jobs and travel much more often than other people, as shown below.[28] |
Comparison of Economic Indicators
of Homosexuals and the General Population
|
Economic Indicator
|
Homosexuals
| National
Average |
|
|
Average annual household income | $55,430 | $32,144 |
College graduate | 59.6% | 18.0% |
Hold professional or managerial positions | 49.0% | 15.9% |
Overseas travelers (past year) | 65.8% | 14.0% |
Frequent fliers | 26.5% | 1.9% |
|
|
The disposable income of homosexuals is even higher than that implied in the above table, because they do not have to support children, and attend and support a church much less than heterosexuals.
Homosexuals especially focus on the image of the "committed and loving" pair of homosexuals when they agitate for marriage rights and domestic partner benefits, but, in reality, such 'bonding' is extremely rare. An examination of advertising in The Advocate shows that less than one percent of homosexuals are looking for a monogamous relationship. 99 percent are advertising for casual and group sex.
Only two percent of homosexuals could be classified as monogamous or even "semi-monogamous" (ten or fewer lifetime sexual partners).[29] Additionally, the average homosexual "marriage" lasts less than two years — and at least half of the "partners" cheat incessantly during that short time span.
"Ignorant." When used as an epithet, this word usually means that a person is lacking in both knowledge and common sense. It is generally used in conjunction with the word "bigot," i.e., "Those who oppose gay rights laws are just ignorant bigots."
Any pro-family person who enters the "gay rights" battle had better not be ignorant. He should know a lot about the homosexual orientation and psychology, about their practices, and about their tactics. In other words, he must not only be informed, he must have a cast-iron constitution.
If a homophile debater uses the term "ignorant" in public, the pro-family activist might point out that homosexuals live an average of 25 years less than other people.[30] He might highlight the fact that homosexuals commit suicide at five times the national average, carry an average of three sexually-transmitted diseases, and are the most unhappy and addicted group of people on Earth.
Then the Christian might ask "Now who is ignorant?" After all, living the homosexual "lifestyle" is as deadly and unhealthy as smoking two packs of cigarettes a day, being a falling-down alcoholic, and using illegal hard drugs on a daily basis.
Unfortunately, it is the public that is woefully ignorant about homosexuality, and the homophiles want to keep it that way. If pro-family activists could fully inform enough members of the public about the dangers posed by homosexuals, not only to themselves but to the rest of us, the "gay rights" agenda would be stopped in its tracks.
Tactic #5: History Revisionism.
Statement of the Tactic. Kirk and Madsen say that homosexuals must conceal their true nature and appearance. This is most efficiently done by distraction: Getting people to look away from the average "gay" activist and convincing them to look at various famous and admired people whom the homophiles allege are "gay;"In order to make a Gay Victim sympathetic to straights, you have to portray him as Everyman. But an additional theme of the campaign will be more aggressive and upbeat. To confound bigoted stereotypes and hasten the conversion of straights, strongly favorable images of gays must be set before the public. The campaign should paint gay men and lesbians as superior — veritable pillars of society.
Yes, yes, we know, this trick is so old it creaks. Other minorities have used it often in ads that proudly exclaim, 'Did you know that this Great Man was Thuringian (or whatever)?' But the message is vital for all those straights who still picture gays as 'queer' losers — shadowy, lonesome, frail, drunken, suicidal, child-snatching misfits. ...
Famous historical figures are especially useful to us for two reasons: First, they are invariably dead as a doornail, hence in no position to deny the truth and sue for libel. Second, and more serious, the virtues and accomplishments that make these historic gay figures admirable cannot be gainsaid or dismissed by the public, since high school history textbooks have already set them in incontrovertible cement. By casting its violet spotlight on such revered heros, in no time a skillful media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western civilization.
Along the same lines, our campaign should not overlook the Celebrity Endorsement. The celebrities in question can, of course, be either straight or gay (and alive, for a change), but must always be well liked and respected by the public. If homosexual, the celebrity jams homohatred by presenting a favorable gay image at odds with the stereotype. ... In either case, the psychological response among straights is the same, and lays the groundwork for conversion:
I like and admire Mr. Celeb;
Mr. Celeb is queer and/or respects queers;
so either I must stop liking and admiring Mr. Celeb, or else it must be all right for me to respect queers [pages 187 and 188]. Analysis of the Tactic. Homophile strategists believe that, by identifying famous people as homosexuals, some of their glory will rub off on the current homosexual-rights movement.
This is a fine example of the very common anti-life tactic of history revisionism. As Michael Swift admitted in the essay that is included in Chapter 3, "We shall rewrite history, history filled and debased with your heterosexual lies and distortions. We shall portray the homosexuality of the great leaders and thinkers who have shaped the world ..."[31]
Among the homophile's favorite famous so-called "gays" are; • Plato and Socrates, who both spoke of the "beauty of love between men." Both of these great philosophers, of course, were speaking not of physical love, not even of emotional love, but of spiritual love in the same manner described by Jesus Christ. Homophiles, of course, will not bother to take the time to search the primary sources for the truth — both Plato (in The Phaedrus) and Socrates (in The Laws) condemned homosexual acts. After all, what does "Platonic love" mean other than nonsexual love? • Michelangelo, based solely on a singular attempt by a notorious homosexual criminal named Pietro Aretino to blackmail him.[32] Aretino attempted to extort money from the famous master by threatening to "out" him as a homosexual. Michelangelo knew full well that to give in to Aretino would establish a precedent, so he refused. No serious historian has ever found a particle of evidence to support the homophile's ridiculous claim. • Abraham Lincoln, because he sometimes slept in a bed with other men — but homophiles conveniently neglect to mention that traveling men often slept with other men in large beds built for the purpose of holding several people. • Jesus Christ Himself! Troy Perry, founder of the Sodomy Church (later renamed the Metropolitan Community Church) argues in his book The Lord Is My Shepherd and He Knows I'm Gay that "Here was a guy [Jesus] that was raised by a mother with no father — typical of the homosexual syndrome. He never married and ran around with twelve guys all the time. Not only that, He wasn't above bodily contact with another man: John the Beloved lay on the breast of Jesus at the last Supper. Not only that, but a guy betrayed Him with a kiss."[33] For people who claim to be so smart, homophiles are certainly not historians or linguists. Language and words change meaning through the years — and particularly through the centuries.
The tactic of "history revisionism" can be countered by accurately and concisely debunking each individual claim, which is quite simple to do, as you can see. Simply demand proof from the homophiles for their claims, then watch in amusement as they try to bluff and bluster their way out of the corner they have painted themselves into.
Tactic #6: Intimidation.
Statement of the Tactic. "I understand this — Christians are annoying. They go out, they block Manson concerts and try to convert kids, they cause general trouble, and they just stick their nose in our business and our lives. If they want to do all this pigs— then they have to expect the results that come when you piss people off, in other words, they've got to expect to be shot, and it's not because their religion is so threatening, it's just because they piss people off, and this is a time and a place where people just don't want to be pissed off. I've been telling these pigs this s— for years. When they come down and hang around the gay clubs and try to chase people [fornicating homosexuals] out of the parks, I go out and tell them that if they don't get out of here I'm gonna shoot them, and I will. These pigs are cowards — they always leave when they recognize I'm serious — don't f— with me. This kid [the student who shot eight Christians in Paducah] was a good kid. While what he did was a bit poorly planned, it was certainly understandable, and I think it represents the general opinion of the mass of students. The Jesus freaks are a small, but loud, minority, and they have grown more annoying than their public support will bear. Either the Christians will stop or people will stop them. As to the question of Satan and the link to other Satanic killings in that general area of the South, as one man has said, "The time has come, it is quite clear, our anti-christ is almost here — Christians repent your faith." The score from this [Paducah] incident is quite clear — Satan 8, Christians 0. I think Christians had better start looking at and evaluating that score. If not, they will be annihilated."
— Anonymous writer in the Utopian Anarchist Party Newsletter
#73 [January 1998], pages 1 and 3.[34] Analysis of the Tactic. Social issues in democracies have traditionally been resolved through the participatory process of proposal, examination, discussion and debate. However, homophiles know full well that they cannot win any of the elements of their agenda within such a framework, so they completely ignore democracy and work through the courts and through intimidation, so that the people are completely shut out of the process. In fact, homophiles deliberately make the process so threatening to average people that they do not want to be involved in the discussion. Then the homophiles claim that public opinion is on their side.
This is not democracy, this is pure thuggery and totalitarianism.
Homophiles intimidate their opponents and the general public in four distinct ways — through violence, coercion, retaliation and censorship.
(1) Intimidation through Violence. While they loudly whine about "anti-gay violence," grossly hypocritical homophile activists see no problem with viciously attacking churches and individuals who oppose their agenda in good faith; • In 1989 and 1990, homosexuals waged a war of vandalism and outright destruction against Catholic churches in Los Angeles. Homosexual attackers calling themselves "Greater Religious Responsibility" claimed responsibility for vicious attacks against Cardinal Roger Mahony, calling him a "murderer" for opposing their "safe(r) sex" programs. They attacked the Cathedral of St. Mary of the Assumption in Los Angeles, desecrating it with bloody-red hand prints and pornographic photographs of perverted sex acts and ACT-UP posters plastered everywhere. At St. Catherine's, they nailed a ten-foot cross festooned with plastic penises and used condoms to the church door. They smeared the chancery with animal blood and entrails that appeared to be the products of Satanic sacrifices.[35] • In 1989, Dr. Chuck McIlhenny, pastor of San Francisco's First Orthodox Presbyterian Church, helped defeat a domestic partnership law that would have forced the public to treat two homosexuals as a family under threat of prison time or heavy fines. As one of the city's few politically active pastors, McIlhenny and his family became the focus of intense and vicious homosexual hate. For three years, they received thousands of threatening and harassing phone calls 24 hours a day, and many callers swore to sodomize and kill the McIlhenny's three young daughters.[36] Homophile terrorists firebombed both McIlhenny's home and church. They also repeatedly vandalized his home and church with graffiti like "Dykes for Choice," and attacked the crisis pregnancy center housed in the church. Cowardly, skulking homosexuals broke the church's windows so many times the parishioners had to board them up permanently.[37] • Homosexuals and pro-abortionists belonging to the groups ACT-UP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) and other groups stormed New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral on December 10, 1989, assaulting parishioners, disrupting Cardinal John O'Connor's Mass, and desecrating the consecrated Host by throwing It on the ground and stamping on It. Outside, hundreds of screaming homosexuals burned Cardinal O'Connor in effigy and attacked passersby, all because the Cardinal had refused to toe their immoral "safe(r) sex" line.[38] The placards the homosexuals carried displayed slogans such as "Mary Should Have Had an Abortion," "Christ was a Homosexual," "Death to the Church!," "Adolph Hitler — A Catholic Leader," and "F— the Church!"
It is literally impossible to imagine anything more hateful than this attack, yet, of course, the media and the courts found no evidence of ill-will among the protestors.
After the invasion of St. Patrick's cathedral, ACT-UP issued a press statement saying that its cause is "... important enough [to allow us] to invade any space, to disrupt any speech." The organizers of the sacrilege — the self-proclaimed "Safe Sex Six" — were sentenced by Manhattan Criminal Court Judge Jo Ann Ferdinand to from 75 to 100 hours of community service. She refused to imprison or fine them, saying that she "admired their commitment," and compared them to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, a comparison that Ray Kerrison of the New York Post found "... so utterly bizarre that it besmirches the memory of two genuine historic figures."[39] • When California Governor Pete Wilson vetoed the "gay rights" legislation sent to his desk in 1991, hundreds of screaming homosexuals rioted and overpowered police. They grabbed wooden police barriers and used them to smash the heavy plate glass in several office buildings, and then used the broken glass like Frisbees, pitching them at the knees of police. At least one policeman had his kneecaps shattered by this technique. The rioting homosexuals set fire to one building, causing $250,000 in damages. In keeping with greater police department "sensitivity" towards "gays," there were no arrests.[40] Just consider for a moment what the police and the government would do to pro-lifers who rioted in the streets as the homosexuals did. We do not see quite so many vivid instances of homosexual violence any more for two primary reasons: (1) Conservatives have constructed an alternative media, so that the mainstream media can no longer cover up and excuse such events, and (2) the homophiles have refined their tactics and no longer need to resort to widespread violence.
However, the threat is still clearly there, as you can see from reading the homosexual vows of violence in Table 4-2.
(2) Intimidation through Coercion. "Coercion" means to force someone to do something against his will. In some other countries, the degree of power wielded by homosexuals is simply ridiculous, and the incidents described below are typical of what awaits us if we do not halt the "gay rights" juggernaut now.
Remember that the homosexual activists think only of their own rights. In their minds, the rights of other human beings are utterly irrelevant and can be trampled on at will. They feel perfectly free to compel people to support them, regardless of their religious beliefs, and nobody may dissent under pain of Draconian punishment; • In Brazil, the "anti-homophobia" law pushed by the leftist government would send priests to prison for two to five years if they said anything that injured the feelings of any homosexuals in the congregation. This means that homophiles only have to allege that they are discriminated against by a pro-family priest, and that priest is removed from the battle for years. The same law would imprison the rector of a Catholic seminary if he refused admission to any homosexual. In other words, in Brazil, the only people who have a right to be a priest are homosexuals. This law was supported by all of Brazil's major homosexual groups.[41] • In 2006, Canadian homosexuals showed that they could not care less about the lives of other people when they demanded an end to the ban on "gay" men giving blood. In the 1990s, the Canadian government had paid billions of dollars to tens of thousands of its citizens infected with HIV and hepatitis C from tainted blood donations. It then tightened the rules on blood donations, which instantly outraged homosexual groups, which called the policy "discriminatory." Some homosexual groups posted flyers in men's bathrooms urging all "gays" to lie on their blood donor questionnaire and donate blood.[42] In summary, many Canadian homosexuals think that their "right" to give blood is more important than the right of their fellow citizens to live. • We are all familiar with the homosexual pressure on the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to admit "gays" as scoutmasters. Obviously, to be among pre-adolescent and adolescent boys is a homosexual child molester's dream come true. In fact, the BSA has seen its annual child sexual abuse cases triple from about 70 in 1980 to more than 200 in 2000. Primarily to protect the children in its care, the BSA fought to exclude homosexuals as scout leaders, and the Supreme Court of the United States upheld its right to do so on June 28, 2000 in the case James Dale v. BSA.
Immediately, the homosexuals and their allies stepped up their attacks on the Boy Scouts all over the United States. Some agencies banned the Scouts from using public land. They were dropped from many United Way drives. They lost many government grants. And President Clinton signed an executive order banning the Boy Scouts from federal lands and facilities — despite the fact that the Supreme Court held that the BSA could legally exclude homosexuals as Scout leaders!
One American Civil Liberties Union leader sniveled that "On this land, the Scouts camp, hike and swim. They also teach and practice homophobia and religious intolerance." Other groups attempting to force the BSA to endanger the boys in its care include the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Human Rights Campaign, the National Education Association, and a group called "Scouting for All." • And then, of course, there is NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, which adopted a resolution at one of its national conferences that began by saying that "NAMBLA calls on the Boy Scouts of America to cease its discrimination against openly gay or lesbian persons in the appointment of its scout masters. This will permit more of those individuals who genuinely wish to serve boys to do so."[43] • Who do the homosexuals see as a fine example of a Scout leader? John Hemstreet — an alcoholic failed Catholic priest and convicted child molester who was ejected from the Scouts, and who boasts that he is "a great scoutmaster."[44] (3) Intimidation through Retaliation. If an organization or person is so bold as to actually oppose the "gay agenda" in any way, shape or form — even if such opposition is mild, inoffensive and completely Constitutional — they can expect immediate condemnation and retaliation by homophiles.
The hallmark of a weak and totalitarian regime is that it cannot stand examination and debate, and must instantly quash the opposition as an example to others who might be thinking of resisting as well.
The number of cases of homosexuals and their toadies in various government agencies retaliating for merely disagreeing with the homosexual agenda is rapidly rising; • J. Matt Barber was fired from his job as a manager in Allstate's Corporate Security Division and was escorted off the grounds by security personnel. His "crime" was denouncing same‑sex "marriage" in an article for a magazine, even though he wrote it on his own time and at home. A homosexual group complained about his article, and, thinking he had not already been punished enough, Allstate even tried to deny him unemployment insurance. Additionally, Barber's wife had just gone through a high-risk Cesarian section delivery, but Allstate cut off his family health benefits immediately, despite his pleas to extend it for the sake of his wife.[45] • Reverend Stephen Boissoin, an Albertan pastor, wrote a letter to the Red Deer Advocate denouncing homosexuality and the "gay rights" propaganda saturating the province's schools. University of Calgary professor Darren Lund complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which began prosecuting the pastor, who had little money and had to defend himself.
While Lund was perfectly free to compare the pastor to white supremacists and Holocaust deniers (which he publicly did), any negative comments by Boissoin could be used as evidence of his "hate." Lund knew his complaint was baseless, so he even tried to get the courts to halt publication of the complaint itself.
Not only do homosexuals use the government to silence dissent, it is very profitable personally for them to do so. If Boissoin loses the case, he will be forced to pay $5,000 to Darren Lund personally, and another $2,000 to the homophile group EGALE Canada, which is already heavily funded by the Canadian government.[46]
Naturally, these gross conflicts of interest do not bother the homosexuals in the least. Everything was fine with the homophiles until Pastor Boissoin dared to file a suit against Lund, costing Lund $30,000 in defense fees — then the "gay community" went ballistic. As always, they can dish it out by the bushel, but can't take even the tiniest bit of resistance. • Missouri State University Frank G. Kauffman required all of his students to write and sign a letter to the Missouri legislature promoting homosexual adoption and foster homes. Emily Brooker, a Christian student, refused to write the letter on religious grounds. The School of Social Work charged her with violating its "Standards of Essential Functioning in Social Work Education" in the areas of "Diversity," "Interpersonal Skills" and "Professional Behavior." She was dragged before an "ethics committee" which grilled her for nearly three hours. The members sneeringly asked her questions like "Do you think I am a sinner?" The university did not budge until Brooker launched a lawsuit with the help of the Alliance Defense Fund. In a rare case of homophiles being punished for their coercive practices, Professor Kauffman was put on non-teaching administrative leave for the remainder of the semester.[47] • Scottish firefighter Brian Herbert of Cowcaddens Fire Station in Glasgow was ordered to distribute leaflets at a "gay pride" event in uniform, but refused. He was demoted from watch manager to crew manager, a move that cut his salary by $6,500 a year, was officially reprimanded, and was ordered to attend "diversity" (i.e., brainwashing) training.[48] • Homosexual activists commonly engage in organized and illegal telephone harassment directed against their perceived enemies. This organized harassment is advertised and promoted widely in the homosexual press. Jerry Falwell probably experienced the worst harassment of this type, when homosexuals were urged by "gay" publications to play "The Falwell Game." This "game" consisted simply of calling Falwell's toll-free number and then hanging up. One publication urged callers to sign up as a faith partner and ask for literature and Bibles with the intent of not paying, and to ask others to do the same.[49] According to a letter Falwell sent to his supporters, his ministry suffered more than one million harassment phone calls and wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of Bibles and printed matter on homosexuals.
The homophiles who gleefully promote this type of abuse are the same people who angrily denounce pro-lifers who call abortion mills to tie up their lines and make false appointments. Any such action directed against a toll-free homosexual number, of course, would instantly be labeled a "hate crime," and the homosexuals would immediately demand massive government intervention and protection. (4) Intimidation through Censorship. From the homophile's point of view, even better than retaliation is simple brute censorship — making sure that the pro-family message never sees the light of day in the first place. Once again, this is a hallmark of Communists and cowards, who are deathly afraid that their message will not stand up to honest public examination and debate. • The Boyd County, Kentucky school district instituted mandatory "diversity training" for all of its students in 2005 after a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the local Gay-Straight Alliance. This "diversity training" instructed all of the attending students that, if they thought homosexuality was wrong in any way, they were forbidden to speak about it or express it in any way. Naturally, students who thought homosexuality was fine, could paint posters about it, wear pro-"gay" T-shirts, and speak of it freely. Parents were not allowed to opt students out of this brainwashing, even if they had religious objections to it.[50] • Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque recently enacted a Draconian "diversity" program that gives special rights to some groups while stripping rights from other groups. Under this program, homosexuals, atheists and pagans may freely use the company's bulletin boards, but Christians and pro-family people may not. Christians were forced to remove posters and screen savers that contained religious content. And, to take it all to a ridiculous extreme, Sandia ordered married people to remove family pictures from their desks after homosexuals complained that they found it "offensive" to see photos of traditional families![51] • Cheryl Clark and Elsey McLeod entered into a lesbian relationship. Some time later, Clark adopted a child from China. McLeod did not participate in this adoption and had no parental rights over the child. Eventually, Clark became a Christian and broke off the relationship, taking her adopted child with her. McLeod, who had shown absolutely no interest in the child up to this point, retaliated by filing a lawsuit demanding that Clark not expose the child to what she called "homophobic upbringing or teaching." The trial court granted this request, and held that Clark would be found in contempt of court if she allowed her daughter to hear anyone speak about traditional marriage, hear anyone read Romans 1 from the Bible, or listen to any Christian radio or television programs. The judge ordered Clark to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic."[52] • Reverend Sterling Clark of Waterford, Ontario wrote an article entitled "The Plague of this 21st Century: The Consequences of the Sin of Homosexuality (AIDS)." When he attempted to mail this article, sixty Canadian Postal workers in Vancouver walked off the job in protest rather than deliver it. The president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers said that postal workers will not "participate in the dissemination of homophobic material." They would, of course, gladly distribute material attacking Christians and Christianity, no matter how vile or filthy it is.[53] • In June 2006, the Promise Keepers held a conference in Fort Lauderdale. The Florida Family Policy Council rented a table at the event in order to collect signatures for a statewide ballot initiative that would define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. But officers from the Sunrise City Police Department appeared and ordered them to stop collecting signatures. Then the officers removed all of the petitions from the table. When the people at the table asked what they were doing, the police lectured them about how Jesus was judgmental and how their signature gathering was a "waste of time." Then two of the male officers began kissing each other to mock the Christians. The sergeant on the scene then proclaimed he was the authority and that "the Bible says that Christians should obey the authorities."[54] Conclusion. The above incidents of homosexual violence, coercion, retaliation and censorship show the deep hypocrisy of the homophile movement. If pro-family or Christian groups tried to intimidate homosexuals like this, the "gays" would immediately file lawsuits by the ream and snivel to the government for protection, screaming that they were victims of "hate crimes."
This is because the homophiles know that they cannot take their case to the people, because the people always reject their message. Therefore, radical homosexuals must become more and more totalitarian as they attempt to crush all expressions of dissent. Since they could not care less about the rights of other people, this process will continue right up until the time enough resistance is organized against them. We are not trying to deny homosexuals their basic human rights; it has gotten to the point where we have to fight to preserve our own basic rights — the rights to free speech, assembly, and teaching our own children our values.
The situation is fast becoming absurd. Homophiles are forcibly tearing away more and more of the rights of Christians, and the situation is rapidly deteriorating. Who could have possibly imagined just a few years ago that companies would start firing people for writing pro-family articles on their spare time, or would prohibit people from displaying photos of their families on their desks? That armed cops would bully and mock pro-marriage signature gatherers? That homosexuals would demand the right to be Catholic priests and the right to have access to young boys for sexual purposes?
If pro-family and Christian people do not rise up and fight soon, it will be too late.
Then we will have only ourselves to blame.
And when the police knock on our doors because we have simply discussed among ourselves the damage and oppression caused by homosexuality, we will have no right to complain.
Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s [New York: Plume Books], 1989. D.G. Tendulkar (Editor). The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volumes 2 and 4. Published by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. St. Francis de Sales. Introduction to a Devout Life [New York: Frederick Postet & Co.], page 308. Kirk and Pill, op. cit. There were about 301 million people in the United States as of January 1, 2007 (2007 Edition of the Statistical Abstract of the United States). About 1.6 percent, or 4.8 million, of these people are homosexuals (see Chapter 2 for documentation on this percentage). The Federal Bureau of Investigation issues a detailed annual report entitled Hate Crime Statistics, in which the first table is always entitled "Incidents, Offenses, Victims, and Known Offenders by Bias Motivation." These Reports are available on the FBI Web site at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm.
Table 4-1 shows that the average annual number of hate crimes against homosexuals is 1,198. This means that any individual homosexual is likely to be the victim of a hate crime once every (4.8 million/1,198) = 4,000 years.
The average life span of a homosexual is about 50.5 years (see footnote 29). This means that the probability of the average homosexual becoming the victim of a hate crime over his or her entire lifetime is (50.5/4,000) = 1.3 percent. This also means that 100%/1.3% = 1 out of 77 homosexuals is ever the victim of a hate crime.
There are 20/4.8 million = 4.17 hate crimes committed by each million homosexuals annually against heterosexuals.
There are 1,198/296.2 million = 4.08 hate crimes committed by each million heterosexuals annually against homosexuals. The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP), which bills itself as "National Advocacy for Local LGBT Communities," is the leading tracker of incidents of violence against homosexuals in the United States. In its Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Domestic Violence: 2003 Supplement, the NCAVP's member organizations and affiliated programs reported 6,523 cases of homosexual domestic violence, with about 20 percent population coverage, meaning that about 32,500 cases of "gay-on-gay" domestic violence took place in 2003. The NCAVP's 2003 report on Anti-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Violence documented 2,051 incidents of violence against "gays" by other people, with about 30 percent population coverage. This means that about 6,800 "gays" were victims of violence by others nationwide, if we base our estimates on NCAVP numbers. This means that 83 percent of all violence committed against "gays" is done by other "gays." Rachel Zimmerman. "The Perfect Victim: Azalea Cooley." Willamette Week [Portland, Oregon], November 26-December 3, 1992, page 1. Lisa Herbert. "Violence, Fear Part of Women's Lives, Says Rape Prevention Month Speaker." The University Record [University of Michigan], April 2, 1996. Jim Redden. "The Politics of Paranoia: Taking a Second Look at Gay Bashing Statistics." PDXS Magazine [Portland, Oregon], April 26, 1993, page 3. "Echoes of the 50s in Rooney Witch Hunt." The Wall Street Journal, February 14, 1990. Joseph Farah. "How Homosexual Thought Police Muzzled Rooney." American Family Association Journal, March 1990, page 20. Paul Weyrich. "Politically Correct Fascism on Our Campuses." New Dimensions Magazine, June 1991, page 44. Christopher Commission findings as reported on Page 2A of the July 10, 1991 USA Today, "Messages Tell the Story." Peter Arnold. "A Victory for the First Amendment." Conservative Digest, February 1985, page 17. Stephen Goode. "Efforts to Deal With Diversity Can Go Astray." Insight Magazine, September 10, 1990, pages 15 to 19. David A. Neobel. The Homosexual Revolution [Tulsa: American Christian College Press], 1977, page 103. Joseph Farah. "Liberation From Homosexuality: TV's Taboo Subject." American Family Association Journal, February 1988, page 12. Tim Wildmon. "Networks Practice Double Standard." American Family Association Journal, May 1989, page 2. Newspage. "Did Homosexuals Vandalize Pro-Life Newspaper's Machines?" Focus on the Family Citizen, November 19, 1990, page 5. Randall Murphree. "AIDS and the Media: Whitewashed Tombs." National Federation for Decency Journal, July 1987, page 16. Paul Harvey. "Name of the Game is Intolerance." Conservative Chronicle, June 20, 1990, Page 27. John Allec. "No More Guilt! A Tour of the Territory of Perpetual Indulgence." BodyPolitic ("A Magazine for Gay Liberation"), March 1982, pages 30 to 32. E. Michael Jones. "The Pope and the Condom Worshippers." Fidelity Magazine, October 1987, pages 32-44. Also see Just Out Magazine, January 1990, page 10. If you have a particularly strong stomach, you can visit the Web site of "The Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence" at http://www.thesisters.org. Eric Pollard, a charter member of ACT-UP, quoted in The Washington Blade, January 1992. For background information on how homosexuals were recruited and welcomed into the Nazi movement, read S. William Halpern. Germany Tried Democracy: A Political History of the Third Reich, 1918-1933 [New York: Norton Books], 1946. Also see Berthold Hinz. Art in the Third Reich [New York: Pantheon Books], 1979. These two books document the heavy homosexual influence in the Third Reich, including the predominance of homosexual and pornographic art. Judith A. Reisman and Edward W. Eichel. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People [Lafayette, Louisiana: Huntington House Publishers], 1990, pages 20 to 23 and 40. "News Notes." The Wanderer, March 25, 1993, page 3. "Gays Step Up Efforts." Human Events, November 3, 1984, page 8. Wall Street Journal, July 18, 1991, page B1. Data provided by the United States Census Bureau and the Simmons Market Research Bureau. A.P. Bell, M.S. Weinberg, and S.K. Hammersmith. Sexual Preference and Sexual Preference: Statistical Appendix [Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press], 1981, pages 308 and 309. Some of these results were tabulated from a 550-item questionnaire answered by 4,340 adults from Los Angeles, Denver, Omaha, Louisville, Dallas, and Washington, DC in 1983 and 1984. This survey was conducted by the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality (ISIS). A survey of 167 obituaries in the homosexual newspapers New York Blade and Washington Blade over the period 2003 to 2006 showed average ages of death for men of 49.8 years and for women 52.5 years, for an average of about 50.5 years. This essay was printed in the February 15, 1987 issue of the homosexual newspaper Gay Community News by Michael Swift, and was reprinted in the February 15-21, 1987 Congressional Record. Letter from Irving Stone to Abigail Van Buren (Dear Abby), Washington Star, April 20, 1981. Described in Father Enrique T. Rueda. The Homosexual Network [Old Greenwich, Connecticut: Devin Adair Company], 1986 page 136. David A. Noebel. The Homosexual Revolution [Tulsa: American Christian College Press], 1977, pages 126, 129, and 130. "Holy S—! Christians Massacred by Kentucky Student." Utopian Anarchist Party Newsletter #73 [January 1998], pages 1 and 3. This incident refers to the December 1, 1997 incident where homosexual student Michael Carneal opened fire on a group of praying Christian students at Heath High School in Paducah, Kentucky, killing three of them and wounding five. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to multiple life terms in prison. No homosexual group condemned this mass murder of Christians by one of their own. "Mahony and the Times." National Catholic Register, February 11, 1990, page 4. "The McIlhennys: Victims of Hate." Focus on the Family Citizen, August 20, 1990, pages 14 and 15. October 1991 letter from Focus on the Family. E. Michael Jones. "The Pope and the Condom Worshippers." Fidelity Magazine, October 1987, pages 32-44. Also see Just Out Magazine, January 1990, page 10. Henry V. King. "Cardinal O'Connor Calls On Catholics to Counter "War Against the Family"." The Wanderer, January 24, 1991, page 1. October 1991 letter from Focus on the Family. ""Homophobia Law" to Impact Homilies, Seminaries." ZENIT: The World Seen from Rome, March 18, 2007. "McGill University Homosexual Activists Shut Down Blood Clinic: Protesters Told to "Lie About Your Sexual History"." LifeSite Daily News, February 1, 2006; Francine Dube. "Gay Blood Donor Lies in Protest of Policy." National Post, June 11, 1999. Letter of Lehand Stevenson, Co‑Recording Secretary of NAMBLA, to Ben Love, then-chief Scout executive of the Boy Scouts of America, as described in the November 1992 NAMBLA Bulletin. David M. Bresnahan. "Child Molester Leads 'Gays' in Scout Protest: Convicted Pedophile Insists BSA Should Admit Homosexuals." WorldNetDaily, August 24, 2000; Tony Perry. "ACLU Sues to Block Scouts from Using San Diego Land." San Jose Mercury News, August 29, 2000; David M. Bresnahan. "Rape of a Sacred Trust: How Pedophiles have Targeted the Boy Scouts of America." WorldNetDaily, October 5, 2000. "Allstate Fires Employee for Pro‑Family Column Critical of Gay "Marriage"." LifeSite Daily News, June 24, 2005; Ron Strom, "Allstate Terminates Manager Over Homosexuality Column," WorldNetDaily, June 24, 2005; Ron Strom. "Fired Allstate Manager Starts Website." WorldNetDaily, August 24, 2005. "Alberta Christian Pastor Hauled Before Human Rights Tribunal For Letter to Editor on Homosexuality." LifeSite Daily News, September 2, 2005. John-Henry Westen. "Professor Disciplined for Punishing Christian Student Who Refused to Lobby for Homosexual Adoption." LifeSite Daily News, November 14, 2006. Meg Jalsevac. "Firefighter's Rank Restored After Demotion Over Leaflets at 'Gay' Parade: Issue has Caused Citizens Across Scotland to Rally Around the Fire Fighters." LifeSite Daily News, November 1, 2006. "Hey, Kids! Let's All Play the Falwell Game!" Seattle Gay News, January 17, 1986. "’Anti-Gay' Students Must Keep Quiet." WorldNetDaily, March 29, 2005. Janet Folger. The Criminalization of Christianity [Sisters, Oregon: Multnomah Publishers], 2005, page 10. "Colorado Court Declares Null Order that Prohibits Mother from Exposing Her Child to "Homophobic" Religious Upbringing." LifeSite Daily News, July 6, 2004. Meg Jalsevac. "Canadian Postal Workers Refuse to Deliver Pamphlet Against Homosexuality." LifeSite Daily News, October 31, 2006. "Homosexual-Activist Cop Threatens Christians." WorldNetDaily, August 7, 2006.
|
For the Table of Contents for The Pro-Life Library Compact Disc, click here. |
For the Comprehensive Index for the compact disc, click here. |
This document was updated on March 1, 2008. |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment