Debunking LGBT Propaganda Thread

[Mingle]

I already summarized this above (most of the info above was from a book I found that I summarized) in the 'born gay hoax' section, but here is a good link:

Born Gay Homosexual / Homosexual Agenda Propaganda Exposed!

…The “born gay” hoax was invented in 1985 by Marshall Kirk and Dr. Hunter Madsen. Marshall Kirk graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1980 majoring in Psychology and went on to become a writer and researcher in neuropsychiatry. Dr. Hunter Madsen earned a PhD in politics from Harvard University in 1985, then went on to become an expert on public persuasion tactics, social marketing, and has designed commercial marketing on Madison Avenue. He has also served as a consultant to pro-sodomy media campaigns across America.

1985, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen co-authored an article entitled “The Gay Agenda” in a pro-sodomy magazine called Christopher Street. In short, the article emphasized the strategic importance of shifting the central issue in the debate over “homosexuality” away from sodomy and toward a sexual pseudo-identity called “gay.” The goal of The Gay Agenda was to force opponents of sodomy into a position where they would be seen as attacking the civil rights of so-called “gay” citizens, rather than opposing a specific antisocial behavior. “The Gay Agenda” also briefly outlined the strategy that would eventually be used to convince the public that individuals are “born gay.”

Initially, there was no enthusiasm for “The Gay Agenda” within the pro-sodomy movement. In fact, many activists considered the proposed strategy degrading because they viewed “rights related to sexuality as analogous to the constitutional rights to association, expression, or religion.”[1]

Initially, there were strong reservations against adopting the strategy. However, these initial reservations would not last for long.

In 1986 the pro-sodomy movement lost Bowers v. Hardwick, the United States Supreme Court case which upheld the rights of individual states to criminalize sodomy. The loss was devastating. Desperate, angry, and galvanized pro-sodomy activists learned that if they could make a compelling case that they were “born gay,” they could become eligible for “Minority Status” as a “Suspect Class” under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If Minority Status were granted, it would force the courts to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick, thus legalizing sodomy. It must be noted however, that the Civil Rights Act recognizes Minority Status only for those groups who:

1) Have suffered a long history of discrimination

2) Are powerless to help themselves as a community

3) Are born that way

The legalization of sodomy by way of “Minority Status” is the secret to understanding why pro-sodomy activists adopted the strategy outlined in “The Gay Agenda” in the late 1980s and began to promote the Ulrichsian claim that people are “born gay.”

Wasting little time, Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Madsen writing under the pseudonym Erastes Pill) published a follow-up to “The Gay Agenda” entitled The Overhauling of Straight America. This article, which appeared in the pro-sodomy publication Guide in November of 1987, outlined a point-by-point strategy that could be used to convince “straight America” that men and women who develop same-sex attractions “are born gay.”

In the following year, 1988, a “War Conference” of 175 leading pro-sodomy activists, representing organizations from every part of the United States convened in Warrenton, Virginia. The purpose of the conference according to Kirk and Madsen was to establish an official agenda for the newly conceived “gay” movement. At this “War Conference” pro-sodomy activists adopted the identity politic strategy outlined in “The Gay Agenda” and “The Overhauling of Straight America”. The “born gay” hoax was born.

Subsequently, in 1989, Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen expanded their article “The Overhauling of Straight America ” into a book entitled “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gays in the 90s”. In this deliberately deceitful agenda for America Kirk and Madsen write that they intend to “get tough” on straights. They further write, “…it is time to learn from Madison Avenue and to roll out the big guns. . . . We are talking about propaganda.” Kirk and Madsen explained the central tenant of their strategy: “The public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. (We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been “born gay” — even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.)”[2]

Here, the authors admit that human sexuality “seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors,” yet they urge readers to abandon the truth for “practical purposes,” i.e. furthering “The Gay Agenda.” The propagandists could not have been clearer about their plan to deceive Americans. The “Gay” Agenda, its cumulative post-luminaries, and efforts to employ the tactics outlined in these documents are what I refer to as the “born gay” hoax. The following excerpts from “After the Ball” will exemplify the manipulative tactics Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen enticed pro-sodomy activists to employ.

“The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays…To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally we would have the straight to register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream…”[3]

“The masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself…the imagery of sex should be downplayed…”[4]

“…gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector…”[5]

“…make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower its guard…”[6]

“…replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt…”[7]

“Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible…” “The principal behind this advice is simple: almost all behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.”[8]

Unfortunately, this social learning principle has proven itself time and time again throughout history, as various inhumane and outrageous behaviors have become commonplace and ordinary. The authors continue.

“Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject…”[9]

Madsen and Pill (Kirk) explain their scheme in greater depth when they write:

“Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message–of normalcy. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream.”[10]

“Not so many years ago, all of these statements would have been unbelievably offensive to most Americans, even if they contained no reference to ‘homosexuality,’ precisely because they all advocate coercive tampering with peoples most private domain, their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs. Kirk and Madsen call it ‘transforming the social values of straight America…’”[1 Let’s look at the mechanics of their strategy for ‘transforming’ society into what they feel would be a more acceptable form. The authors continue:

“Would a desensitizing campaign of open and sustained talk about gay issues reach every rabid opponent of homosexuality? Of course not! While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of Biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency. Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed “secular humanism”). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here.”[12]

“…The campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know – this trick is so old it creaks.”[13]

“…It will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified.”[14]

“…We intend to make anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types…”[15]

“Each sign will tap patriotic sentiment; each message will drill a seemingly agreeable position into mainstream heads…”[16]

“The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America…the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern [sic] ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs and convicts…Nazi concentration camps…”[17]

This behavior-modification mentality, combined with the isolation of “straights” and others as groups or classes who assume the status of dehumanized targets of one sort or another continues, undisturbed in intensity.

“These images (of anyone opposed to homosexual behavior) should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the ‘bracket technique.’ For example, for a few seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is seen pounding the pulpit in rage about ‘those sick, abominable creatures.’ While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to pathetic photos of gays who look decent, harmless, and likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher, and so forth. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating.”[18]

A group called Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) actually used this technique in an advertising campaign in the fall of 1995 against Pat Robertson, Jesse Helms, and Jerry Falwell. As reported in the San Francisco Examiner, Sunday, November 12, 1995… “a new television ad campaign [portrays scenes of] a teenage girl contemplating suicide with a handgun, [and] a young man being beaten by a gang as his attackers shout slurs…interspersed with actual clips of the Rev. Pat Robertson and other conservatives deploring homosexuality. Most stations turned down the ads, but they ran in Tulsa, and Washington D.C. A print version of the ad (much less emotionally effective) was run in USA Today, November 21, 1995.”

It is absolutely appalling to hear the tactics promoted by Marshall Kirk (Mckusick) and Hunter Madsen. The pro-sodomy activists who have employed these techniques have nothing to be proud of. These soi-disant (self-styled) propagandistic tactics and even the verbiage in which they are couched represent a twisted and fascist, deceitful and degrading approach to the winning of American public opinion.

In specialized press pro-sodomy activists speak candidly about the movement’s practical purposes for promoting the idea that people are “born gay.” In doing so, they admit that public “born gay” rhetoric is fabricated propaganda, contrived and carried out for specific political ends; mainly, the overturning of Bowers v. Hardwick and the normalization of sodomy.

Dr. Lillian Faderman, who has won the Monette/Horwitz Award from the pro-sodomy activist group Lambda Literary Foundation, states: “And we continue to demand Rights, ignoring the fact that human sexuality is fluid and flexible, acting as though we are all stuck in our category forever.” She further states, “The narrow categories of identity politics are obviously deceptive.” It becomes obvious later in the article that Dr. Faderman sees a political threat from the truth, from the fluidity of human sexuality. “I must confess that I am both elated and terrified by the possibilities of a bisexual moment. I’m elated because I truly believe that bisexuality is the natural human condition. But I’m much less happy when I think of the possibility of huge numbers of homosexuals (two-thirds of women who identify as lesbian for example) running off to explore the heterosexual side of their bisexual potential and, as a result, decimating our political ranks.”

Later in the article Dr. Faderman writes, “The concept of gay and lesbian identity may be nothing but a social construct, but it has been crucial, enabling us to become a political movement and demand the rights that are do to us as a minority. What becomes of our political movement if we openly acknowledge that sexuality is flexible and fluid, that gay and lesbian does not signify ‘a people’ but rather a ‘sometime behavior’?[19]

Dr. John DeCecco is a psychologist, Director of the Center for Research and Education in Sexuality at San Francisco State University, and Editor of The Journal of Homosexuality. Dr. DeCecco calls himself “gay” but insists that such attractions are a changeable preference not an orientation. He explains in his book entitled, “If You Seduce A Straight Person You Can Make Them Gay”, that the whole “born gay” and immutable characteristic idea is just “gay and lesbian politics” and is aimed at achieving “gay” rights.[20]

Dr. Vera Whisman writes in her book, “Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity”, “The political dangers of a choice discourse go beyond the simple (if controversial) notion that some people genuinely choose their homosexuality. Indeed, my conclusions question some of the fundamental bases upon which the gay and lesbian rights movement has been built. If we cannot make political claims based on an essential and shared nature, are we not left once again as individual deviants? Without an essentialist [“born gay”] foundation, do we have a viable politics?”[21]

Female homosexual writer Jennie Ruby admits, “I don’t think lesbians are born…I think they are made… The gay rights movement has (for many good, practical reasons) adopted largely an identity politics.”[22]

Jan Clausen, female homosexual author of the book “Apples and Oranges” writes, “What’s got to stop is the rigging of history to make the ‘either/or’ look permanent and universal. I understand why this argument may sound erotic to outsiders for whom the public assertion of a coherent, unchanging lesbian or gay identity has proved an indispensable tactic in the battle against homophobic persecution.”

Later, Clausen quotes the popular lesbian poet Audre Lorde, who admits the lies associated with the “born gay” hoax as well, when she writes, “I do not believe our wants have made all our lies holy.” [23]

Female homosexuals Lyne Harne and Elaine Miller explain their feelings regarding the “born gay” hoax:

“There’s nothing natural in lesbianism. Its a positive choice, and a political one.”[24]

Yet another admission appeared in the homosexual magazine “Girlfriends”. It states, “No wonder lesbians are so nervous. What makes the lesbian movement strong is the formation of a collective identity, unified behind sexual orientation as a category. If bisexuality undoes that, it kicks the lesbian movement where it really hurts: in the heart and soul of identity politics.” [25]

The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) is one of the homosexual activist organizations that pressured the American Psychiatric Association to reject homosexual reparative therapy. The NCLR claims that the “gay” identity is innate and unchangeable. JoAnne Loulan is one of the psychotherapists who served on the board of directors for this organization. Loulan made hypocritical headlines on the February 18, 1997 edition of the homosexual magazine “The Advocate” because she reportedly changed her own sexual orientation when she fell in love with a man…?

Further, Kate Kendall, the Director of the NCLR, who in the spirit of Ulrichs, Kirk, and Madsen argued that the so-called “gay” person was endowed with a fixed, innate, and unchangeable, “sexual orientation” and commanded the American Psychiatric Association to halt all forms of reparative therapy for all people, including those desperately looking for help. She actually wrote an article for Frontiers Magazine arguing that sexual orientation is fluid, not fixed.[26]

Kate Kendall and Joanne Loulan stood before the American Psychiatric Association with straight faces declaring reparative therapy to be the dangerous equivalent of pouring bleach on a black person’s skin to make them white. Then, one of these self-proclaimed “gays” went out and changed her own so-called “sexual orientation” by falling in love with a man, and the other took the time to write an article for an insiders’ magazine arguing that sexuality is changeable. Is it possible, for us to continue to trust these activists when they say that they are “born gay?”

Those who have been tricked by the propaganda have little for which to be ashamed. There is no shame in believing a lie until you learn the truth. The truth is that beginning in 1985,The Gay Agenda was sold to the American public by pro-sodomy propagandists. The carefully calculated lies of these propagandists are blatant, and have been admitted in numerous pro-sodomy publications. It is obvious however, that “born gay” propagandists from Kirk and Madsen on, keep the fact of sexual fluidity secret from the straight community for political reasons. Pro-sodomy activists however, as evidenced by their own articles, talk about the “born gay” hoax and the realities of sexual choice regularly amongst themselves.

-------

http://www.victorjadamson.com/the-bo...-hoax-exposed/

Reminder: Before 1985, no pro-sodomy activist campaigned for sodomy rights on the grounds of "I was born this way" (with the exception of Ulrichs in the late 1800's, but his view was immediately abandoned by his successors). This was all a hoax started in 1985 by two pedophiles (Marshall Kirk, Hunter Madsen) who publicly acknowledged that they were not born gay and only repeated the lie for political reasons.

[Anthony PV]

I dont think Mingle would kill gays. I would do it like in Russia (only gay propaganda is forbidden with fines or prison but it is allowed to be gay if you keep it to yourself)

Gays are tougher than you, so good luck. Anyway, killing gays may count as physical exercise, so it isn't a bad activity per se.

Anyway, back on the subject of the thread, everyone knows that LGBT propaganda is pure crap and isn't based on anything scientific. Even Sigmund Freud, the Jewish founder of psychoanalysis, who is accused by many of being responsible of all this mess would himself if he knew all the bullshit (gender theory, heteronormality, etc.) that is being taught at the universities of today.

[Mingle]

Here are some quotes on it by historians and gay rights activists:

In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family. (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gays in the 90s, p.363)

Not all societies have a culture of sexual identity. In truth, the notion that individuals define themselves by their sexual desire or behavior is a rather exceptional social occurrence. (Pennington and Sojika, The Revolt Against Sexual Identity, p. 81 in The Social Construction of Sexuality by Steven Seidman)

In the 1990s, a new queer lesbian and gay emerged. The queer challenged the hetero-homosexual binary and a culture organized around separate, bounded sexual identities. Queer argue that the very notion of separate gender and sexual identities creates unnecessary divisions and inequalities. These identities serve to control us by demanding that we confirm to constraining norms of masculinity or femininity or being straight or gay. In this regard, queers challenge the aim of a movement bent on normalizing a homosexual identity. Such a movement, they argue, reinforces a culture of sexual and gender division and regulation. (Pennington and Sojika, The Revolt Against Sexual Identity, p. 85-86 in The Social Construction of Sexuality by Steven Seidman)

No matter how much identities provide an anchor for us and a basis for group formation, they control us, tell us how to be, and force us to repudiate aspects of ourselves. (Pennington and Sojika, The Revolt Against Sexual Identity, p. 86 in The Social Construction of Sexuality by Steven Seidman)

Homosexuality today expressed in a gay and lesbian identity may possibly be viewed as another model of homosexuality. Just as the others are historically and culturally specific so is the modern gay and lesbian. Being a gay and lesbian is not a unitary construct that is culturally transcendent across all societies today. A gay and lesbian is a social political identity limited to modern western cultures, although this gay and lesbian identity is gradually being expressed and adopted in other parts of the world. In this article it is the United States that is the specific emphasis. There may be references and quotes refereeing to other English speaking countries. But as seen in the above quotes there are already modern day challenges to a gay and lesbian political identity.

Historical and anthropological research has shown that homosexual persons (i.e. people who occupy a social position or role as homosexuals) do not exist in many societies, whereas homosexual behavior occurs virtually in every society. Therefore we must distinguish between homosexual behavior and homosexual identity. One term refers to one’s sexual activity per se (whether casual or regular); the other word defines homosexuality as a social role, with its emotional and sexual components. (Escoffier, American Homo: Community and Perversity, p.37)

The search for a theory of gay identity originated among gay Left intellectuals. Starting from an ethnic model of history that at first assumed an already existing identity or social group, they eventually discovered that homosexuals were historically constructed subjects. (Escoffier, Jeffrey. American Homo Community and Perversity, p.62)

[We should employ cross-cultural and historical evidence not only to chart changing attitudes but to challenge the very concept of a single trans-historical notion of homosexuality. In different cultures (and at different historical moments or conjunctures within the same culture) very different meanings are given to same-sex activity both by society at large and by the individual participants. The physical acts might be similar, but the social construction of meanings around them are profoundly different. The social integration of forms of pedagogic homosexual relations in ancient Greece have no continuity with contemporary notions of homosexual identity. To put it another way, the various possibilities of what Hocquenghem calls homosexual desire, or what more neutrally might be termed homosexual behaviors, which seem from historical evidence to be a permanent and ineradicable aspect of human sexual possibilities, are variously constructed in different cultures as an aspect of wider gender and sexual regulation. If this is the case, it is pointless discussing questions such as, what are the origins of homosexual oppression, or what is the nature of the homosexual taboo, as if there was a single, causative factor. The crucial question must be: what are the conditions for the emergence of this particular form of regulation of sexual behavior in this particular society? (Weeks, Against Nature, p. 15-16)

Transcending all these issues of lifestyle was the potent question of the gay identity itself. The gay identity is no more a product of nature than any other sexual identity. It has developed through a complex history of definitions and self-definition, and what recent histories of homosexuality have clearly revealed is that there is no necessary connection between sexual practices and sexual identity. (Weeks, Sexuality and Its Discontents Meanings, Myths and Modern Sexualities, p. 50)

The idea of a gay and lesbian identity sexual identity has been formulated over the last two decades. Historically it is the product of the gay and lesbian liberation movement, which, itself, grew out of the Black civil rights and women’s liberation movements of the fifties and sixties. Like ethnic identities, sexual identity assigns individuals to membership in a group, the gay lesbian community. Although sexual identity has become a group identity, its historical antecedents can be traced to the nineteen-century notion that homosexual men and women, each representative of a newly discovered biological specimen, represented a third sex. Homosexuality, which had been conceived primarily as an act was thereby transformed into an actor. (De Cecco, 1990b). Once actors had been created it was possible to assign them a group identity. Once a person became a member of a group, particularly one that has been stigmatized and marginal, identity as an individual was easily subsumed under group identity. (De Cecco and Parker, The Biology of Homosexuality: Sexual Orientation or Sexual Preference, p. 22-23 in Sex, Cells, and Same-Sex Desire: The Biology of Sexual, Preference, editors De Cecco and Parker)

The configuring of the meaning of homosexuality by its advocates into a lifestyle alternative or minority status, and the movement of lesbians and gay men into the social center parallels the transformation of the social role of the African-Americans and women during the same period. (Seidman, Embattled Eros, p.148-149)

On the one hand, lesbians and gay men have made themselves an effective force in the USA over the past several decades largely by giving themselves what the civil rights movement had: a public collective identity. Gay and lesbian social movements have built a quasi-ethnicity, complete with its own political and culture institutions, festivals, neighborhoods, even its own flag. Underlying that ethnicity is typically the notion that what gays and lesbians share - the anchor of minority rights claim is the same fixed, natural essence, a self with same-sex desires. The shared oppression, these movements have forcefully claimed, is denial of the freedoms and opportunities to actualize this self. In this ethiniclessentialist politic, clear categories of collective identity are necessary for successful resistance and political gain. (Gamson, Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct?, p.516)

Lesbian and gay historians have asked questions about the origins of gay liberation and lesbian feminism, and have come up with some surprising answers. Rather than finding a silent, oppressed, gay minority in all times and all places, historians have discovered that gay identity is a recent, Western, historical construction. Jeffrey Weeks, Jonathan Katz and Lillian Faderman, for example have traced the emergence of lesbian and gay identity in the late nineteenth century. Similarly John DEmilio, Allan Berube and the Buffalo Oral History Project have described how this identity laid the basis for organized political activity in the years following World War II.

The work of lesbian and gay historians has also demonstrated that human sexuality is not a natural, timeless given, but is historically shaped and politically regulated. (Duggan, History’s Gay Ghetto: The Contradictions of Growth in Lesbian and Gay History, p.151-152 in Sex Wars edited by Duggan & Hunter, Sex Wars)

It isn’t at all obvious why a gay rights movement should ever have arisen in the United States in the first place. And it’s profoundly puzzling why that movement should have become far and away the most powerful such political formation in the world. Same gender sexual acts have been commonplace throughout history and across cultures. Today, to speak with surety about a matter for which there is absolutely no statistical evidence, more adolescent male butts are being penetrated in the Arab world, Latin American, North Africa and Southeast Asia then in the west.
But the notion of a gay identity rarely accompanies such sexual acts, nor do political movements arise to make demands in the name of that identity. It’s still almost entirely in the Western world that the genders of one’s partner is considered a prime marker of personality and among Western nations it is the United States - a country otherwise considered a bastion of conservatism - that the strongest political movement has arisen centered around that identity.
We’ve only begun to analyze why, and to date can say little more then that certain significant pre-requisites developed in this country, and to some degree everywhere in the western world, that weren’t present, or hadn’t achieved the necessary critical mass, elsewhere. Among such factors were the weakening of the traditional religious link between sexuality and procreation (one which had made non-procreative same gender desire an automatic candidate for denunciation as unnatural). Secondly the rapid urbanization and industrialization of the United States, and the West in general, in the nineteen-century weakened the material (and moral) authority of the nuclear family, and allowed mavericks to escape into welcome anonymity of city life, where they could choose a previously unacceptable lifestyle of singleness and nonconformity without constantly worrying about parental or village busybodies pouncing on them. (Duberman, Left Out, p. 414 - 415.)

I have argued that lesbian and gay identity and communities are historically created, the result of a process of capitalist development that has spanned many generations. A corollary of this argument is that we are not a fixed social minority composed for all time of a certain percentage of the population. There are more of us than one hundred years ago, more of us than forty years ago. And there may very well be more gay men and lesbians in the future. Claims made by gays and nongays that sexual orientation is fixed at an early age, that large numbers of visible gay men and lesbians in society, the media, and schools will have no influence on the sexual identities of the young, are wrong. Capitalism has created the material conditions for homosexual desire to express itself as a central component of some individuals lives; now, our political movements are changing consciousness, creating the ideological conditions that make it easier for people to make that choice. (DEmilio, “Capitalism and Gay Identity”, p. 473-474 in The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader by Henry Abelove, Michele Aine Barale and David M. Halperin)

There is a wealth of cross-cultural evidence that point to the existence of numerous models of homosexuality varying in origins, subjective states and manifest behaviors. But the parameters of the discussion are still best framed as Who one is, a homosexual or What one does, homosexuality. The support for the latter is the strongest.

Descriptions of the Greeks, the berdaches, and the Sambia should make us a little unsure about our categories homosexual and heterosexual -least, they should make us think more carefully about what we mean by these words. But if we are a little confused about categories, perhaps we can agree on a few simple facts about human sexuality: (1) same-sex eroticism has existed for thousands of years in vastly different times cultures; (2) in some cultures, same-sex eroticism was accepted as normal aspect of human sexuality, practiced by nearly all individuals some of the time; and (3) in nearly every culture that has been examined in any detail, a few individuals seem to experience a compelling and abiding sexual orientation toward their own sex. (Mondimore, A Natural History of Homosexuality, p.20)

The reality is that this gay identity, a pattern of essentially exclusive male homosexuality familiar to us which has been exceedingly rare or unknown in cultures that required or expected all males to engage in homosexual activity. So I would argue this gay identity should be seen as a model of homosexuality, as a social movement, a political identity, and a life-style. Therefore the psychosocial conditions of being gay today must be understood in their own cultural place and historical time.

Psychological theory, which should be employed to describe only individual mental, emotional, and behavioral aspects of homosexuality, has been employed for building models of personal development that purport to mark the steps in an individual’s progression toward a mature and egosyntonic gay or lesbian identity. The embracing and disclosing of such an identity, however, is best understood as a political phenomenon occurring in a historical period during which identity politics has become a become a consuming occupation. (De Cecco, Sex, Cells, and Same-Sex Desire: The Biology of Sexual, Preference p.21)

Being gay cannot be seen as a monolithic and invariant identity label culturally valid for ancient cultures and societies. As has been repeatedly stated, historically and culturally the pattern was for heterosexuality, marriage, and procreation. Although there have been cases, which are exceptions to the norm, instances of adult same sex behavior, and when they took place, they are almost always tolerated, and looked down upon with disapproval.

Certainly the gay movement is specialized somewhat to class and urban social formations, and it must be seen from the perspective of the decontextualization of sex. Only by disengaging sexuality from the traditions of family, reproduction, and parenthood was the evolution of the gay movement a social and historical likeihood. (Herdt, 1987b). (Herdt, Developmental Discontuntinuties and Sexual Orientation Across Cultures, p. 224 in Homosexuality/Heterosexuality Concepts of Sexual Orientation edited by McWhirter, Sanders, and Reinisch)

It is the myth of gay identity, the belief that homosexuals are a different kind of people.
Gay identity is one of the great working myths of our age. Even though it is based on the ideas of gender and sex that have more to do with folklore than science, it occupies a central position in the beliefs and principles that govern our behaviors. It is a significant element of our social organization of gender and sexuality. The myth holds us all in thrall, not just those who have adopted the gay role.
We begin with the premise that there exists an evident distinction between (1) homosexual feelings, (2) homosexual behavior, and (3) the homosexual role. The argument presented here is that homosexual feelings play a minor part in becoming gay, which is chiefly is the result of adopting the homosexual role.
Being gay is always a matter of self-definition. No matter what your sexual proclivities or experience, you are not gay until you decide you are. (DuBay, Gay Identity The Self Under Ban, p.1-2)

The gay myth is responsible for the creation of the gay community, which is an assemblage, not of people who share the same sexual orientation (they don’t), but of those who have adopted the gay role. Underlying the many facets of gay life is an overriding concern with the gay role. The conversation and behavior of gay-identified individual reveals that what distinguishes them from others is not their sexual identity but their identity, their consciousness of being a people set apart. And what sets them apart is their joint commitment to a role created by a society solely for the purposes of controlling and isolating behaviors. (DuBay, Gay Identity The Self Under Ban, p.2-3)

Gay people there are, and some are indeed different, but it is not their sexuality that makes them different. Their real differences, as significant as they may be, are now submerged in the emphasis of the gay myth on sexual difference. If anything, it is their sexuality that they have most in common with all humans. We can end this introduction with one more appeal added to countless others, an appeal almost totally ignored by the academic and medical establishments: Gayness, unlike the medical term homosexuality, has nothing to do with sex or sexual orientation. It concerns a wide range of divergent behaviors that set some people apart from others in their appearance, gender behavior, emotional sensibilities, intellectual powers, and their perspective of the world. (DuBay, Gay Identity The Self Under Ban, p.12)

Even today in our "modern western culture", accepting a gay identity is a developmental discontinuity in our society. Heterosexuality still continues to be the norm. A "gay identity" began evolving within large population centers in the late nineteenth century. In the United States there was rapid growth as the result of the coming together of large groups of men to fight in World War Two. These men from rural and small town America began knowing "others just like themselves". It has been more recent, since the 1960s that there has been the emergence of the individuals who do not marry, but accept the idea of being single and gay. Before this time most individuals would be married and their homosexuality was expressed in sexual acts with members of the same sex. Perhaps the largest milestone in the emergence of a modern "gay identity" took place on June 12, 1969, in New York City at a gay bar called Stonewall Inn. This was an act of resistance, a riot by drag queens mourning the death of Judy Garland. Stonewall was a group of effeminate men, wearing women’s clothes resisting police authority, during a raid on the gay bar. This event is often linked with the beginning of the gay liberation movement.

Stonewall

In short, the political and cultural environment had undergone a liberalizing shift which had created the opportunity for the emergence of a mass homosexual movement. (Engel, The Unfinished Revolution: Social Movement Theory and the Gay and Lesbian Movement, p.38)

Ironically, when the uprising finally occurred, many people failed to recognize its significance. Looking back, however, there is no denying that what began, as a skirmish at a Greenwhich Village bar became the harbinger for a new movement of human rights. Detailed accounts of Stonewall have taken on the quality of myth, as more people remember being there than could have possibly have fit in the tiny grimy bar. It is generally accepted that a diverse group of bar patrons, led by the drag queens who were Stonewall regulars, spontaneously began to fight back during a police raid. The resistance turned into a riot, which lasted for several days. (Kranz & Cusick, Gay Rights: Revised Edition, p. 35)

The years leading up to Stonewall saw a breach in the assimilationist attitudes of the docile homophiles of the previous generation in favour of more revolutionary ones of people who craved more purely sexual freedom. (Archer, The End Gay, p.91)

But in the 1960s and 1970s, the gay movement broke decisively with the assimilationist rhetoric of the 1950s by publicly affirming, celebrating, and even cultivating homosexual difference. (Chauncey, Why Marriage? The History Shaping Todays Debate Over Gay Equality, p.29)

An event that took place on June 12, 1969, in New York City at a gay bar called, the Stonewall Inn, had great social and cultural historical significance in the development of the concept of the modern homosexual who soon adopted what is known as a gay identity. This was an act of resistance, a riot by drag queens mourning the death of Judy Garland. It was a group of effeminate men, wearing women’s clothes resisting police authority, during a raid on the gay bar. What started out as a typical raid by the police, a shake down for bribery from a gay bar turned out much differently. This event is often linked with the beginning of the gay liberation movement. It should be noted that it was a fringe group of homosexuals, and not representative individuals of the homosexual community at large who displayed this physical resistance.

Stonewall was an act of resistance to police authority by multiracial drag queens mourning the death of Judy Garland, long divinized by gays. Therefore Stonewall had a cultural meaning beyond the political: it was a pagan insurrection by the reborn transvestite priests of Cybele. (Paglia, Vamps and Tramps, p. 67)

In the 1970s gay liberation was the name of a major theoretical challenge to assimilation as well as minoritization. Early activists and writers argued that gay liberation could transform all sexual and gender relations; they argued against marriage and monogamy and against existing family structures (Altman 1981; Jay and Young 1972). (Phelan, Sexual Strangers: Gays, Lesbians, and Dilemmas of Citizenship, p. 108-109)

Gay liberation had somehow evolved into the right to have a good time-the right to enjoy bars, discos, drugs, and frequent impersonal sex. (Clendinen and Nagourney, Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America, p.445)

After the 1969 Stonewall riots, a homosexual emancipation movement emerged. This movement, called gay liberation, resulted from a clash of two cultures and two generations-the homosexual subculture of the 1950 and 1960s and the New Left counterculture of 1960s youth. Ideologically, the camp sensibility of the 1950s and early 1960s had served as a strategy of containment; it had balanced its scorn for the principle of consistency with a bitter consciousness of oppression in a framework that offered no vision of historical change. The gay liberationists, who had rarely had much appreciation for traditional gay life, proposed a radical cultural revolution. Instead of protecting the right to privacy, gay liberation radicals insisted on coming out- the public disclosure of one’s homosexuality- which then became the centerpiece of gay political strategy. (Escoffier, American Homo Community and Perversity, p.58)

American Psychiatric Association

Another historically significant event in the development of the concept of the modern homosexual occurred in the early 1970s. This was the decision in 1973 by the APA, American Psychiatric Association, to remove homosexuality from the lists of sexual disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Homosexual advocates acknowledge the hijacking of science for political gain.

Why was it decided at this specific point in time that homosexuality was not pathological after being listed as one for 23 years? For certain it was not a decision based upon new scientific evidence, for there was very little to support homosexuality. It was as a result of a three-year social/political campaign by gay activists, pro-gay psychiatrists and gay psychiatrists, not as a result of valid scientific studies. Rather the activities were public disturbances, rallies, protests, and social/political pressure from others outside of the APA upon the APA. There also was a sincere belief held by liberal-minded and compassionate psychiatrists that listing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder supported and reinforced prejudice against homosexuals. Removal of the term from the diagnostic manual was viewed as a humane, progressive act. A third influencing factor was an acceptance of new criteria to define psychiatric conditions. Only those disorders that caused a patient to suffer or that resulted in adjustment problems were thought to be appropriate for inclusion in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Adding to the push for removal was an acknowledgment of the extraordinary resistance of homosexuality to psychiatric intervention, for overcoming homosexuality. Some passions and prejudices were involved with this decision as well. In actuality this action was taken with such unconventional speed that normal channels for consideration of the issues were circumvented. This was a time period of great social upheaval and change, civil rights for blacks, the Vietnam war, and of course, the sexual revolution. Though the Board of Trustees voted 13 to 0, a referendum sent to 25,000 APA members only 25 % responded, and of these only 58% favored removing homosexuality from the list of disorders. Follow up surveys of the members of the APA continued to show that many members consider homosexuality to be pathological and a disorder. Also APA members report that the problems of homosexuals had more to do with their inner conflicts then with stigmatization by society at large. It is not what is now termed homophobia. Ronald Bayer in his book, Homosexuality and the American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis covers in depth the removal of homosexuality by the APA from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders.

The decision of the American Psychiatric Association to delete homosexuality from its published list of sexual disorders in 1973 was scarcely a cool, scientific decision. It was a response to a political campaign fueled by the belief that its original inclusion as a disorder was a reflection of an oppressive politico-medical definition of homosexuality as a problem. (Weeks, Jeffery. Sexuality and Its Discontents Meanings, Myths and Modern Sexualities, p. 213)

It was the militant organization of homosexuals, not any scientific breakthrough, that led to the removal of homosexuality from the list of diseases of the American Psychiatric Association in 1974. (Weeks, Sexuality, p.85)

Of course, to mount this counterattack, gays and lesbians must challenge authority of scientists, and that is exactly what gay rights activists did when they campaigned to have homosexuality removed from the APA’s list of mental disorders. In fact, those activists argued that homosexuality is not a disease but a lifestyle choice. Although that argument was successful in the early 1970s, the political climate has changed in such a way that gay rights advocates no longer want homosexuality to be thought of as an immutable characteristic, and the gay gene discourse helps them in this effort. (Brookey, Reinventing the Male Homosexual: The Rhetoric and Power of the Gay Gene, p. 43)

In 1973, by a vote of 5,854 to 3,810, the diagnostic category of homosexuality was eliminated from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) of the American Psychiatric Association (Bayer 1981). (Donohue and Caselles, Homophobia: Conceptual, Definitional, and Value Issues, p. 66 Wright, and Cummings. Destructive Trends in Mental Health The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm, editors Wright, and Cummings)

Perhaps the greatest policy success of the early 1970s was the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973-74 decision to remove homosexuality from its official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual list of mental disorders. This decision did not come about because a group of doctors suddenly changed their views; it followed an aggressive and sustained campaign by lesbian and gay activists. (Rimmerman, From Identity to Politics: The Lesbian and Gay Movements in the United States, p. 85-86)

Writing about the 1973 decision and the dispute that surrounded it, Bayer (1981) contended that these changes were produced by political rather than scientific factors. Bayer argued that the revision represented the APA’s surrender to political and social pressures, not new data or scientific theories regarding on human sexuality. (Donohue and Caselles, Homophobia: Conceptual, Definitional, and Value Issues, p. 66 Wright, and Cummings. Destructive Trends in Mental Health The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm, editors Wright, and Cummings)

The APA’s very process of a medical judgment arrived at by parliamentary method set off more arguments than it settled. Many members felt that the trustees, in acting contrary to diagnostic knowledge, had responded to intense propagandistic pressures from militant homophile organizations. Politically we said homosexuality is not a disorder, one psychiatrist admitted, but privately most of us felt it is. (Kronemeyer, Overcoming Homosexuality, p.5)

The removing of homosexuality as a sexual disorder was as a result of a three year long social/political campaign by gay activists, pro-gay psychiatrists and gay psychiatrists, not as a result of valid scientific studies. Rather the activities were public disturbances, rallies, protests, and social/political pressure from within by gay psychiatrists and by others outside of the APA upon the APA. The action of removing homosexuality was taken with such unconventional speed that normal channels for consideration of the issues were circumvented. This action taken in the APA had dramatic consequences on psychosexual life according to Charles Socarides in a article published in The Journal of Psychohistory, Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality. Socarides writes the removal of homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual was a false step with the following results.

This amounted to a full approval of homosexuality and an encouragement to aberrancy by those who should have known better, both in the scientific sense and in the sense of the social consequences of such removal. (Socarides, Charles W. Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality, p.320-321)

In this article he described a movement within the American Psychiatric Association that through social/political activism which resulted in a two-phase radicalization of a main pillar of psychosocial life. The first phase was the erosion of heterosexuality as the single acceptable sexual pattern in our culture. This was followed by the second phase of the raising of homosexuality to the level of an alternative lifestyle. As a result homosexuality became an acceptable psychosocial institution alongside heterosexuality as a prevailing norm of sexual behavior.

In essence, this movement within the American Psychiatric Association has accomplished what every other society, with rare exceptions, would have trembled to tamper with, a revision of the basic code and concept of life and biology: that men and women normally mate with the opposite sex and not with each other. (Socarides, Charles W. Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality, p.321)

The hijacking of science in the APA by those advocating for homosexuality has now taken a very interesting twist. Thirty years later after this decision by the APA, Robert L. Spitzer, M.D. who was instrumental in the removal of homosexuality in 1973 from the lists of sexual disorders in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual is once again facing the anger of others. The first time was by those who opposed the normalization of homosexuality. Now after publishing the results of a study showing that some people may change their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual, it is those advocating for homosexuality. Dr. Spitzer’s study and peer commentaries were published in the October 2003 issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior.

An additional personal parallel-the anger that has been directed towards me for doing this study reminds me of a similar reaction to me during my involvement in the removal of the diagnosis of homosexuality from DSM-II in 1973. (Spitzer, Reply: Study Results Should Not be Dismissed and Justify Further Research on the Efficacy of Sexual Reorientation Therapy, p. 472)

This action taken in the APA had dramatic consequences on psychosexual life according to Charles Socarides in a article published in The Journal of Psychohistory, Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality. He described a movement within the American Psychiatric Association in which through social/political activism resulted in a two-phase radicalization of a main pillar of psychosocial life. The first phase was the erosion of heterosexuality as the single acceptable sexual pattern in our culture. This was followed by the second phase being the raising of homosexuality to the level of an alternative life. As a result homosexuality became an acceptable psychosocial institution alongside heterosexuality as the prevailing norm of behavior.

In essence, this movement within the American Psychiatric Association has accomplished what every other society, with rare exceptions, would have trembled to tamper with, a revision of the basic code and concept of life and biology: that men and women normally mate with the opposite sex and not with each other. (Socarides, Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality, p. 321)

More recent events have shown interesting perspectives. There has been the formation of NARTH, National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality in 1992 that was in response to the growing threat of scientific censorship. In May of 2001 Dr. Robert L Spitzer reported a study that homosexuality may sometimes be changeable. Dr Spitzer was the psychiatrist who headed the APA committee that led to the 1973 removal of homosexuality from the APA’s list of disorders. These events coincide with a growing influential movement of people who have overcome homosexuality, and are usually self-identify as ex-gay.

Another aspect of the development of sexual orientation and identity which would seem to require investigation is the reduction of the percentage of men and women engaging in homosexual behavior with age. A significant percentage of the medical students and male twins investigated by McConaghy and colleagues (1987, 1994) reported that they were not currently aware of homosexual feelings they experienced in adolescence indicating homosexual feelings diminished or disappear with age in a proportion of the population. (McConaghy, Unresolved Issues in Scientific Sexology, p. 300)

Overcoming Homosexuality

There are individuals who overcome homosexuality and they do so in multiple ways. But what is of great interest are those individuals who choose to continue to self-identify as gay or lesbian but have as their objects of sexual activity members of the opposite sex. The following are examples of such people who have made public declarations. JoAnn Loulan was a prominent lesbian activist in the seventies and eighties who met and fell in love with a man in the late nineties, and even appeared on a 20/20 television episode in 1998. Jan Clausen also a lesbian activist writes in two of her books Beyond Gay or Straight, Apples and Oranges of a sexual relationship with a man. This latter book is autobiographical. She began a long-term monogamous relationship with a man in 1987. In England Russell T. Davies wrote Queer as Folk and also wrote for British TV the show Bob and Rose airing in September 2001. This second show is about a gay man who falls in love with a woman and has a sexual relationship with her. This series was based on a friend of Davies, Thomas, who was well known in the Manchester, England gay scene. Bert Archer who identifies as a gay male in his book, The End of Gay (and the Death of Heterosexuality), writes of his sexual relationship with a woman. He also gives examples of other gay men who have similar experiences.

Of most interest is the actual result of this latest attempt beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s to define homosexuality as a one size fits all type of homosexuality, a gay and lesbian identity. What was at first an attempt to see two sexual identities, heterosexual and homosexual has been a birth of multiple sexual identities. It is a fracturing of a one single sexual identity homosexual into multiple sexual identities and heterosexuality.

What these examples illustrate is that homosexual and heterosexual are socially constructed categories. There are no objective definitions of these words; there is no Golden Dictionary in the Sky that contains the real definitions. These are words, categories we made up. (Muehlenhard, Categories and Sexualities, p. 102-103)

Although the radicalised movement of self-affirming lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgendered people and others proclaimed the desire to end the homosexual and indeed the heterosexual (Altman 1071/1993) - that is to get rid of redundant and oppressive categorisations - the reality was different. Since the early 1970s, there has been considerable growth of distinctive sexual communities, and of what have been called quasi-ethnic lesbian and gay identities, and the proliferation of other distinctive sexual identities from bisexual to sado-masochistic, and many other subdivisions (Epstein 1990). Difference has apparently triumphed over convergence, identity or similarity. The rise of queer politics from the late 1980s can be seen as both a product of and a challenge to these developments, rejecting narrow identity politics in favor of a more transgressive erotic warfare. (Warner 1993; Seidman 1997) - while at the same time, ironically, creating a new, post-identity identity of queer. (Weeks, Heaphy and Donovan, Same Sex Intimacies Families of Choice and Other Life Experiments, p.14)

Yet perhaps the most enabling breakthrough in the study of premodern sexualities over the last decade has been precisely the rejection of easy equations between sexual practice and individual identity. In the wake of Foucault’s famous dictum-The sodomite had been a temporary aberration; the homosexual was now a species (1990, 43)-scholars have recently brought to light a vast array of homoerotic discourses in the premodern West that were neither filtered nor constrained by modern sexual identity categories. In the words of David Halperin, Before the scientific construction of sexuality as a supposedly positive, distinct, and constitutive features of individual human beings . . . Certain kinds of sexual acts could be individually evaluated and categorized (1990, 26). While gay and lesbian history in the 1970s and early 1980s aimed primarily at either identifying, the last decade has seen the focus shift to erotic acts, pleasures, and desires, to homoeroticism itself as a pervasive and diverse cultural phenomenon rather than the closeted practice of a homosexual minority (see Hunt, 1994). (Fradenburg and Lavezzo editors. Premodern Sexualities, p.243-244)

On the one hand, lesbians and gay men have made themselves an effective force in the USA over the past several decades largely by giving themselves what the civil rights movement had: a public collective identity. Gay and lesbian social movements have built a quasi-ethnicity, complete with its own political and culture institutions, festivals, neighborhoods, even its own flag. Underlying that ethnicity is typically the notion that what gays and lesbians share - the anchor of minority status and minority rights claim – is the same fixed, natural essence, a self with same-sex desires. The shared oppression, these movements have forcefully claimed, is denial of the freedoms and opportunities to actualize this self. In this ethiniclessentialist politic, clear categories of collective identity are necessary for successful resistance and political gain. (Gamson, Must Identity Movements Self-Destruct?, p. 516 in Sexualities: Critical Concepts in Sociology Volume II editor Ken Plummer)

That Way. That Sort. The whole modern gay movement, form the mid- to late-Mattachine-style homophilia to Gay is Good, to Queer Nation and OutRage! to Ellen, Queer as Folk and beyond, has been a struggle first to define, than to justify and/or celebrate and/or revel in, than to normalize what was still thought of by many as being That Way. And there have been wild successes, genuine victories resulting in real progress being made in very short spans of time in thinking and acting on sexuality and human relationships. But there’s a forgotten, ignored, or perhaps never acknowledged baby in the bathwater the Movement’s been assuming: the possibility of a sexual attraction that is neither or exclusively based on anatomy nor especially relevant to your sense of self. It’;s an idea that the lesbian communities have been dealing with for some time, something about which they have a lot to teach the rest of us. (Archer, The End of Gay and the death of heterosexuality, p.17-18)

Such was the heady agenda of gay liberation. By the mid-1970s, however, it was evident that the agenda encouraging people to come out and be proud of being gay was not working. Reports of casualties gay related suicides and beatings, illnesses and death from alcohol and drug use were not declining. The mortality rate of gay people dying from hepatitis was staggering: 5,000 a year according to some accounts. New infectious diseases were appearing, including devastating internal parasites that added to the already alarming incidences of other sexually transmitted diseases.
Worse, gay people did not seem to be coalescing into the productive lifestyle envisioned by the early leaders of the movement. Where was Whitman’;s vision of a land where men, women, children would join in a continuous celebration of life and the body electric? What we saw instead was an escalating spread of promiscuity, prostitution, and pornography. Our liberated community was rapidly becoming an exploited community. Gay society founded itself with less and less to be proud of. The march of gay rights seemed to slow down, and with the arrival of AIDS, was stopped dead in its tracks. (DuBay, Gay Identity The Self Under Ban, p.131)

In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family. (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.363)

------------

http://banap.net/spip.php?article120

[spik]

Tried. There isn’t a single cause for homosexuality or pedophilia in Islamic societies.

[Mingle]

Tried. There isn’t a single cause for homosexuality or pedophilia in Islamic societies.

Tried what?

Nobody said there was a single cause for it. I literally said there were multiple causes for it on the first page.

[spik]

Tried what?

Nobody said there was a single cause for it. I literally said there were multiple causes for it on the first page.

Typo. Meant to say true.

[spik]

http://www.breitbart.com/national-se...ts-fear-lives/

[Odin]

[DarknessWin]

Homosexual Propaganda want Ancient Civilizations to support their lies ,
i will wrote specific about Ancient Greek world. They try to make everuyone believe that the
first Democracy in the world accepted Homosexuals as equal which is LIES.

Here is the LAWS of Athenian Democracy against homosexuals :

A homosexual
1. He is not allowed to join the 9 archons
2. He is not allowed to be elected priest
3. He is not allowed to be an advocate
4. He is not permitted to exercise authority within or outside of Athens
5. He is not allowed to be sent as a herald of war
6. He is not allowed to expose opinion (as mentally unbalanced)
7. He is not allowed to get into public Temples
8. He is not allowed to enter the sacred space of the market

If a homosexual act contrary to the provisions of the law would be punishable by death!

(Laws of Solon Book 5, Chapter 5, Article 332)



Also according to the Athenian law, the citizens convicted for homosexuality have their citizen rights removed (Becaming low class citizes - Metikoi) same goes also for their right to vote and also to appear to public places (Temples , athletic centres , forums e.t.c.).

So Homosexuals and Eunuchs in ancient Greece were only the Slaves and metikoi

[DarknessWin]

They even went so far to claim that homosexual act was something normal
and started with Pederasty.
Actually Pederasty was something totally different, was just Education and
Erastis and Eromenos was like Father and Son without sexual act

Here is the law of Spartans:

"The customs instituted by Lycurgus were opposed to all of these. If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy’s soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy’s outward beauty, he banned the connexion as an abomination; and thus he caused lovers to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other."

Xenophon "Constitution of the Lacedaimonians"