The “Gay Rights” Deception

Civil Rights Issue---Discrimination?

The answer is simple. They have successfully presented their case for recognition and acceptance as a civil rights issue. They have been able to do this on the basis of one monumental lie; namely that they are and have been victims of discrimination. They have endlessly protested that their plight is essentially no different from that of the Suffragettes, the Jews and Blacks---and almost all of us have swallowed this lie--- and “LIE” it most definitely is.

True Discrimination---and False

You see, these instances of discrimination are all now acknowledged to have been unjustified and based entirely on gender or racial characteristics. At this point many will say: “But isn’t that exactly what homosexuals have suffered”? Well, let’s explore that for a moment? Firstly, would you agree that to be a Suffragette you had to be a woman, and to be Jewish or black, you had to have been born that way? And then would you further agree that being a woman or Jewish or black should automatically entitle you to the full range of human rights available to everyone else, with no stigmas or restrictions whatever? Ok, you agree? So obviously, if you are born into any minority group, however small, you are similarly entitled, aren’t you? Of course that is exactly the overwhelming argument the activists have used---but where is the flaw in it?

Can Discrimination ever be Justified?

Let’s attempt to answer that by asking a further question. Would you consider paedophiles, rapists, pornographers, drug pushers, and those who practise incest, bestiality or necromancy as entitled to the same unlimited range of human rights, with also no stigma or restrictions whatever? Clearly that is more questionable and you would feel natural misgivings if those minority groups were clamouring for their rights, but, if they could prove that they were “born that way” or with those “immutable orientations”, how could you logically discriminate against them, except perhaps by proving their harmful effects?

Legality Is Not the Issue

Remember, it is no argument to say that those practices are currently illegal, since laws can and constantly do change and generally in a morally declining direction. So practices that are now illegal will probably become legal, just as homosexuality, and in particular sodomy, has within the last half century. Therefore the issue, plain and simple, is: If the orientation can be shown to be immutable or genetic, the logical corollary is that the practice must be not only legalised but accorded official recognition for promotion in schools and society as entirely “equal” and “normal”—with perhaps just that one proviso—that the activities are both consensual and harmless.

The Foundational Claim

We will come back to the proviso later, but let’s examine the foundational claim that homosexual orientation is genetic and immutable. What actually is the evidence and what do some of the activists say about it themselves? This is where we have to get extremely controversial. Prepare to be shocked!

What do Leading Gay Activists Say?

Let’s start by pointing out that, whereas it has suited ‘gay’ activists to play the “born gay” card with devastating effectiveness, a number of their leaders are already rejecting it and proclaiming the more brazen card of ‘gay’ superiority. Here is what some of them have recently stated: Starting with Peter Tatchell:

“Homosexuality: It isn’t natural. Ignore those researchers who claim to have discovered a ’gay gene’, Gay desire is NOT genetically determined”. He adds: “Much as I would love to go along with the emerging 'born gay' consensus, I can't. The evidence does not support the idea that sexuality is a fixed biological given”. (See footnote 1)

Australian gay activist Dr Graham Willett goes even further:

“I think the idea that sexuality is genetic is c**p. There is absolutely no evidence for it at the moment, and I think it is unhealthy that people want to embrace this idea. It does reflect a desire to say, ‘it’s not our fault’, as a way of deflecting our critics.” (For the rest of his statement see footnote 2)

The Attractions of the Genetic (Born that way) Argument

In passing, do note his last sentence, which goes a long way to explaining the attraction of the genetic argument. It is so much easier to say “My genes made me this way”, than to take responsibility for what can easily be shown to be a singularly destructive and disease-ridden lifestyle choice. (Hence the inapplicability of the proviso)

What are the FACTS?

So doesn’t that shake your belief in the born gay theory at least a bit? If it doesn’t, and you dismiss Tatchell and Willet’s views altogether, then perhaps you should now consider the fact that absolutely no activists ever cite any named scientific studies to support their claim--- they always use unsupported assertions, such as “Everyone now acknowledges...etc”. The one very simple reason for this is that any study they might like to quote has actually been comprehensively exposed as fraudulent. Indeed so evident is the dishonesty and bias inherent in most studies (mostly the works of known ‘gay’ activists), that those who cite them risk being severely embarrassed. All this is very clearly documented by Ryan Sorba in his book, “Born-Gay—Hoax Debunked” (freely downloadable on-line, see footnote 3).

Infiltration of UK Scientific Bodies

It is possible that at this point someone will venture to quote recent submissions from the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) and the UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP), though they would be ill-advised to do so. The fact is that these two bodies have recently abandoned their previous scientific objectivity in favour of blatant homosexual ideology. It is understandable that they should be tempted to keep in step with the current ‘political correctness’, but to stoop to utterly selective and distorted manipulation of other authorities’ studies, as they have done, should disqualify them from serious consideration. Indeed their so-called “Submission” is actually a frightening example of the systematic, deliberate infiltration and intimidation of public bodies by those pursuing the ‘gay’ agenda. I know that is quite a claim to make, but I challenge anyone to read the excellent little book “Beyond Critique—The Misuse of Science by UK Professional Health Bodies” (see 4) and not come to the same conclusion. The power of “political correctness” is truly alarming and it is hard to believe that it stems merely from delusion and ignorance, as can easily be demonstrated.

Deliberate Duplicity

It is worth quoting a typical example of their carefully calculated sophistry to illustrate the fundamental dishonesty of some of our leading activists. Remembering the statement by Peter Tatchell on how he rejects the genetic theory, you have to wonder if it is the same Peter Tatchell, who also writes the following, in a sample letter he urges his followers to send to our political leaders:

“I am sure you would not accept a situation where the law banned black or Jewish couples from getting married but offered them a civil partnership instead. This humiliation is what the current legislation does to same-sex couples. It fobs them off with second best: civil partnerships”. (See 5)

Do you realise that Tatchells’ appeal to the Jewish and black analogy is entirely dependent on homosexuality being genetic and is nullified if it is not? In fact his two-facedness is even more blatant when you consider that this letter is specifically pleading for same-sex marriage (SSM), which he himself openly “Loathes” and despises. Doesn’t that make you think there must be an ulterior motive behind the SSM bill, as of course there certainly is, and as I will explain. (and see link 15) But first, just consider this further quote from Tatchell’s website:

“This new movement for gay marriage is curiously out of step with history. The number of straights getting married in the UK is the lowest in 70 years. Almost half of all weddings end in divorce. Marriage isn't working. Even many heterosexuals realise the drawbacks. The only serious enthusiasm for marriage now comes from conservative gays and religious fundamentalists.

While same-sex love and commitment is laudable, wanting to be part of a dubious straight institution is not. Marriage was devised to ensure the sexual control of women by men, and to regulate the conception and rearing of children. Tailor-made for heteros, it's irrelevant to gay people.

Gayness frees us from the rules and rites of heterosexuality. Having enjoyed the greater lifestyle choices and sexual freedom that go with being gay, we'd be crazy to don the straight-jacket of wedlock.” (See 6)

The Crucial Significance of the Genetic Theory

In the light of the deliberate duplicity exposed above, I trust you can now appreciate both the fraudulence of the ‘gay’ case and the paramount importance of the bogus genetic or “immutability” argument to it. Indeed it would be no exaggeration to say that without this “Born-Gay” lie, the whole gay agenda would be “dead in the water”—it is truly crucial. Just consider that the major argument for SSM currently being presented in US courts is totally based on the ”14^th Amendment” to the USA’s Constitution. And guess what that amendment is all about? Yes, about ending discrimination against blacks! It is high time we all understood how this devious attempt to represent the gay case as a civil rights issue is precisely why we are all now fighting with our backs to the wall. The facts have always invalidated the ‘born-gay argument. But hardly anybody has had the courage or media access to challenge it, and this highlights yet another aspect of what I shall not hesitate to call this “subversive conspiracy”—the infiltration of the media and key political bodies, on which I will enlarge later.

Logical Corollary of Debunking the Born-gay Theory

The corollary of disproving the “born-gay” theory is that homosexuality must be an orientation that is either conditioned or chosen, or some combination of those alternatives. But this is extremely discomfiting to the gay activists, since conditioning would show that homosexuality can be induced by influences such as upbringing or child abuse, and choice would entail responsibility. Either cause would be fatal to their case for equality rights, particularly as it is well-documented that homosexual practices generally involve high-risk sexual activities (e.g sodomy) and serious health problems. This aspect has been thoroughly reported elsewhere, and anyone wishing to know more would find it helpful to read the article “The Subversion of our Culture” at (7).

Harmful Effects of Homosexuality

I won’t elaborate on the health and social problems here, except to point out that the dramatically increased infection rates (STIs) and psychological problems afflicting the ‘gay’ community stem directly both from their inherent promiscuity and from the dysfunctional nature of their practices and relationships. I know one would be accused of gross homophobia for saying that, but that is typical of ‘gay’ sophistry. The stark truth is that, as in the warning on cigarette packets: “Homosexuality will seriously damage your health .. and shorten your lifespan by up to 20%”. How can it be homophobic to strive to protect people from such affliction? Clearly, instead of actively promoting homosexuality, as SSM will undoubtedly do, any caring and responsible government should be actively discouraging homosexuality, but don’t expect that to happen any time soon!

Confirmation that Homosexuality is Conditioned and/or Chosen

As well as openly refuting the born-gay theory, Peter Tatchell has indiscreetly provided useful confirmation that the homosexual lifestyle is deliberately chosen when he says that the “superiority and greater freedoms” of the lifestyle are something to be proud of. (See 8)

His fellow activist, Australian Dr Graham Willet also makes no secret of his view that people can and should be encouraged to become ‘gay’. He boasts: “I think we should be recruiting people to homosexuality. It’s a great lifestyle and something everybody should have the right to experience. If you believe it’s genetic, how are you going to make the effort?” Or as he put it elsewhere: “On the question of recruiting to homosexuality – well, of course, I am in favour of this. I believe homosexuality to be a perfectly valid lifestyle choice. . . . I am naturally keen to encourage people to participate in [the gay lifestyle]”  (See 9)

The Silencing of All Opposition

It is abundantly clear that the gay activists know the vulnerability of their case and are therefore prepared to resort to underhand and violent tactics to suppress any possibility of the truth being revealed to the general public. A good instance of this would be the way Ryan Sorba was recently prevented from delivering a speech on the “Debunking of the Born-Gay Hoax” at an American University. As He rose to speak, the hall was invaded by a mob of militant lesbians beating frying pans. There was no way they were going to allow him to reveal this truth, and, sadly, the police feebly elected not to eject the lesbians, but to escort Sorba from the hall. Similar instances abound in this country, where innocent citizens have been violently ejected from meetings led by gay activist, Professor Eric Anderson, for merely questioning Anderson’s use of extremely foul language during his talk. But more sinister by far are the efforts of various MPs, who are manoeuvring to legislate for the complete suppression of debate on this issue.

Machiavellian Politics

When you base your campaign on a lie, as is the case with gay rights activists, your credibility is always vulnerable, and you will have to resort to some extremely devious and totalitarian tactics to protect your position from awkward questions. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in the field of “gay conversion therapy”, where some pro-SSM MPs are now feverishly engaging in very Machiavellian politics. You see, to maintain the lie that homosexual orientation is genetic/immutable, it is absolutely essential to suppress any evidence that might disprove the theory. Of course any instance of a person changing orientation would be fatal to the theory—because, by definition, it must be impossible to alter one’s genes.

The Difficulty

The problem is that there are innumerable cases of people switching both from being ‘straight’ to being ‘gay’ and vice versa. It is very difficult to explain that away simply by the sophistry that the person was never really ‘straight’ in the first place, or, vice versa, that the ‘gay’ person who becomes ‘straight’, and even becomes happily married and has children, is really still ‘gay’ at heart. Such people present a very real threat to the whole theory, so the genuineness of their experience has to be denied, however convincing it seems to be. For a good example of such a clear and positive change, you could do no better than read “My Train Wreck Conversion” by Rosaria Butterfield, formerly a militant lesbian professor---now a happy family mum. See (10)

Psychotherapists Silenced

If the possibility of change has to be denied, you will quickly see that anyone helping people to change has to be silenced or eliminated. Thus psychotherapists must be prevented from offering such help, and so the oppression has already reached the stage where two experienced therapists, much appreciated by many patients, have recently been struck off and barred from practicing. However, to minimise the risk of future conversions, Labour MP Diana Johnson is urgently pushing for legislation to prohibit all ‘gay-to straight’ conversion therapy. (See 11)

Orwellian Inequality

The Orwellian nature of such legislation is extremely sinister and discriminates entirely in favour of ‘gays’ who do not wish to consider the possibility they might return to normality, and against people who are desperate to change. Thus a happily married family man, who finds he is suffering an unwelcome same-sex attraction, which threatens to ruin his marriage, is absolutely denied the well-proven services he seeks. This is but the tip of the iceberg as far as Machiavellian politics goes. The consequences of enforcing the new ‘political correctness’ are truly Orwellian and spine-chilling, especially in respect of freedom of speech. I can only touch on this in closing, but you may be quite sure that articles like this one would land the author in prison! There is however plenty of important material on other dire effects SSM will have on society, but that will have to be covered by a further eye-opening article.

“A Radical and Unwarranted Experiment in Social Engineering”

In summary, a wise commentator has accurately described the militant push for SSM as: “A radical and unwarranted experiment in social engineering”. Both adjectives are entirely accurate. It is “radical” in that it utterly overturns the historical concept of marriage as the exclusive union of a man and a woman for life, and it is “unwarranted” in that it is an experiment that has already proved to yield disastrous results. Let me close with a brief mention of this highly relevant ‘experiment’

The Bolsheviks

It may not be widely known, but the fact is, that the Bolsheviks, who were instrumental in the Russian Revolution, were liberal anarchists. Their aims went far beyond the abolition of autocratic feudalism, to the abolition of all traditional moral boundaries governing Russian society. In particular they sought the destruction of both Christianity and the family, and the active promotion of homosexuality. Note well that these are precisely the aims of our country’s ‘gay activists, as clearly stated in their “Gay Liberation Front Manifesto”(12). They have waged a much more subtle and devious campaign, but, be under no illusions, they have already achieved many of their objectives and, when same-sex marriage becomes law, their trap will be completed.

The Failed Experiment

As an experiment in “liberating” society the Bolshevik ‘experiment’ proved an abject failure (13). Society degenerated into rampant promiscuity, which led to sexual and moral anarchy and widespread destruction of families and children. The collapse of order was so marked, that when Stalin came to power, he instantly revoked the Bolshevik edicts and instituted a ruthless purge of homosexuals. From the recent anti-‘gay’ pronouncements of the Russian parliament, it seems that the experiment left strongly negative memories.

Countering Gay Activist Subversion

It should be noted that in 2007, one of the USA’s leading authorities on homosexuality (14), gave lectures in fifty Russian cities, warning of the subversion of society by homosexual activists and of the harm that would ensue if they were not challenged. Evidently, the Russian authorities, in stark contrast to our own politicians, considered the potential dangers very carefully and drew back from the abyss. If ever there was a case that proved the adage “Those who will not learn from the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them”, surely the current actions of our Parliament provide a perfect example. As the lawyers say: “I rest my case”. (For a further revealing article on the way UK’s ‘gay’ activists have deceived our nation see (15)

Footnotes:

1. http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/gay_gene/borngay.htm  and see further at: http://www.spikedonline.com/index.php?/site/article/5375/   
2. http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/07/15/homosexual-honesty/ 
3. http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/born-gay-hoax-studies-debunked/ "
4. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Beyond-Critique-Misuse-Science-Professional/dp/0957373961 ">
5. http://www.petertatchellfoundation.org/campaigns/equal-love "
6. http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/partnerships/bandwaggon.htm ">
7. http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/04/25/the-subversion-of-our-culture-gay-marriage%E2%80%94the-final-straw/ 
8. http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/equality_not_enough/beyond_equality.htm
9. http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2008/07/15/homosexual-honesty/ ">
10. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/january-february/my-train-wreck-conversion.html ">
11. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/05/25/labour-mp-diana-johnson-its-now-time-for-parliament-to-tackle-the-issue-of-gay-conversion-therapy/
12. http://www.awakeman.co.uk/Sense/Books/GLF%20Manifesto%201971.pdf 
13. So wrote Linda Kimball in the Herrick Report 2007 : http://herrickreport.com/newsovietunion.html 
14. The full and extremely interesting report of this lecture tour can be accessed at: http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/the-key-to-pro-family-victory-if-we-really-want-it/ " (But I have to explain, that the individual is now predictably the victim of a vicious  and slanderous campaign, and I’ve been advised it is best not to mention his name).
15. http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/06/05/are-you-being-deceived-about-same-sex-marriage/ 

© 25 June 2013 Reproduced with permission of author

---oOo---