Thoughts on Homosexuality

“Led by radicals like Frank Kameny, same-gender sex activists attacked many psychiatrists publicly, as Newsweek describes, “But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes. ‘We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,’ shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured!’” (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)

“Ironically, at the very moment Franklin Kameny was claiming that same-gender sex was healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation as a result of the promiscuous, unhealthy nature of the sex they were having. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying, of AIDS.

“On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse, disruptions. In this letter he states, “Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.” (The Gay Crusaders p. 130-131)

“Same-gender sex activists continued to pressure the APA through 1973. A same-gender sex magazine, The Advocate, talks of “…what happened in 1973…referring to the widespread protests by the gay and lesbian community that led to the APA’s dropping homosexuality from the DSM.” (The Advocate, 12-28-93, p.40) As a result of the pressure, in the words of the prominent journalist and same-gender sex activists, Andrew Sullivan, in December of 1973 the APA, “…under intense political pressure…removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders…” (Love Undetectable, book by Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p. 107) Under this “intense political pressure” the APA’s board of trustees finally caved in to the demands of same-gender sex activists. Another same-gender sex activist Mark Thompson writes, “Just before the first of the year, the American Psychiatric Association’s board of trustees declared we were no longer sick.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 97)”
Note 1.

In 1989, two other homosexual radicals, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen wrote the book that would become the homosexual equivalent of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Their book, After the Ball outlined a plan to cover the American straights with propaganda and to change their perception of homosexuals. Their plan included six rules:

1. Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and often as possible.

”The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome”, said Kirk and Madsen;

”seek desensitization and nothing more… If you can get [straights] to think [homosexuality] is just another thing – meriting just a shrug of the shoulders – then you battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.”
And,
”It makes no difference that the ads are lies, not to us, because we are using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies and far more wicked ones.”

The similarity to Alinsky’s admonition that the end justifies the means, that the end must be given ethical standing (cloaked in morality), and that the only bad “means” is the one not used, is striking.

2. Portray gays as victims, not aggressive challengers.

The Matthew Shepard case became the cause celebre’, even though his killers didn’t even know that he was gay: he was killed for money. The media took up school bullying and applied it directly to homosexuals as the victims.

3. Give homosexual protectors a “just” cause.

4. Make gays look good.

Every TV show had a gay who was indistinguishable from the straights. This was followed by TV shows about gays.

5. Make the victimizers look bad.

Christians became demonized on the major media, regardless of the non-connection of the huge majority of Christians to any persecution of homosexuals. “Fundamentalist” became the new expletive for virtually all Christians, except for ultra liberal Christians, who were “enablers”.

6. Solicit funds from corporate America and major foundations.
Note 2.

The results of this program, helped along by Hollywood and major media and followed by government intervention and support, have been spectacular. Anyone with a non-congruent opinion is now afraid to state it. The suppression has been successful. Now homosexuals are a protected class, with hate crime laws to add extra punishment to what might have been a run of the mill crime, except that it had a homosexual victim. Homosexuals can marry, and in San Francisco, they can have sex in the streets. In at least Massachusetts and California, homosexuality must, by law, be taught as normal in the government schools.

Homosexuals still want to be considered a normal lifestyle, one which they cannot avoid, being locked somehow into a sexual type, that of homosexuality. Over the past several decades since the discovery of DNA the attempts to connect homosexuality to a mutation in some sort of sexual developmental gene have not shown genetic lock-in to be the case. Even Kirk and Madsen wrote that,

”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 dispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.”

If it had been the case that a deviation in genetics was the “cause” for homosexuality, then homosexuality would still have been considered a deviation from the norm, due to a defect in genetics which caused the deviation.

But since homosexuality has no known physical causation, then it must be either mental or maybe even cultural. Perhaps homosexuality has a cause in nurture, maybe due to an imbalance in parental roles or other defective environmental factors. The absent father or defective father is a known cause of many unbalanced mental attitudes, especially those of a rejecting, rebellious nature. So is child abuse and sexual abuse.

But mental causation, if accepted as a cause for homosexuality, means that homosexuality has a cause. That would mean that it is not normal, and so that cause must be rejected. But if the mental causation is rejected, then culture must surely be to blame, is that not so?

The cultural approach seems to have advantages that none of the other reasons for homosexuality have, including the elimination of “causation” for homosexuality altogether. It would appear that acculturation is the method by which homosexual activism hopes to acquire both legitimacy as “normal” (as in not-pathological), and to recruit new members to its advocacy groups and as members of its practicing population. If the culture can be convinced that homosexuality is “normal” by definition, then causation is no longer a factor in the narrative. (Note 3)

With government and government schools all enrolled as homosexuality advocates, it would appear that the homosexual agenda for acculturating itself is wildly successful. And this without any logical, or physical reasons for believing it to be a normal, rational, or healthy pursuit. All that is needed is a rationale.

The rationale is that society, specifically government, has a responsibility to eliminate discrimination; discrimination is a word which has acquired a heavy burden of moral disapproval. We must discriminate against discrimination: it is an absolute moral imperative to eliminate absolute morals from the minds of the populace, because absolutes produce discrimination. Education must discriminate against discrimination, and must validate the worldviews and behaviors of each and every human… except those who object to losing their right to object to certain behaviors. Those are deviants who must be discriminated against. We are now developing the legal system to do all that.

The policy is that anything goes, except objection to the policy.

Homosexuality is being, in fact has been, declared legitimate by fiat. There is no question that government sanction, protection and now promotion of homosexuality is a government fiat for that particular lifestyle’s legitimacy. Homosexuality is being declared unquestionably legitimate by the standard of tautology: it is legitimate because it is legitimate. Thus, it is no longer legitimate to question the legitimacy of homosexuality. Also, "non-discrimination" is now tautologically unquestionable: it is a moral imperative and is seen as self-apparent. Thus anyone who does question homosexuality is tautologically wrong, to the point of immorality, because questioning non-discrimination is the same as morally attacking a moral tautological imperative.

And that is how secular morals are created: they are made up and forced on the non-secular as self-apparent, tautological, moral necessities.

But these things are not tautological, nor are they self-apparent first principles. The necessity of discrimination in life is obvious. We discriminate against other partners by getting married and being faithful. We discriminate against the left side of the road by driving on the right side (in the USA anyway). We discriminate against purchases in favor of preserving our bank balances.

Non-discrimination leads to unsustainable profligacy: no partnership could be respected, no expenditure could be rejected, no action would be unconscionable. But profligacy is not usually taken as a cultural value, except in the secular, valueless culture of made up opinions charading as values. In a culture of total non-discriminating freedom from responsible actions, social failure is inevitable.

Taken to the limit, one must discriminate against falseness, and for truth; for logic and rationality over emotion and irrationality, and for personal responsibility over wantonness. Discrimination is not in and of itself bad as it is being demonized; in fact for a rational life, it is a requirement.

Non-rational, indiscriminant behavior has led to the housing bubble with houses sold indiscriminately to people without any means to sustain the debt. It has led to a massive national debt, with a burden created indiscriminately which is unsustainable by the citizens of the nation. And interestingly some of the most indiscriminate behavior is exhibited by homosexuals who willfully engage in behaviors known to spread disease throughout their community. A Reductio Ad Absurdem performed directly on antidiscrimination reveals that without discrimination, no knowledge would exist, no cooperative efforts would succeed, and rationality would fail.

Being an Atheistic and wanton behavior system, homosexuality comes without any morals attached to it, other than the morals it manufactures for others. We must be respected they say, while showing utter contempt for those whose respect they demand. The track is one way; they absorb and demand more. They give nothing in return.

There is nothing whatsoever in the way of objective evidence that is useful for declaring homosexuality to be legitimate or even admirable behavior. Much less is it normal sexuality. Sexuality has a teleology, like it or not. Its purpose is procreation, which is encouraged by the obvious pleasure of the heterosexual act. But homosexuality has no teleology, it has no purpose save the pleasure of the act itself. And that pleasure is derived from its deviancy from the norm.

While it might be argued that the behavior of consenting adults should not be considered an issue of concern for others, the problem with homosexual activism is that it wishes to take over and change the concept of normal in society to include the abnormal behavior in which homosexuals engage, and to recruit children via the governmental schools into their abnormal worldview. If this type of indoctrination, which is logically fallacy driven, is allowed to succeed, then the thinking abilities of an entire generation of children will be degraded. (Note 4). It is in everyone's interest to be concerned with irrational ideas and unhealthy lifestyles being fed to the nation's children, by fiat and without recourse. The homosexual agenda is not a victimless crime.

Anyone who wishes to operate from a worldview that is based on valid and true principles has to discriminate. It is not optional. It is a must. It should be taught as a virtue and a path to valid thinking.


____

Note 1. From Listi, http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/

Note 2. From Sears and Osten, "The Homosexual Agenda"; and Kupelian, "The Marketing of Evil".

Note 3. If culture is the cause for homosexuality, then it can also provide the cause for release from homosexuality. This bit of obviousness is opaque to the homosexual community, which demands in the face of evidence to the contrary that homosexuality is irreversible. But the beauty of the acculturation via government fiat is that at some point there will be no one left to question the legitimacy of homosexuality.

Note 4. Not to mention that their gender confusion will be multiplied considerably.