AOL File Library: 4,701 to 4,800/aol-file-protocol-4400-4701-to-4800.zip/AOLDLs/Social Issues & Comments/The Rel. Right & The Gay Agenda/RRT-GYAG.end

Text File | 2014-12-11 | 28KB | 438 lines

The Religious Right vs. the Gay Agenda

The article "INSIDE GLEN EYRIE CASTLE" uploaded recently regarding the
Religious Right's plans for "attack" on the rights of the Gay "minority" (a
term that, finally, is having much less influence on the public than in times
past) by Skip Porteous presents the reader with a substantial sense of irony
when you consider that this is exactly what the Gay and Lesbian groups have
been doing since the early seventies when their cause began to gain real
momentum.  The expression of surprise, shock and outrage in the uploaded
article seems, at best, hypocritical.

Perhaps it would be well to explore exactly why major religious organizations
and others feel the way they do about the radical gay agenda and some reasons
why the promotion of those ideas haven't met with more success with the
general population.

Let's begin with a history lesson.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) was mentioned in a recent upload as
one of several groups that "have all stated for many years that bisexuality
and homosexuality are a normal and healthy part of human love and sexual
expression."(1)  This span of "years" began abruptly in 1973 after a literal
assault of the APA's conventions that began in 1970.  Former Congressman
William Dannemeyer in his book "Shadow in the Land" describes it:

      "In brief, a group of homosexuals stormed the APA annual convention
    on successive years and with deliberately disruptive tactics actually
    forced the psychiatrists to accede to their demands and declare
    homosexuality a "normal condition."  In effect the nature of medical
    opinion was altered by strong-arm tactics." (2)

Dannemeyer takes the account of those events from the book written by Dr.
Ronald Bayer entitled "Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of
Diagnosis" (pp. 101-154).  As Dannemeyer describes it, "If you doubt that
homosexuality should have remained on the list of mental illnesses, you have
only to read the account of how it was removed."  Dannemeyer describes Bayer's
study as "a highly sympathetic narrative" but finds it "remarkable" in that it
does not shrink from the "violence and irrationality that lie at the heart of
the homosexual movement, its essentially anarchic impulse."(3) (Prior to the
time the status of homosexuality was "changed" it was, indeed, listed as a
"mental illness" and was usually treated as such unless a "sympathetic"
psychologist could be found.  While this is probably a rather harsh indictment
of this lifestyle, to put it in more modern terms, let the reader understand
that Dannemeyer is merely being quoted in this instance.)

According to Bayer's account, the 1970 APA convention was held in San
Francisco and, as a result, the homosexual leadership decided to concentrate
on this organization due to the fact that the APA's "Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders" listing homosexuality as one of
many mental illnesses.  "Guerrilla theater tactics and more straightforward
shouting matches characterized their presence".(4)

Several accounts of disruptions in panels and general discussions follow with
Dannemeyer still quoting Bayer extensively.  In the last account of the 1970
convention the activists encounter Dr. Kent Robinson who agreed to meet with
Larry Littlejohn, a leader of the activists.  After hearing their complaints
Dr. Robinson agreed to present them to the APA.  The Program Committee
chairman, John Ewing, agreed, under threat of further violence at the then
current convention, to make room for a panel on homosexuality at subsequent
conventions.  If not, the activists warned, the 1971 convention would be
disrupted as well - and in worse manner.  Dr. Robinson agreed to chair the
proposed session in accordance with the convention regulation that a
psychiatrist chair all scheduled sessions.

With this first taste of victory the activists pushed for more.  Dannemeyer
quotes Bayer again:

     "Despite the agreement to allow homosexuals to conduct their own panel
   discussion at the 1971 convention, gay activists in Washington felt that
   they had to provide yet another jolt to the psychiatric profession.
   Accepting a limited role in the program without engaging in a more direct
   attack on psychiatry might have slowed the momentum necessary to force a
   retreat on the central issue, the classification of homosexuality as a
   mental disease.  Too smooth a transition toward the institutionalization of
   protest would have deprived the movement of its most important weapon - the
   threat of disorder.  Aware of the organizational weakness of his own
   Mattachine Society as well as of its relative conservatism, Frank Kameny
   turned to a Gay Liberation Front collective in Washington to plan the May
   1971 demonstration.  Together with the collective, Kameny developed a
   detailed strategy for disruption, paying attention to the most intricate
   logistical details, including the floor plan of the hotel in which
   the convention was to be housed.(5)

Again, in what follows, Dannemeyer quotes extensively from Bayer's book
regarding the intimidation of the conservative psychiatrists (including the
use of forged credentials in order to gain admission for a number of activists
who threatened violence to marketers on the display floor) so that by the 1972
convention the homosexuals were "a fully institutionalized ... presence at the
annual meeting" [of the APA] and within 24 months of their first disruptive
encounter with psychiatrists the APA had completely capitulated. Professionals
more accustomed to orderly, scientific discussion rather than violent protest
were no match for the activists.

Admittedly, this is a much condensed version of the account in Dannemeyer's
book but for the sake of brevity in such a forum as America Online it would be
advisable that the interested reader get a copy of the former Congressman's
book and other books referenced in this text.

The idea conveyed in the account, however, is that the change that took place
in the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders
regarding homosexuality's classification came about through threats of
violence and, when discussion of the subject occurred in forums provided
during the 1972 convention, the "application of what classical logicians
called 'argumentum ad misericordiam': a fallacious form of reasoning that
appeals to pity rather than to the merits of the issue at hand"(6) was put
into use.  In other words, something considerably different from the usual
scientific approach to any other subject matter caused the change in the
classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder to that of being "normal"
- so much so that it isn't even mentioned in current volumes.  As a result,
the APA bases its opinion of this lifestyle on the threat of violence
perpetrated by the demonstrators beginning in 1970 and, in the ensuing years,
on intimidation and peer pressure from the more "progressive" elements within
the psychiatric community.

After the change was made it merely became a matter of repeating something
frequently enough to the point everyone assumes that it is true.  An entire
generation and more of psychology students and others have studied from the
"revised" text books that perpetrate a view based on anything but scientific
evidence.  What is even worse is that scientific and other professional
communities are anything but bastions of free intellectual thought.  'Free
thinkers' find it difficult to buck the system often, as in this case, making
it necessary for many trends to proceed to their most illogical extremes
before it is abandoned.

Pat Robertson in his book "The Turning Tide" gives this quote that has been
uttered in many places, even, he says, on the floor of Congress.  The "shock
troops", as he calls them of the Gay and Lesbian movement have this as their
self-avowed aim:

     "We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of
   your shallow dreams and lies.  We shall seduce them in your schools, in
   your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports
   arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater
   bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all-male
   clubs, in your House of Congress, however men are with men together.  Your
   sons shall become our minions and do our bidding.  They will be recast in
   our image.(7)

Obviously, this creed is not published widely in the popular press, not that
the press isn't aware of it.  It's about as unaware of this creed as it was of
the less 'presentable' elements of the famous Gay Pride parade that occurred
in Washington, D.C.  Who doesn't remember the frantic attempts at retraction
and suppression by the networks and editorial apologists of the footage of
what went on during that parade of the most radical and exhibitionist elements
of the gay lifestyle?

For a moment I would like to digress in order to differentiate between the
radical elements of the homosexual movement and the more conservative people
who consider themselves homosexual.  What has been described thus far has been
an account of those who would stop at nothing in order to plant their seed, so
to speak, in the heart of the American voter and, especially, the American
children inasmuch as children represent the future of a nation.  This
includes destroying the institutions of American culture - ANY institution -
that stand in the way of their success.  Nothing in the mind of this type of
person holds any sacred ground when compared to their lifestyle of unlimited
sexual partners and sexual expression.  However, the persons one meets
knowingly or otherwise in casual contact on the street, at work, or wherever,
that considers themselves homosexual may or may not hold to this view of
anarchy.  A substantial number do not and must be given the benefit of the
doubt when their chosen lifestyle is made known voluntarily or otherwise.
Inasmuch as a person holds to the preservation of our culture, varied as it
is, I submit that they deserve the respect that any other person does who
lives their lives in such a way as to preserve the order and community
cohesiveness that makes safe, sane day-to-day living a virtual certainty.
This being said, then, those who adhere to the aims of the radical Homosexual
Agenda as outlined thus far I would treat as traitorous to the safety of
health, home and national community, let alone our national security.

The average person who considers him/herself as conservative and against the
gay agenda whether they are religious or not does NOT advocate violence to the
homosexual community as many in the media and promoters of this agenda would
have one believe.  None of the respected religious organizations advocate
anything as ridiculous as planting burning crosses in the yards of known or
suspected homosexuals.  Indeed, Focus on the Family, Pat Robertson's 700 Club
and others believe and understand the right of anyone to live the lives they
choose as long as that lifestyle doesn't threaten the safety of our
communities and, above all, that the rights of a few don't outweigh and
supersede the rights of the rest of us.  Instead, their major concern is the
preservation and defense of the traditional family unit as it represents the
basic building block of all strong societies.  This is not to disregard the
fact that they view the lifestyle in question to be immoral and against
nature, however.  They do make this belief quite evident in their writings.
Dr. Dobson said it himself in a 1993 article in his Focus on the Family
Magazine in which he responded to a homosexual man's letter to him:

     "In response, I want to begin by telling you how strongly I feel about
   the mandate we have as Christians to love and care for people from all
   walks of life.  Even those with whom we disagree.  Even those involved in
   lifestyles we believe to be immoral.  My first reaction to your honest
   sharing of yourself is a sense of acceptance for you as an individual.  I
   mean that sincerely.
     Regardless of what the media may say,  Focus on the Family has NO
   interest in  promoting "hatred" toward homosexuals or any other group of
   our fellow human beings.  We have not supported, and will never support,
   legislation aimed at depriving them of their basic constitutional rights -
   rights they share with every citizen."(8)

There is a growing number of people in true minority communities that strongly
oppose further implementation of affirmative action laws.  They know better
than anyone else the havoc that has been brought upon their communities by
such mandates.  They have known since the inception of such laws that their
success or failure came from within their own selves rather than Washington,
D.C.  Implementation of affirmative action measures specifically for
homosexual individuals merely further the impression that 'argumentum ad
misericordiam' is still being applied at every turn for the furtherance of
this cause.

One thing Dr. Dobson, Pat Robertson and others want people to know is that
homosexuality is not the unforgivable sin.  The account of Jesus and the woman
caught in the act of adultary and brought to Him by the clergy for stoning is
an example of the practical application of Jesus' parable of the Prodigal Son.
His admonition to her was to "go and sin no more." Likewise the Prodigal came
back to his Father with nothing more than the rags on his body.  He left
behind the pigsty, the lasciviousness, the drunkenness and everything that
stole from him his original birthright.  That is all the Father ever asks of
us when we wish to be His people.

People can escape from homosexuality.  Perhaps not without a considerable
amount of counselling but it is a fact that there are a great number of
successes in the reversal of this type of activity.  The steady drumbeat of
the homosexual community, of course, is that they are 'born that way', that
they simply can't help being the way they are.  Many medical experts have
recently put forth claims that homosexuality is, indeed, an inborn trait but
not one has been able to claim absolute proof of this in the articles
proclaiming these theories.  Nevertheless, the major news magazines and the
media repeat these theories at every chance as if they were fact.  Obviously
no one can be 'cured' of something if they have no desire to relieve
themselves of their malady - even though it may well shorten their life-span
considerably.

The press and their cohorts, such as Hollywood and the liberal educational
establishment, engaged in promoting this lifestyle parrot these claims of
prenatal determination as often as possible.  The American population has been
acutely aware of this bias and many of the claims of these learned 'experts'
is discounted by them.  The National Opinion Research Council (NORC) at the
University of Chicago ran a survey in 1988 that showed 98.5% of those polled
to be exclusively heterosexual leaving only 1.5% homosexual or lesbian.  Also,
the report showed that 80% "strongly disapproved" of homosexuality, an 8%
increase from a similar 1978 study.(9)

An example to make one wonder whether homosexuality should be considered a
'mental illness' once again is the fact that Larry Littlejohn, mentioned
before as a leader among the activists in the 1970 APA convention, led a
courageous fight to close the bath houses in San Francisco in an attempt to
curb the spread of AIDS in the early 80s once the fact of the existence of
this pathogen became a glaring reality.  Though it was considered by him and
others as only a marginally effective measure, with an incurable disease
threatening their very lives and lifestyle such a move was considered the only
practicable means at their disposal to combat it.  Then Mayor Dianne Feinstein
was strongly in favor of this measure as well.  As an example of the resolve
of the committed, promiscuous homosexuals to continue in the path toward their
own destruction despite the considerable threat of this disease Mr. Littlejohn
endured a huge amount of vitriolic ridicule from his own gay community and
eventually lost this battle.

This remains, however, as a telling example of just how important the access
to frequent, anonymous sexual encounters is in the collective mind of this
group.  The bath houses had little other purpose than to provide a public
rendezvous for this kind of activity in these communities.  The requirement of
the use of condoms was considered but later discarded as completely
unenforceable.  Yet, even though the threat of AIDS was known and acknowledged
by all, the desire to continue this activity consumed all sense of caution
then as it does now.  Health codes were legislated for all other types of
disease control but the resounding rejection of this proposal remains as a
monument to the gay community's core beliefs.  Many homosexuals felt that the
State had controlled and regulated them and their activities long enough.

Many psychologists would have us believe that no truly 'normal' lifestyle
exists.  The religious organizations targeted by homosexual radicals would
have all of us know that, truly, the example of the most 'normal' lifestyle
and expression of human sexuality that can be embraced (and, in reality, is
found throughout the world) is as described in the Holy Scriptures and is
otherwise known as the heterosexual family unit.  The Bible defines normalcy
quite well.  Our Creator really has no part in our self destruction when we
deviate wildly from the "Manufacturer's Handbook" as one evangelist calls the
Bible.  He cared enough about us to give us these guidelines and grieves when
we try to show Him up by blindly following our base instincts.  He prescribes
specific directions to our lives.  And, as we allow and when we are ready,
individually, He also prescribes specific steps as to how to get back on the
right track.

The homosexual lifestyle, as mentioned before, asks for a considerable number
of sexual partners over the individual's life-span. This single fact should be
enough to cause the American public to forever repudiate this lifestyle if it
wasn't for the fact that such activity has its equivalent in the heterosexual
community, although not usually to the extent as mentioned previously in the
bath house account.  If given a name this promiscuity could be called the
'Playboy' club.  What group of male individuals close to or over the age of
puberty and beyond have not been subjected at some time to some 'teller of
tall tales' account of his exploits?  Whether real or imagined one thing is
certain, this instinct left over from our distant past when survival depended
on a multitude of births has not abated in the current evolutionary condition
in which our society exists.  God recognized the need to curb this instinct
and laid down rules by which His civilized people should govern their emotions
and desires.  Thus, the idea of severely limiting one's sexual partners in a
monogamous relationship contributed to two things: 1) the bond of family that
holds our communities together and provides stable environments for our
progeny and 2) the limiting of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) within the
community - the promotion of community health standards, if you will.
Disobeying the rules for such behavior called for harsh measures on the
civilian level since the survival of the nation called Israel depended on it.
God, Himself meted out severe penalties on the corporate level as was
demonstrated when many of Israel's kings went the way of other religions that
followed the 'natural' ways of the human animal rather than the ways of God.

Apparently, more people are taking this divine advice more seriously.  The
aforementioned NORC organization reported an increase from 9.7% to 22% between
its 1988 and 1991 surveys in which men aged 18 to 29 reported having no sexual
partners (abstinence).(10)  Obviously AIDS and other STDs play a role in this
increase.  Why do we have to loose our lives to prove to ourselves that God
really knows what He's talking about?

What has happened in our country as well as those around the world that
tacitly promote the homosexual life has been the appearance of the AIDS virus
as a recognized pathogen.  Not that the virus is exclusive to the homosexual
population.  It has invaded the heterosexual domain to the extent that its
transmission via sexual contact extends to those who don't practice abstinence
or monogamy and the unfortunate people close to them.  Inasmuch as a person
does not limit themselves to the monogamous life that is taught in the Bible
they subject themselves to the very real possibility of contracting this and
many other diseases.

And yet, incredibly, this is what the radical gay agenda advocates without
batting an eye.  "In some districts [of New York], the homosexual lifestyle is
explained by practitioners to PRIMARY grades including kindergarden.  Kids are
told there are no differences between boys and girls.  They are told there is
no such thing ultimately as right and wrong.  Values are relative.  Truth is
relative.  Morality is defined by individual choice."(11) This, from Mr. Rush
Limbaugh's second book may well be a program no longer in existence since more
conservative elements have succeeded in taking their place in the many New
York school boards.  However, it is a significant example of exactly what the
Gay Agenda is all about and how determined this group is to promulgate their
ideas to a new generation.

After having the threat of venereal diseases hammered into our minds as
adolescents I shake my head in wonder at the politicizing of the AIDS virus.
Everything else is curable through drugs, albeit with increasing difficulty as
resistant strains evolve.  However, this one virus that we have absolutely no
defenses for is still actively protected by a host of socio-political groups
that tell us we should have compassion on those who have contracted this
killer disease.  Children, wives of unfaithful husbands, hemophiliacs,
surgical patients and health care workers, those who have contracted the
disease through no fault of their own all thinking people have compassion for.
For those who ran the risk by having multiple sexual partners, who believe
that they're 'just that way' or shared needles or other types of aberrant
behavior, I'm sorry.  You've spun the cylinder, put the barrel to your head,
pulled the trigger and the gun has gone off.  You just haven't fallen over
yet.  Does this sound cold, uncaring, hateful even?  Perhaps.

We have tried for two centuries to construct a science-based society that
protects us from the forces of nature and failed miserably.  Nature strikes us
at will and we are powerless to do much more than dodge.  Medical shields,
especially, that we thought at one time to be invincible are now showing
serious signs of fallibility. In reality, what the Homosexual Agenda is really
railing at is not the rigid, radical right but nature, itself.  Those who
refuse to acknowledge its sovereignty are doomed to be steamrolled by it
eventually. Our Creator was teaching us about biology and disease control long
before there was a name for these disciplines.

Dr. Albert Kinsey of the infamous Kinsey report is quoted repeatedly by the
promoters of the homosexual lifestyle.  Once again we have a case in which it
is hoped that something repeated often enough will be believed.  Dr. Kinsey's
reports in the 40's and 50's made America look like what Playboy Magazine's
view of our culture is.  Kinsey originated the regularly repeated idea that
homosexuals make up 10% of the population.  It has long been asserted that
Kinsey "falsified his findings, rejected scientific sampling methods in order
to obtain the predetermined results he wanted, and used seriously flawed
methods in reporting his data ... but the issue has been ignored.(12)  Pat
Robertson writes:

     "Seward Hiltner's book, published in 1953, reported on the travesty of
   Kinsey's findings.  A year later, Elam Daniels wrote I ACCUSE KINSEY,
   showing how bizarre and how tortured Kinsey's interpretations really were.
   More recently, Dr. Judith Reisman and Edward W. Eichel, Dr. J. Gordon Muir,
   and Dr. John H. Court provided and exhaustive analysis and discussion of
   the Kinsey studies and proved, incontrovertibly, that Kinsey lied.  Their
   book, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People, demonstrates
   how Kinsey perpetrated an act that has left a deadly legacy for more than
   half a century.  Fraudulent reports have been presented as truth by many
   otherwise intelligent people all these years.  Although no major
   organization has yet spoken against them, the truth about Kinsey's lies
   will prove to be one more pivotal point in the turning tide."(13)

An entire generation of homosexuals base their beliefs on this group of
reports and desperately cling to them.  Here we see that there are many in the
medical and scientific community that diverge from the popular theories of
Kinsey.  In a very real way he is responsible for every person that lived the
homosexual lifestyle to the end ... and contracted the AIDS virus.  False
hopes, based on false information perpetrated by Kinsey will give this man a
special place in Hell.

There is a huge mountain of evidence against the Gay Agenda that is not
brought forward in this small tome for the sake of brevity.  I wouldn't hold
my breath waiting for the major media establishment to publish it out of
'fairness' to both sides of the issue, though. The information is available,
however, for all who want it.

Again, let me reassert that simply because a person considers themselves
homosexual does not automatically mean - by any stretch of the imagination -
that they adhere to the aims of this subversive movement of radicals.
However, the time is long past for exposing the claims, as well as the
underlying purposes of this movement for the sake of all thinking people on
both sides of this issue.  The press and the various medical professions will
have to, at some time in the future, come to grips with this travesty of
political correctness that we have accepted into our national mindset and
begin to correct the wrongs by reeducating themselves and reorienting their
thinking along the lines of the conservative American public.

If not, the claims of 'epidemic' that accompany all newscasts on the AIDS
virus will, indeed, prove true and force this country into quarantine
situations abhorrent to all.  Africa's current, true, epidemic of this virus
stands as a stark example to the world of what this virus can do if not
checked.  I fervently hope that our society, knowledgeable in good hygiene,
can turn itself away from and avoid what has happened in areas such as Africa
and Haiti.  God's patience is quite extensive, but it has been well documented
that it has a definite end.

                                   ENDNOTES
1. Skip Porteous, "Inside Glen Eyrie Castle: The Organized Assault on Gay
   Rights", FREEDOM WRITER, August, 1994. No page number given. Text file
   uploaded to American Online.
2. Shadow in the Land,  Wm. Dannemeyer, Ignatius Press, 1989.  p.24
3. Ibid. pp.24-25
   Account taken from "Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of
   Diagnosis", Ronald Bayer, New York, 1981. pp. 101-154
4. Ibid. p.25
5. Ibid. p.27
6. Ibid. p.30
7. The Turning Tide: The Fall of Liberalism and the Rise of Common Sense, Pat
   Robertson, World Publishing, 1993. p.169-170
8. "Focus on the Family" magazine, July, 1993. p.6
9. The Turning Tide: The Fall of Liberalism and the Rise of Common Sense, Pat
   Robertson, World Publishing, 1993. p. 262
10. Ibid. p. 261
11. See, I Told You So, Rush H. Limbaugh, III. Pocket Books, 1993. pp. 207-208
12. The Turning Tide: The Fall of Liberalism and the Rise of Common Sense, Pat
    Robertson, World Publishing, 1993. p.201
13. Ibid. p. 201