Imploding Gay Power

Gay power has made stunning advances due to a well-orchestrated falsehood; the claim that homosexuality or heterosexuality is fixed at birth. If this falsehood can be exposed and countered, gay power will crash.

Many believe that gays are “born that way” —that there is an organic basis for homosexuality. Most who believe this, would not deny homosexuals “equal rights” — including marital rights — simply because of an accident of birth. Such people support gay objectives out of compassion; compassion that too often overrides their own theological beliefs. The more we fight their compassionate response the more determined they are to support the “victimized” gay community.

For many who are reluctant to resist intimidating gay power, accepting the “born gay” belief can be inviting: If they can make themselves believe it, they are able to view their lack of opposition as compassion rather than cowardice. Even ambivalence over whether people are born gay can cripple a person’s resistance to gay political advances.

While dispelling the myth of “born gay” may seem a daunting task, it is instead surprisingly easy. You only have to do two things: (1) Discredit “born gay” studies. Various studies supposedly “prove” an organic basis for homosexuality. Rather than examining them individually, these studies can all be effectively and summarily disgraced. (2) Show that the “born gay” thesis is a ridiculous idea. Without the support of gay studies, the “born gay” thesis almost collapses by itself.

For the first point look at an increasingly common situation: After 22 years of marriage, Fred dumps his wife Sue to go off with Mike, his new lover. It is a cardinal rule of gay ideology that Fred did not convert to homosexuality. Rather he always was gay but just now came out as gay.

With this emerging problem, you would think that someone getting married might want to run tests ensuring he or she really is marrying someone of the stated orientation. But it doesn’t work that way. A person can in all ways act straight and swear on a stack of phone books that he/she is straight, but that’s not conclusive proof. Likewise a person can act and claim to be gay, but later events can show he was just “confused” and wasn’t gay at all. A person’s intrinsic sexual orientation, apparently, is determined by what the person eventually declares him/herself to be.

This leads to an interesting question: “What percentage of the population dies before finally acting on their true orientation? Obviously some, but under this perspective, it is entirely possible that everyone is homosexual, but most die before coming out. It is also possible that everyone really is heterosexual and those who assert otherwise are only “confused.” So while some assert that homosexuality is an inherent, unchangeable characteristic, it follows that it is impossible to say who has it – nothing can be presented as conclusive proof.

This problem trashes all research supporting an organic basis for sexual orientation. If a man can’t tell that his wife and sexual partner of 22 years was a lesbian, how can a researcher tell a persons’ orientation with a 15-minute interview and perform valid studies on what caused it?

Any study of the cause of sexual orientation needs some criteria to say who is and who is not gay. If Fred were evaluated when he was connected with Sue, the criteria would have had to determine that he was straight. If the criteria were used when Fred was with Mike it would have said Fred was gay. So the same study that tried to prove that homosexuality is an inherent, unchangeable condition would also have been forced to conclude that Fred converted from straight to gay.

With this internal inconsistency, you can declare all such studies, “mush.”

Without the protective covering of “convincing” gay studies we work on the second point. Remember that the laws of evolution and of genetic succession are particularly harsh on any trait that prevents reproduction. So let’s start with a simple formula that paints a stark picture: “One gay man + one gay man = zero gay children.”

Or we can look at the female side of the picture: You can go back maybe ten generations and assume any fertility rates (number of children per woman) for lesbian and straight women and calculate the outcome. Even a slight difference would cause a gay gene to rapidly fade from the population. On the other hand, if the fertility rates were the same, how could women be considered lesbians if they were having the same amount of heterosexual sex to produce an equivalent number of children? Even if a tendency toward homosexuality were genetic, every time that gene expressed itself, it would fall out of the gene pool.

Although there can be no genetic basis for homosexuality, other speculations about an organic basis persist. Perhaps a chemical imbalance causes it. Perhaps a different pre-natal environment causes it.

The problem with any of these speculations is that the gay community claims 10% of the population—some 30 million Americans—are gay. If this number of people had a biological condition that prevented reproduction, would we not be awash with studies trying to find a cause and cure? And why are gays not clamoring for such studies that, supposedly, would prove the cause of their homosexuality?

In conclusion, having disproved an organic basis for homosexuality, it follows that homosexuality is caused by personal choices although they may be very heavily influenced by a person’s environment and experiences. Homosexuality is not a human characteristic; rather it is only a habit regardless of how hard it may be to break. When this is clear to all, we can have a discussion of whether homosexuality is so much superior to heterosexuality that society should promote is as vigorously as we are now doing. After having that discussion for about 30 seconds, sympathy for homosexuality, and the gay power dependent on it, will collapse.

Please note that this is a scientific rather than a moral question. It is therefore very appropriate to debate this scientific question in public schools and other places where moral statements about the behavior of others may be viewed as “bullying” or “hate-speech.”

Why should we fight a protracted moral war when you can win an easy, decisive scientific victory?

For further information and resources, see Defeating the Gay Agenda by Exposing the Falsehood of “Born Gay.”

Related videos:

• Traditional Marriage vs. Gay Marriage
• Donald Trump offers a 5 Million Dollar donation to Charity to see President Obama’s Academic Records and Passport to Determine if Obama is even Eligible to be President
• Stopping the Gay Agenda

The Rise but Inevitable Collapse of Gay Power

Recently gay power has exploded due to a well-orchestrated falsehood; the claim that people are born gay. If this falsehood can be exposed and countered, gay power will receive a crippling blow.

Many people believe that gays are “born that way” — that there is an organic basis for homosexuality. Most who believe this would not deny gays “equal rights” — including marital rights—simply because of an accident of birth. Such people support gay objectives out of compassion; compassion that too often overrides their own theological beliefs.

The more we fight this compassionate response, the more unreasonable we seem, and the more enraged these compassionate gay supporters become at our attempts. Ultimately we cannot win because what we are fighting grows stronger the more we fight it.

For many who have been reluctant to stand against the incredible rise of gay power, the “born gay” belief has been comforting to accept: If they can accept it, they are able to view their lack of opposition as compassion rather than cowardice.

While dispelling the myth of “born gay” may seem a daunting task, it is instead surprisingly easy. All you have to do is to show (1) that “born gay” is a ridiculous idea and (2) that all studies purporting to show an organic basis for homosexuality are hogwash.

For the first point, remember that the laws of evolution and of genetic succession are particularly harsh on any trait that prevents reproduction. So let’s start with a simple formula that paints a stark picture: “One gay man + one gay man = zero gay children.”

Or we can look at the female side of the picture: You can go back maybe ten generations and assume any fertility rates (number of children per woman) for lesbian and straight women and calculate what would happen. Even a slight difference would cause a gay gene to rapidly fade from the population. On the other hand, if the fertility rates were the same, how could women be considered lesbians if they were having the same amount of heterosexual sex to produce an equivalent number of children? Even if a tendency toward homosexuality were genetic, every time that gene expressed itself, it would fall out of the gene pool.

When genetics disproves “born gay,” other speculations about where homosexuality comes from persist. Perhaps a chemical imbalance causes it. Perhaps a different pre-natal environment causes it. Perhaps green Martians who shoot gamma rays at people while they sleep cause it.

The problem with any of these speculations is that the gay community claims 10% of the population—some 30 million Americans—are gay. If this number of people had a biological condition that prevented reproduction, would there not be an avalanche of studies to find a cause and cure? And why are not gays clamoring for such studies that, supposedly, would prove the cause of their homosexuality?

For the second point look at Fred and Sue who were married for some years but Fred just dumped Sue for a relationship with Mike. It is a cardinal rule of gay ideology that Fred did not convert to homosexuality; rather he was always gay but just now came out as gay.

With this emerging problem, you would think that someone getting married might want to run tests ensuring he or she really is marrying someone of the stated orientation. But it doesn’t work that way. A person can in all ways act straight and swear on a stack of phone books that he/she is straight, but that’s not conclusive proof. Likewise a person can act and claim to be gay, but later events can show they were just “confused” and weren’t gay at all. A person’s intrinsic sexual orientation, apparently, is determined by what the person eventually declares him/herself to be.

This leads to an interesting question: “What percentage of the population dies before finally acting on their true orientation? Obviously some, but under this perspective, it is entirely possible that everyone is gay, but most die before coming out. It is also possible that everyone really is straight and those who assert to be gay are only “confused.”So while some assert that homosexuality is an inherent, unchangeable characteristic, it follows that it is impossible to say who has it – nothing can be presented as conclusive proof.

This problem torpedoes all research supporting an organic basis for sexual orientation. If a man can’t tell that his sexual partner of 22 years was a lesbian, how can a researcher tell a persons’ orientation with a 15-minute interview and perform valid studies on what caused it?

Or, put it another way, Mr. Researcher (for the pro-homosexuality research study directors), you used some kind of criteria to determine who was gay and who was straight in your study on homosexuality. Would your criteria say that Fred is now gay? Would the same criteria say that before, when he was connected with Sue, he was straight? Wouldn’t the criteria in your study that “proves” homosexuality is an inherent, unchangeable condition also “prove” that Fred converted from heterosexual to homosexual?

In conclusion, having disproved an organic basis for homosexuality, it follows that homosexuality is caused by a combination of environment/experiences and personal choice. When this is clear to all, we can have a discussion of whether homosexuality is so much superior to heterosexuality that society should promote is as we are now doing. After having that discussion for about 30 seconds, sympathy for homosexuality, and the gay power dependent on it, will collapse.

Please note that this is a discussion of a scientific question rather than moral values. It is therefore entirely appropriate to debate this scientific question in public schools and other places where moral statements about the behavior of others may be viewed as “bullying” or “hate-speech.”

Version: WSJ

Defeating the Gay Agenda by
Exposing the Falsehood of “Born Gay”

1. “Born Gay” and Misplaced Compassion
2. Winning Public Policy Debates
3. Genetics Is Our Friend
4. Workarounds That Don’t Work
5. Gay Studies Sunk
6. What About Bisexuals
7. “Born Gay” Doesn’t Make Any Sense
8. Action Items

1. “Born Gay” and Misplaced Compassion

The most effective, and I would argue only, way to stop the gay political agenda is to direct discussions to a topic that homosexuals have successfully protected from public debate; whether people are “born gay.”

Many believe people are “born gay” – that there is some organic basis for homosexuality. Most people who believe this would not deny homosexuals “equal rights” — including marital rights — simply because of an accident of birth. Such people support gay objectives out of compassion; but this compassion too often has overridden their own theological beliefs and the time-tested Judeo-Christian principles upon which our country was founded.

The more we fight this compassionate response, the more unreasonable our efforts seem, and the more enraged these compassionate homosexual supporters become at our attempts. While we might gain temporary victories or even stop same-sex marriage for a season, our efforts only result in more anger produced and more determination developed to fulfill the desires of our “victims” – the victims who have (until now) effectively presented themselves as worthy of compassion. Ultimately we cannot win because what we are fighting grows stronger the more we fight it. We can win the discussions and political debates easily, though, when the topic of “born gay” is effectively presented as a topic for public consideration.

If people really are “born gay,” the homosexual agenda makes sense (at least compassionate sense). If not, then all concessions made to homosexuals encourage people to follow the homosexual lifestyle. To make significant progress, we must address the original question of whether people really are “born gay.” If we succeed, we will then inherit the mantle of compassion as we help protect people from falsely believing they are homosexual.

The debate has been complicated by discussions of religion, morality or social good. While moral or religious pronouncements may help motivate those who hold similar views, they have deceived proponents into thinking that these pronouncements can persuade those with a different vantage point. Further, charging into the fray because of moral or religious proclivities has kept proponents from using the weapon that will actually carry the day.

While the “born gay” thesis has huge political ramifications, it reverts to a scientific question. Further, by avoiding moral or religious positions on homosexuality, no valid objections can be raised against using this paper or similar material everywhere, including in public school classrooms.

2. Winning Public Policy Debates

Articles like Are People Really “Born Gay”? do an effective job of refuting the claim. But who’s going to digest something like these when the media so vigorously saturates them with the opposing position? The only way we can hope to win debates is to focus on the fundamental question, “Does it make any sense for people to be ‘born gay’?” If we can show that the “born gay” thesis is an absurd idea, then any scientific/pseudoscientific counter assertions are exposed as equally absurd.

Gay leaders refuse to debate this issue because they know they cannot win. It is imperative that we force discussion and demand such debate because, we cannot lose and it is the only path to victory. If we can forcefully expose the fallacy of the “born gay” thesis, the intellectual support of gay rights collapses and we won’t even need to discuss the topic of “gay marriage.”

3. Genetics is Our Friend

The laws of evolution and of genetic succession are particularly harsh on any trait that prevents reproduction, so let’s start with a simple formula that paints a stark picture: “One gay man + one gay man = zero gay children.”

Or we can look at the female side of the picture: You can go back maybe ten generations and assume any fertility rates (number of children per woman) for lesbian and straight women and calculate what would happen. Even a slight difference would cause a homosexual gene to rapidly fade from the population. On the other hand, if the fertility rates were the same, how could women be considered lesbians if they were having the same amount of heterosexual sex to produce an equivalent number of children? Even if a tendency toward homosexuality were genetic, every time that gene expressed itself, it would fall out of the gene pool. Ask any genetics teacher, “Could homosexuality be genetic if there is no mechanism for homosexuals to pass their genes on to children as frequently as heterosexuals pass genes on to their children?” While you are at it, propose any percentage of homosexuals in the starting population and any fertility rates for gays and straights, and ask for the mathematical calculations of how rapidly a homosexual gene would die out.

4. Workarounds That Don’t Work

For homosexual apologists, this obvious genetic roadblock is not so obvious and they have developed a number of workarounds. For example, some have pointed out that many homosexuals have children before coming out as gay. The Lesbian Mothers Project was created to fight for custody of children that lesbian mothers had while in a hetero relationship. OK. So they had hetero sex, but it was not their “sexual preference.” To sustain this model is it possible that initially being hetero is part of the normal life cycle of a homo?

With this kind of emerging problem, someone getting married might want to run tests to ensure he or she is marrying someone of the stated orientation. But it doesn’t work that way. A person can in all ways act straight and swear on a stack of phone books that he/she is straight, but that’s not conclusive proof. Likewise a person can act and claim to be homosexual, but later events can show they were just “confused” and weren’t homosexual at all. A cardinal rule of gay ideology is that sexual orientation is immutable. From that viewpoint it would seem that gayness or straightness is determined by what a person eventually declares himself or herself to be.

This leads to an interesting question: “What percentage of the population dies before finally acting on their true orientation? Obviously some, but under this perspective, it is entirely possible that everyone is homosexual, but most die before coming out. It is also possible that everyone really is inherently straight and those who assert to be homosexual are only “confused.” So while some assert that homosexuality is an inherent, unchangeable characteristic, it follows that it is impossible to say who has it – nothing can be presented as conclusive proof.

5. Gay Studies Sunk

This problem torpedoes any research supporting an organic basis for sexual orientation. Consider the scenario in which Carl marries Sally, who then dumps Carl to run off with Sue. This scenario has two possible causes: 1) Sally converted from hetero to homo, and there is no organic basis for sexual orientation, or 2) researchers built their studies on the premise that Sally and those like her were hetero, only to have to discard all their research because it’s based on flawed assumptions.

There is a study that claims a difference between heterosexual and homosexual brains. If those brains labeled “straight” included homosexuals who have not yet come out, while the brains labeled “gay” included heterosexuals that are really just confused and only thought they were gay, the researcher is just comparing one group of gay and straight brains with another group of gay and straight brains. How could he conclude anything? With this flawed beginning, any study attempting to prove an organic basis for homosexuality is invalid.

Some profess a foggy belief that homosexuality must be caused by some type of “chemical imbalance.” But homosexuals claim that one in 10 is gay – a full 30 million Americans are gay. If such a huge population has this organic characteristic that precludes reproduction, why has there been such a small amount of research intended to find and perhaps treat this chemical imbalance or other organic medical condition?

Would those who postulate a “chemical imbalance” be willing to consider implicating a drug that is specifically designed to create such an imbalance? Birth control pills give an overpowering amount of female hormones to reprogram the ovulation cycle. If an unknowingly pregnant woman took birth control pills that saturated her male fetus, could this blast of female hormones induce homosexuality in him? If those purporting to support a “chemical imbalance” hypothesis are unwilling to explore this possibility, they really don’t want to consider the obvious shallowness of their position.

6. What About Bisexuals?

As another of the many lines of reasoning showing the absurdity of “born gay,” let’s talk about bisexuality. What is a bisexual? Supposedly, it is someone who is 50 percent straight and 50 percent gay. Can’t someone also be a 60-40 bisexual or any other ratio? We speak of someone who is “straight with gay tendencies” – an 80-20 bisexual.

If a bisexual has a good relationship with one gender and a bad relationship with the other, can’t this “bisexual person” easily go from 50-50 to 40-60? Since we’ve already shown that gay ideology says it’s not even possible to determine who is/is not gay, it would be absurd to assert that a particular bisexual was born at 63.2 percent gay and must be stuck at that exact level for his entire life. By providing specific legal protection for bisexuals, discrimination laws acknowledge that we are all bisexual because we all have the full capability of going either way.

Also, if people are “born gay,” please explain whether pedophiles were born that way and if not, why is there such an insistence that their behavior must have been learned or chosen, but that of heterosexuals and homosexuals could not have been?

The idea that people can be inherently homosexual only makes sense if you don’t think about it. Homosexuality is about what a person does and not about what a person is.

7. “Born Gay” Doesn’t Make Any Sense

As noted above, if we continue to fight misplaced compassion toward homosexuals, we cannot win. If instead we disseminate and utilize evidence that “born gay” doesn’t make any sense, we cannot lose. If the logic in this commentary is widely dispersed and applied it could cripple the homosexual agenda, ideology and social/political influence.

8. Action Items:

1. Send this article or the related web link to parents or anyone working with youth so they can convince children that neither they, nor any of their classmates, were born homosexual.
2. Ask your church, political organization, civic groups, and other organizations to sponsor a debate on the “born gay” thesis.
3. Send this article to your friends, acquaintances and even compassionate gay agenda supporters. Post it on Facebook and Twitter. In each and every way, work to change the discussion from gay rights and same-sex marriage to whether an organic basis for homosexuality makes any sense.

Widespread understanding of this material could significantly damage the foundation upon which the homosexual political agenda and ideology are built, thereby causing their positions to be easily defeated in social, political and public policy debates.

Related videos:

• Traditional Marriage vs. Gay Marriage
• Donald Trump offers a 5 Million Dollar donation to Charity to see President Obama’s Academic Records and Passport to Determine if Obama is even Eligible to be President
• Stopping the Gay Agenda

How Gay Objectives Can and Will be Defeated

As “gay marriage” advances, our culture will be forced to see homosexuality as morally acceptable.  Anti-bullying and hate-crime laws will prohibit opposition to gay behavior and you won’t even be able to opt your kids out of same-sex sex-education classes for fear of stigmatizing sexual minorities. How can and will this be fought?

The answer is deceptively simple: Talk about what gays have managed to keep out of public debate—whether people are really “born gay.”

Many believe that people are “born gay” — that there is an organic basis for homosexuality. Most who believe this, would not deny gays “equal rights”—including marital rights—simply because of an accident of birth. But if believers of “born gay” can be persuaded that this starting assumption is wrong much of the support for gay objectives will evaporate.

While there are many studies indicating/suggesting an organic basis for homosexuality these don’t need to be refuted. Instead, the focus should be on, “Does it make any sense for people to be ‘born gay’?” If it is show that the “born gay” thesis is an absurd idea, then any studies supporting it are exposed as equally absurd.

The laws of evolution and of genetic succession are particularly harsh on any trait that prevents reproduction. So let’s start with a simple formula that paints a stark picture: “One gay man + one gay man = zero gay children.”

Or look at the female side of the picture: Assume any fertility rates (number of children per woman) for lesbian and straight women and calculate how the ratio of gays to straights would have changed over the last ten generations. Even a slight difference would cause a gay gene to rapidly fade from the population.

For gay apologists, this obvious genetic roadblock is not so obvious and they have developed a number of workarounds. For example, some have pointed out that many gays have children before coming out as gay.

Because of this, you would think that someone getting married might want to run tests ensuring he or she really is marrying someone of the stated orientation.  But it doesn’t work that way.  A person can in all ways act straight and swear on a stack of phone books that he/she is straight, but that’s not conclusive proof.  Likewise a person can act and claim to be gay, but later events can show they were just “confused” and weren’t gay at all.

This leads to an interesting question: “What percentage of the population dies before finally acting on their true orientation? Obviously some, but under this perspective, it is entirely possible that everyone is gay, but most die before coming out. It is also possible that everyone really is straight and those who assert to be gay are only “confused.” So while some assert that homosexuality is an inherent, unchangeable characteristic, it follows that it is impossible to say who has it – nothing can be presented as conclusive proof.

This problem torpedoes all research supporting an organic basis for sexual orientation. If a man can’t tell that his sexual partner of 22 years was a lesbian, how can a researcher tell a persons’ orientation with a 15-minute interview and perform valid studies on what caused it?

As another of the many lines of reasoning showing the absurdity of “born gay,” let’s talk about bisexuality.  What is a bisexual? Supposedly, it is someone who is 50% straight and 50% gay?  Can’t someone also be a 60-40 bisexual?  We speak of someone who is “straight with gay tendencies” – an 80-20 bisexual.

If a bisexual has a good experience with one gender and a bad one with the other, can’t he go from 50-50 to 40-60? Since we’ve already seen that gay ideology says it’s not even possible to determine who is/is not gay, it would be absurd to assert that a particular bisexual was born at 63.2% gay and must be stuck at that exact level for his entire life. By providing specific legal protection for bisexuals, discrimination laws acknowledge that we are all bisexual because we all have the full capability of going either way.

The idea that people can be inherently homosexual only makes sense if you don’t think about it.  

Since positions on the “born gay” thesis are based in science rather than morality, it is entirely appropriate for these positions to be discussed in public schools or other venues where moral positions could not be vetted. So go debate “born gay.”  If homosexuality is seen as originating from experiences/environment and from personal choices most of the support for gay objectives will fade.

Version: WND

How Gay Objectives Can and Will be Defeated

As “gay marriage” advances, our culture will be forced to see homosexuality as morally acceptable.  Anti-bullying and hate-crime laws will prohibit opposition to gay behavior and you won’t even be able to opt your kids out of same-sex sex-education classes for fear of stigmatizing sexual minorities. How can and will this be fought?

The answer is deceptively simple: Talk about what gays have managed to keep out of public debate—whether people are really “born gay.”

Many believe that people are “born gay” — that there is an organic basis for homosexuality. Most who believe this, would not deny gays “equal rights”—including marital rights – simply because of an accident of birth. But if believers of “born gay” can be persuaded that this starting assumption is wrong much of the support for gay objectives will evaporate.

While there are many studies indicating/suggesting an organic basis for homosexuality these don’t need to be refuted. Instead, the focus should be on, “Does it make any sense for people to be ‘born gay’?” If it is show that the “born gay” thesis is an absurd idea, then any studies supporting it are exposed as equally absurd.

The laws of evolution and of genetic succession are particularly harsh on any trait that prevents reproduction. So let’s start with a simple formula that paints a stark picture: “One gay man + one gay man = zero gay children.”

Or look at the female side of the picture: Assume any fertility rates (number of children per woman) for lesbian and straight women and calculate how the ratio of gays to straights would have changed over the last ten generations. Even a slight difference would cause a gay gene to rapidly fade from the population.

For gay apologists, this obvious genetic roadblock is not so obvious and they have developed a number of workarounds. For example, some have pointed out that many gays have children before coming out as gay.

Because of this, you would think that someone getting married might want to run tests ensuring he or she really is marrying someone of the stated orientation.  But it doesn’t work that way.  A person can in all ways act straight and swear on a stack of phone books that he/she is straight, but that’s not conclusive proof.  Likewise a person can act and claim to be gay, but later events can show they were just “confused” and weren’t gay at all.

This leads to an interesting question: “What percentage of the population dies before finally acting on their true orientation? Obviously some, but under this perspective, it is entirely possible that everyone is gay, but most die before coming out.It is also possible that everyone really is straight and those who assert to be gay are only “confused.” So while some assert that homosexuality is an inherent, unchangeable characteristic, it follows that it is impossible to say who has it – nothing can be presented as conclusive proof.

This problem torpedoes all research supporting an organic basis for sexual orientation. If a man can’t tell that his sexual partner of 22 years was a lesbian, how can a researcher tell a persons’ orientation with a 15-minute interview and perform valid studies on what caused it?

As another of the many lines of reasoning showing the absurdity of “born gay,” let’s talk about bisexuality.  What is a bisexual? Supposedly, it is someone who is 50% straight and 50% gay?  Can’t someone also be a 60-40 bisexual?  We speak of someone who is “straight with gay tendencies” – an 80-20 bisexual.

If a bisexual has a good experience with one gender and a bad one with the other, can’t he go from 50-50 to 40-60? Since we’ve already seen that gay ideology says it’s not even possible to determine who is/is not gay, it would be absurd to assert that a particular bisexual was born at 63.2% gay and must be stuck at that exact level for his entire life. By providing specific legal protection for bisexuals, discrimination laws acknowledge that we are all bisexual because we all have the full capability of going either way.

The idea that people can be inherently homosexual only makes sense if you don’t think about it.  

Since positions on the “born gay” thesis are based in science rather than morality, it is entirely appropriate for these positions to be discussed in public schools or other venues where moral positions could not be vetted. So go debate “born gay.”  If homosexuality is seen as originating from experiences/environment and from personal choices, most of the support for gay objectives will fade away.

 Version: NOM

How to Squash the Gay Political Agenda

As “gay marriage” advances, our culture will be forced to see homosexuality as morally acceptable.  Anti-bullying and hate-crime laws will prohibit opposition to gay behavior and you won’t even be able to opt your kids out of same-sex sex-education classes for fear of stigmatizing the poor sexual minority dearies. How can we fight this?

The answer is deceptively simple: Talk about what gays have managed to keep out of public debate—whether people are really “born gay.”

Many have been deceived into believing that people are “born gay” — that there is an organic basis for homosexuality. Most who believe this, would not deny gays “equal rights” – including marital rights – simply because of an accident of birth. But if believers of “born gay” can instead be shown that they were lied to their compassion for “sexual minorities” could be turned to anger.

Don’t even try to refute the various media-touted studies “proving” an organic basis for homosexuality. There are too many of them. Instead, focus on, “Does it make any sense for people to be ‘born gay’?” If we can show that the “born gay” thesis is an absurd idea, then any junk science studies supporting it are exposed as equally absurd.

The laws of evolution and of genetic succession are particularly harsh on any trait that prevents reproduction so let’s start with a simple formula that paints a stark picture: “One gay man + one gay man = zero gay children.”

Or look at the female side of the picture: Assume any fertility rates (number of children per woman) for lesbian and straight women and calculate how the ratio of gays to straights would have changed over the last ten generations. Even a slight difference would cause a gay gene to rapidly fade from the population.

For gay apologists, this obvious genetic roadblock is not so obvious and they have developed a number of workarounds. For example, some have pointed out that many gays have children before coming out as gay.

Because of this, you would think that someone getting married might want to run tests ensuring he or she is marrying someone of the stated orientation.  But it doesn’t work that way.  A person can in all ways act straight and swear on a stack of phone books that he/she is straight, but that’s not conclusive proof.  Likewise a person can act and claim to be gay, but later events can show they were just “confused” and weren’t gay at all.

This leads to an interesting question: “What percentage of the population dies before finally acting on their true orientation? Obviously some, but under this perspective, it is entirely possible that everyone is gay, but most die before coming out. It is also possible that everyone really is straight and those who assert to be gay are only “confused.” So while some assert that homosexuality is an inherent, unchangeable characteristic, it follows that it is impossible to say who has it – nothing can be presented as conclusive proof.

This problem torpedoes all research supporting an organic basis for sexual orientation. If a man can’t tell that his sexual partner of 22 years was a lesbian, how can a researcher tell a persons’ orientation with a 15-minute interview and perform valid studies on what caused it?

As another of the many lines of reasoning showing the absurdity of “born gay,” let’s talk about bisexuality.  What is a bisexual? Supposedly, it is someone who is 50% straight and 50% gay?  Can’t someone also be a 60-40 bisexual?  We speak of someone who is “straight with gay tendencies” – an 80-20 bisexual.

If a bisexual has a good experience with one gender and a bad one with the other, can’t he go from 50-50 to 40-60? Since we’ve already seen that gay ideology says it’s not even possible to determine who is/is not gay, it would be absurd to assert that a particular bisexual was born at 63.2% gay and must be stuck at that exact level for his entire life.  By providing specific legal protection for bisexuals, discrimination laws acknowledge that we are all bisexual because we all have the full capability of going either way.

The idea that people can be inherently homosexual only makes sense if you don’t think about it.  

Since positions on the “born gay” thesis are based in science rather than morality, it is entirely appropriate for these positions to be discussed in public schools or other venues where moral positions could not be vetted. So go debate “born gay.”  If homosexuality is seen as originating from experiences/environment and personal choices much of the support for gay objectives will fade away.

Version: NM