If you are like me, you would have given the issue of Same Sex Marriage (SSM) some thought and explored the why's and why nots to such a proposal. One main reason given by those promoting the homosexual agendas with events such as "Pride" marches is for the rest of society to gain a greater understanding of homosexuals.
In my efforts to better understand this whole homosexual issue, here are some of the things I have found out that you may also find helpful.
If you are hoping to read a religious argument you are out of luck as I have employed reasoning in the areas of nature, logic, mathematics and economics to better understand homosexuality and the hot topic of same sex marriage.
Have you asked yourself some questions such as these?
Is homosexuality natural?
Do homosexuals become heterosexuals?
Is homosexuality normal?
What Research says?
What is Marriage?
Are There Examples of Marriage in the Economic World?
What about Same Sex Marriage?
What Are Some of The Arguments and Responses To Same Sex Marriage?
Are there actual and perceived ramifications?
Why is homosexuality getting a lot of positive media coverage nowadays?
Has Society Been Manipulated By The Homosexual Movement?
What is homosexuality?
Aren’t homosexuals born that way?
THE FACTS
Let's explore some facts here.
Firstly - probably one of the major sticking points for everyone - Is Homosexuality natural?
Is it natural?
The number of homosexuality examples in the animal world has been quoted in the region of 1500 species. Website Science Daily notes researchers looked far and wide AND had to quote insects such as fruit flies and gut worms in this research to get the numbers up).
One problem for homosexual activists however lies in the numbers.
When you include the total number of vertebrate and invertebrate species in the world you get over 1,300,000 species.
Which means that just over 0.1 of 1 percent of the "animal" world has some connection to homosexuality. If we explore the examples we will see that even that is an inflated figure.
The problem to prove whether it is natural gets worse for homosexual activists, as there is a little issue of “context”.
If anyone bothers to look at the context of some of the examples provided (where enough information is provided of any animal/insect that is) you will see context is everything.
Example 1
Two female birds - Laysan Albatross- raising their young together were called homosexual.
Context: How do two female birds have sex?
Using this criteria, any two females women raising children together are homosexual regardless if there is absolutely no sexual attraction between them.
Example 2
In the same article we read:
Male fruit flies may court other males because they are lacking a gene that enables them to discriminate between the sexes.
Context: They LACK a gene so they can't actually tell if the other fly is of the same sex as them! The inclusion of insects to inflate the numbers doesn’t help the homosexual cause but rather damages it.
Example 3
Penguins are another example that is often quoted as having homosexual behaviour.
Context: It is temporary –
This is a most important point as if the research was investigated you would be expected to find most if not all “homosexual” animals on the list reverted to heterosexuality.
In not just one but two separate examples at San Francisco Zoo and Central Park Zoo, even homosexuals have acknowledged that mother nature gets her way when us humans start to allow nature to takes its course. As soon as a female penguin was introduced into the penguin enclosure at the zoo (how natural an environment is that!) it was a race to claim the female.
Do Homosexuals become Heterosexual Again?
Yes - it is temporary for many homosexuals too. The testimonies are endless.
Does this surprise you?
A famous recent example is that of Anne Heche who dated men before entering a lesbian relationship with Ellen Degeneres which lasted three years and then she later married a man and now has two children.
Just a small sample of the many testimonies can be read here
Does the scenario where a man
marries a woman then divorces,
marries a man and then divorces him and
marries a woman again bother you?
Using the inflated and misleading figure that has been suggested of 1500 species, we can easily understand this number, which equates to just one tenth of one percent of the animal world, just doesn’t support the claim that homosexuality is natural.
Using a factor of one tenth of one percent to support your claim in anything is madness, but yet this is what homosexuals have been successful in getting many people including our politicians to believe.
Often, at this point of a discussion (based on the responses of many homosexuals I have dialogued with) the homosexual activist will say “so what?”
Well, granted there are many things in the animal world that we humans don’t do but strictly using this evidence solely on the basis of evidence of sexual relations found in nature, it proves that homosexual behaviour is extremely rare, temporary and basically unnatural.
Humans are unique in that they can face each other in the sexual act.
Crudely speaking , we are designed to see each other's faces not faeces.
What is my point here?
Should we legislate to equate something that is natural to something that is unnatural?
Think about this point for a moment to see if you would apply this principle for everything or would you just discriminate to allow just this one case to slip through.
Is it normal?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines "normal" as 'conforming to a standard'.
It could also be defined as predominant behaviour in a society.
Homosexuality in humans (some suggest the percentage is 4% of the population) far exceeds what we can find in the animal world.
A recent comprehensive study found only 1.5% of people in the UK are homosexual. In Australia the figure comes in at 1.2%
In the most general sense of the word, if we have two datasets:
· one dataset has 98% of the whole and it displays one quality; and
· the second dataset has just 2% of the whole and it displays a different quality,
then the obvious answer is the dataset that is 98% strong is what is regarded as normal.
Simple logic such as this should traverse numerous fields of study or should we discriminate and exclude sexual orientation from this logic?
What is my point here?
Should we legislate to equate something that is normal to something that is not?
Again, think about this point for a moment to see if you would apply this principle for everything or would you just discriminate to allow just this one case to slip through.
What about the Research!
I firmly believe everyone should have access to all the evidence. Let people make their own minds up based on having heard from both sides of this issue, which includes reading what NARTH produces. Anything less is preaching ignorance!
There are two opposing views to the issue of homosexuality.
1. Those who believe only "gay" affirmative therapy should be made available to a person with same sex attraction.
2. Those who believe both "gay" affirmative therapy OR reorientation therapy should be made available to a person with same sex attraction
Now there are a number of points that both opposing groups agree on:
· People are NOT born “gay”
· Homosexuality is a result of environmental factors.
· There is NO “gay” gene.
Group 1 - Professionals Should Only Offer Only "Gay" Affirmative Therapy
The most authoritative organisation representing the view Group 1 above is the American Psychological Association (APA). You would think that looking to the APA you would get an unbiased report into same sex attraction.
Well they recently formed a Task Force on this very topic and released a report called “Task Force Report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation” (August 2009). You can read that report online but if you want to don’t want to waste 15 minutes or more of your life you should read the critiqued responses directly below. A professional organisation such as the APA should not publish anything that makes them look silly but the APA did. They were extremely biased in this report. The APA knew how the Report was going to read before the first word was written.
The Task Force members were composed entirely of activists in gay causes, most of whom are also personally gay, and revelations such as this goes a long way toward explaining their failure to be scientifically objective. Many other professional psychologists applied to be on the task force but because they have a different professional opinion to the APA their applications were refused.
If the APA decision to refuse anyone who was not a homosexual activist to the Task Force is not a political statement, then what is?
Fortunately the professionals at NARTH (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) have highlighted the many flaws in the above report.
Critiqued Responses
Here is NARTHs formal response (critique 1).
The Task Force report (critique 2) makes a mockery of science.
Here are three other critiques of the APA Task Force Report
Commentary by Dr. Phil Sutton
Commentary by Dr. C. Rosik
Commentary by Dr. N. Whitehead
Group 2 - Professionals Should Offer "Gay" Affirmative Therapy OR Reorientation Therapy
The most authoritative organisation representing the view of Group 2 is NARTH
The professionals at NARTH have found repeatedly from their tens of thousands of clients that gay life is unsatisfying to many people that have Same Sex Attraction (SSA), so they provide an avenue for their clients - reorientation therapy with the aim reducing and removing their unwanted attractions and so they can develop their heterosexual potential.
NARTH began simply because there was a demand for this type of counselling and organisations like the APA refused to acknowledge or provide for the significant number of people who wanted to remove their same sex attraction. It was a response from a cry for help by many people with unwanted SSA. Now there are over 1,000 professional members of NARTH around the world.
One professional psychologist Dr Joseph Nicolosi, has been working with almost exclusively with men for over three decades. He has personally counselled and offered help to thousands upon thousands of men who had same sex attractions but they didn’t want these feelings and so they sought professional help. Remember, the client comes to the psychologist and not the other way around. Does over 30 years of personally attending to thousands upon thousands of clients count for nought?
With such vast experience, it is no surprise Dr Nicolosi has had published many papers in peer reviewed journals about same sex attraction
Clients with SSA, on their own accord, attend NARTH clinics for therapy because their lifestyle left them empty, frustrated and unfulfilled – (clients own words). They tried to fulfil their emotional needs through homosexual activity and found it just didn't work for them. Organisations like the APA want to deny people such as these to seek alternative treatment - treatment of the clients own choosing.
It is not surprising that due to some of the professionals at NARTH being Christian that some people instantly dismiss the thorough secular research published on this website. If someone is an atheist, is that grounds for dismissing their research? None of the research published on the NARTH website relies on any religious grounds to support their findings. They don’t need to.
Research, Is That What You Call Research?
What has happened to the APA’s professional credibility? It has taken a back seat to the gay agenda.
How can anyone trust any research paper published by the APA on the topic of homosexuality?
You can’t.
Interestingly it is not just the APA who publish flawed studies.
It seems there is a necessary trend to publish flawed studies as a means by any gay activist to push their cause.
New Lesbian Parenting Study Makes Claims Unsupported by the Evidence.
If no one bothers to scrutinise the report then one can publish any study to make a case.
This is just one of the more recent appalling efforts to force the homosexual world view onto the population.
Marriage Rights for Homosexual Couples: Not the Best for Children
Another appalling report was the report commissioned by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and published in the July 2006 issue of Pediatrics where it presents a case for granting full marital rights and privileges to domestic partnerships and homosexual couples. A Letter to the Editor by members of the Board of the American College of Pediatricians and published in the November 2006 issue of Pediatrics critiques the AAP position. View the Letter, click here.
*Pediatrics Vol. 118 No. 1 July 2006, pp. 349-364
It is a damming critique that is best summed up by a quote from the Letter
"It is appalling that a professional medical organization could so recklessly champion "evidence" when none exists"
One really needs to investigate the experts a little more thoroughly to see if there is an agenda behind their recommendations!
NARTH on the other hand has also release a Report titled What Research Shows which reviews 600 reports of clinicians, researchers, and former clients—primarily from professional and peer-reviewed scientific journals, we conclude that reorientation treatment has been helpful to many and should continue to be available to those who seek it
What is Marriage?
Apart from meaning the union of a man and a woman, the word marriage in its non human context is also defined as a blending or matching of different elements or components.
Marrying two things together displays a synergy. To think of marriage as similar to synergy is helpful to understand the meaning of the words. It is where the combined effect is greater than the SUM of their individual effects.
Do we see a synergy of the union of a male and female? Yes, we see the potential to create new life and the hope that society will regenerate itself. Male and female are different and complementary.
Do we see a synergy in the union of two people of the same sex were put together? No.
If I “marry together” the different BUT complementary items of paint and canvas I create art even though I can still identify the paint and the canvas. To only use two of the same things and “marry” them together does not create anything and so “marrying” them together is pointless and is the wrong word to use in this instance. The male and female of the species complement each other and in the union of the male and female they create life in the marital embrace.
The committed union of two people of the same sex is not the same human reality as the committed union of one man and one woman. A same-sex union is not a physical union that transmits human life, producing children. A same-sex union is not the joining of two complementary natures that complete each other. Simply stated, a same sex union is not marriage. The idea that homosexuals can create same sex "marriage" through their individual choice is false. All the packaging in the world doesn't alter substance.
Marriage involves a male and female and this formal union that we call marriage has the POTENTIAL to create life.
For those who are sterile, the marital embrace is still a sexual act that is OPEN to life however the ability to create life is outside of their control. For those couples that voluntarily contracept have made their union conditional and are NOT living their marriage vows to the FULL as they are holding something back from each other.
Male and female couples who live together but have not formally married, many of whom have children together are in a de-facto relationship. But de-facto what though? De facto (in fact) marriage.
In history we can find examples of one man marrying many women and maybe even an extremely rare example of a man marrying a man. These rare examples only solidify the accepted and understood definition of marriage in societies past and present that marriage is one man and one woman.
Interestingly, in a sexual relationship between two men,
one of them tends to act as the "woman"
while the other acts as the "man."
In today's Western Societies, the male and female married couple are considered to be
· equal in dignity (this point however should apply to all humans),
· complementary in relation, and
· each called to make a gift of themselves for the other
Many same sex marriage (SSM) supporters are happy to dumb down the understanding of marriage and say "marriage is just a contract".
To use an analogy, going to a prostitute is a contract, being married is a covenant. Marriage should never be contractual.
Unfortunately governments have allowed marriage to take on more of a contractual agreement whereby pre-nuptials are now accepted – a move which has diluted the understanding of marriage.
The husband and wife should give their whole selves unconditionally to each other in a covenant relationship. If a couple aren't willing to do this, then should they get married?
Unfortunately the government has a habit of being reactionary and not proactive in many facets of society. For example governments can’t think of any way to stop underage kids having sex, so instead they educate kids below the age of consent (meaning it is against the law to have sex at this age) on the use of condoms. Is that the best our government can do? An analogy - money is power and you will be so much happier if you had money. Banks have loads of money. You should not rob a bank, but just in case you do, take a gun as you will be more successful in the fulfilment of the act.
As for marriage, instead of providing positive support, society makes getting a divorce easier and easier.
Imagine a government where they provide comprehensive communication courses in primary and high schools with an emphasis on how to foster long term relationships. Such a government would achieve worldwide recognition and also see positive long term effects in a reduced divorce rate. The only people not happy with this initiative would be the lawyers.
Marriage in the Economic World
How does other facets of society understand the meaning of the word Marriage?
The International Valuation Standards (relating to property valuation) define what is market value for a property. But they also have a term called marriage value (also known as special value and in other parts of the world, the term “Synergistic Value”) which is used to describe the same concept we understand marriage to be. Marriage value identifies an element of value over and above the market value. It is where combining two properties the owner has the ability to create something extra over and above the summed market value of the two properties when individually valued.
The International Valuation Standards Definitions define Marriage Value as any additional value created by the merger of two or more interests where the value of the combined interest is worth more than the sum of the original interests.
In other words the sum potential of two men (or two women) is and always will be two, but the sum potential of a man and a woman can be two but it can be something much more - a family. This is what is known as marriage value.
In one dialogue on the definition of marriage that involved a SSM supporter, they suggested an analogy using the word "marry" which went something like this.
If you joined two pipes you can get an even longer and more useful longer pipe. This was countered with the fact that it still remained either two pipes or the union of two pipes into one longer pipe.
On the other hand if two different but complimentary food groups such as a steak “married” to vegetables you get another word which is called “dinner” (note: another word such as "dinner" for this example is thousands of years old and is accepted in all societies and cultures. There is nothing equivalent for the union of two of the same food items). They are still in and of themselves a steak and vegetables but together they create something more than themselves which is dinner and can provide a much healthier more rounded meal. Two steaks will provide sustenance but will always be known as two steaks. It is only by the marrying of complimentary “items” that we can realise their full potential.
It is so simple when you think about it, the male body and the female body complement each other and in their natural, normal sexual union there is the possibility of creating something "extra"
What about Same Sex Marriage?
The Australian Government has introduced changes to the way Centrelink (government welfare) operates and, in effect, same sex relationships are treated exactly the same as defacto straight relationships. I understand that in 2008 the federal government amended more than 100 laws to provide lesbian and gay couples the same financial and work-related entitlements as heterosexual couples.
For example our society accommodates just about all of the same sex marriage concerns. Concerns such as:
Inheritance – solved
Emergencies – solved
Adoption – available
Welfare benefits - solved
Any other issue(s) that is outstanding can be solved in the same way the above issues have been.
But homosexual activists want to change a definition to further acceptance of their lifestyle choice.
In order to achieve their aim they first deconstruct a possible argument by those supporting Marriage as it currently stands. They then insert some clever sound bytes to persuade people to their point of view, such as Equal marriage rights would help to build community acceptance of lesbian and gay people.
To read between the lines here SSM supporters want society to accept their sexual behaviour as being natural and normal. Society should accept all people as equals and this point of acceptance at face value is not being argued, however this issue is one where SSM supporters want society to acknowledge that what homosexuals do behind closed doors should be 100% accepted. The same sex marriage issue is a political tool to try to normalise homosexual sex.
Countering some of the Arguments
For example they may write
CLAIM 1
Immediate and guaranteed access to relationship entitlements
Married partners have immediate access to all relationship rights, entitlements, protections and responsibilities. This contrasts with de-facto couples who must cohabit for a certain period before they have rights and protections.
RESPONSE 1
Married couples are at a disadvantage. If a married couple cohabitated beforehand then under a pre-marriage de-facto relationship they already have access to the above mentioned rights etc.
However, if a couple did not cohabit then de-facto couples access those rights well before an engaged non cohabitated couple prior to being married do.
CLAIM 2
It wasn’t long ago that black and white people could not marry each other.
RESPONSE 2
Do you mind if I rephrase your claim just a little?
You are effectively saying it was long ago when a male and female who were of a different colour to each other couldn’t get married and so that is why you want the marriage act to be changed from a male to a female which is affirmed in the above example you provided, to one where a man can marry a man or a woman can marry a woman which is different from the male marrying a female example you actually provided.
CLAIM 3
Its discrimination
RESPONSE 3
A false notion of equality leads to a false notion of discrimination
Discrimination is required under certain circumstances, even against homosexuals.
There was a legal case to support discrimination against homosexuals from donating blood.
The government rightly discriminates to not let 15 year old kids drive. Discrimination has become one of those buzz-words that is "indiscriminately" linked with injustice. It seems we have forgotten that there is such a thing as just discrimination. We "discriminate" – that is, we distinguish and discern by recognizing differences – all the time, and must do so.
Discrimination is unjust when the difference recognized has no bearing on the matter at hand. Discrimination is just – and required – when the difference matters. It is unjust discrimination for the state to say a woman can’t enter parliament but it is just discrimination for the state to say a woman can’t enter the men’s change room at the local gym.
CLAIM 4
Allow Gay marriage as our world needs more love, not less. With so much hate and animosity in the world, why is it such a bad thing when two people of the same sex find love?
RESPONSE 4
We need to define what you mean by love.
I love my son and I love steak, beer and cricket.
Love is not a feeling but a decision.
Feelings come and go.
The basis of defining the real love should include more than just a feeling because love is more permanent than how you feel from one day to the next.
This issue is not about finding love but determining a definition for Marriage.
True love is not the same as what you read in glossy magazines about Hollywood.
True love is where one is wiling to lay down their life for the other and is not motivated by certain unnatural desires of the flesh.
If you asked every couple on their wedding day, do you give love, respect and commitment to your groom/bride they will all say Yes. But you and I know those words are empty with many marriages.
Unfortunately, what often happen next is divorce. What went wrong? Was it they weren’t prepared for what those words mean? Definitely!
It does not surprise me that most married couples have slept together before they got married. If they were living together in a pseudo-marriage what difference does getting married make? It comes as no surprise that those who have slept together before they got married have the highest risk of divorce.
CLAIM 5
Some people make the absurd claim that two men or two women getting married will change the very fabric of society
RESPONSE 5
“Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society.”
--National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy director,
Paul Ettelbrick (Kurtz, 2003)
What people do privately is their business but a change to the marriage act is a public and not private action.
British gay-rights activist is pushing to lower the age of consent for sexual activity to 14. Peter Tatchell argues that the move would reduce the rate of criminal molestation of children.
Here are a few examples of pushing such behaviour as normal and natural will affect society:
A few scenarios that will be absurd and will eventuate when same sex marriage is made legal are:
· A man marries a woman then divorces, marries a man and then divorces him and marries a woman again;
· The Australian political party - the Greens - in their submission they presented to parliament in their push to change the Marriage Act wrote that the words husband and wife were discriminatory, so weddings henceforth will have to remove such terminology in order to be politically correct and not offend anyone;
· At weddings, the MC will ask all to rise and charges their glasses to the new husband and husband or bride and bride. Even journalists lately have been calling the two lesbians who recently got married in the US as "wife and wife".
· The education system will be in disarray.
Click here for the transcript of a lesbian teacher teaching gay sex, sex toys in the classroom once same sex marriage was made legal. The teacher is quoted as saying "If somebody wants to challenge me, I'll say, `Give me a break. It's legal now."
.
Students will contradict their teachers simply because of opposing views.
For example:
Example 1
Teacher: homosexuality is natural
Student: no its not
Teacher: yes it is even though I can present no evidence except anecdotal evidence such as two male penguins living unnaturally together in a zoo until a female is presented and then one clings to the female.
Example 2
Teacher: homosexuality is normal
Student: no its not unless 4 percent out of 100 is considered normal but that is not you said in our mathematics class
Teacher: but this is different
Student: so the rules of what is normal applies to everything except when it comes to homosexuality?
Example 3
Teacher: gender shouldn't matter in the definition of marriage
Student: can I be a male lesbian?
CLAIM 6
It is bigots and homophobes that “clutch” onto long held beliefs
RESPONSE 6
Phobia – a very strong fear or aversion.
Principled disagreement cannot be labelled “homophobia.”
Bigot – a person who unreasonably holds to an opinion.
So because I don’t accept your views I am a bigot. This works both ways.
A person who has a principled disagreement with the pro homosexual movement should not be called a homophobe (one who has a fear of homosexuality) or a bigot (unreasonable).
Why all the Positive Media Coverage?
Marshall Kirk (a Harvard educated researcher in neuro-psychiatry) and Hunter Madsen (achieved a doctorate in politics from Harvard) wrote “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's”.
They write: “As cynical as it may seem, AIDS gives us a chance to establish ourselves as a victimised minority deserving of special protection.” Their aim was to maximise public sympathy and minimise the fear.
The book was a comprehensive public relations plan. Kirk and Madsen wrote in their book that there must be unabashed propaganda firmly grounded in long established principles of psychology and advertising.
It became the basis of a comprehensive long term marketing campaign to sell “gay rights”. Their intention was to force acceptance of homosexuality into the culture.
Kirk and Masden devised a plan to use the following techniques on the general public, with remarkable success:
1. Desensitization –
· “where the public is inundated in a continuous flood of gay related advertising in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet”.
· “The main thing is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome”.
· “If you can get straights to think homosexuality is just another thing, meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won”
· “It is one groups covert orchestration of compliance by another group through structuring the conscience of the second group”.
2. Jamming
Jamming is psychological terrorism meant to silence expression of or even support for dissenting opinion where activists launch massive intimidation campaigns against the television stations, radio stations, newspaper and the advertisers associated with these organisations..
One example that comes to mind is 2009 San Remo Song Festival (it is an Italian song contest, featuring songs from musicians all over Italy). One song titled Luca Era Gay (Luca Was Gay) caused some controversy which included a significant amount of "jamming" from gay activists as they tried to effect the outcome of the competition. How sportsman like of them. To see the catchy video click here. I have read that some 12-15 million Italians heard the message of this song each day for the week the contest was on.
The response from gay activists have been quite threatening. Even professionals such as Caterina prefers to use only her first name in interviews.
Those pushing for same sex marriage aren't such a happy, innocent bunch of people after all.
Oh, how ignorant are the masses? (sigh)
One example that comes to mind is 2009 San Remo Song Festival (it is an Italian song contest, featuring songs from musicians all over Italy). One song titled Luca Era Gay (Luca Was Gay) caused some controversy which included a significant amount of "jamming" from gay activists as they tried to effect the outcome of the competition. How sportsman like of them. To see the catchy video click here. I have read that some 12-15 million Italians heard the message of this song each day for the week the contest was on.
The response from gay activists have been quite threatening. Even professionals such as Caterina prefers to use only her first name in interviews.
Those pushing for same sex marriage aren't such a happy, innocent bunch of people after all.
Oh, how ignorant are the masses? (sigh)
3. Conversion
Kirk and Madsen wrote:
· “We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. We mean “subverting” the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends – using the very processes that made America hate us into warm regard – whether they like it or not”
· “In Conversion, we mimic the natural process of stereotype-learning, with the following effect: we take the bigot’s good feelings about all-right guys, and attached them to the label “gay”, either weakening or, eventually replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype…”
· “Whereas in Jamming the target is shown a bigot being rejected by his crowd for his prejudice against gays, in Conversion the target is shown his crowd is actually associating with gays in good fellowship. Once again, its very difficult for the average person, who by nature and training almost invariably feels what he sees his fellows feeling, not to respond in this knee jerk fashion to a sufficiently calculated advertisement.”
· “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 every bit as much lies and far more wicked ones”
They have had incredible success in manipulating society using psychology and advertising techniques to achieve what they set out to do.
The above information was sourced from the book - The Marketing of Evil and it reveals in a comprehensive manner who is behind the various marketing of what was once considered plain wrong. As you stand back you can see how many people are gullible in today’s society in that they swallow any good sounding propaganda without taking the time to critique it.
The book Marketing of Evil has caused many homosexuals to revert to their original heterosexual orientation. One striking example is former gay activist and Editor of Young Gay America Magazine (how's that for a CV?) - Michael Glatze – for more information about Michael discussing homosexuality in an interview – click here
Manipulated, Who Me?
Interestingly, the media have been manipulated too and they are just as confused as the rest of us.
One journalist has called an assault whereby a man was sodomised by a toilet brush handle as a sexual assault. There was nothing sexual about it but this journalist blurred the lines either on purpose, out of his own confusion of what is sexual or out of ignorance.
Then another recent incident where a journalist spoke of a woman's lesbian partner, when they married each other, as “her wife”. That sounds strange, doesn't it?
What is homosexuality?
Definition: a sexual attraction to (or sexual relations with) persons of the same sex
It is a fact everyone was born either male or female (this applies in 99.999999% of cases with the exception being extremely rare cases of hermaphrodites)
AND
everyone was born heterosexual.
Gender identity and sexual orientation are grounded in biological reality. The body tells us who we are, and we cannot "construct" -- assemble or disassemble -- a different reality in which gender and sexual identity are out of synchrony with biology. (source: www.narth.com/docs/notneutral.html)
Born That Way?
Click here for a significant number of articles that you can read that explodes the myth that homosexuals were born that way or the myth they were in any way predetermined to be homosexual.
There are numerous studies into being "can I be born gay" which has put such a notion to rest.
Even the gay hijacked APA admit that you are not born "gay".
The American Psychological Association says:
"Various theories have proposed differing sources for sexual orientation...However, many scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."
--From the A.P.A.'s booklet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality"
Some people develop a same sex attraction (SSA) when they attempt to "repair" unmet same-sex affective needs (which are: attention, affection and approval) as well as gender-identification deficits (Dr Nicolosi, 1991, 1993) through homoerotic behaviour.
Same sex attraction is a symptomatic representation of what a person is striving to find and homosexual activity is an attempt to repair emotional needs.
Dr Nicolosi says:
"It is amazing because people say you shouldn’t talk in absolutes but after working for almost thirty years in working almost exclusively with homosexual men having treated thousands upon thousands of men, I can state it is the same story over and over again:
· distant detached critical father,
· over involved intrusive mother,
· temperamentally sensitive introverted boy (it is open to debate whether it is temperament or if the boy is insecure and dependent on his mother).
You can abuse a child simply by ignoring him. If a boy is hungering for his father's attention and the father is ignoring him, if the father does nothing to assist the child that is being bullied, and even if the father does nothing to help against the affect-disregulating mother there is a sense of emptiness and that is abusive."
Dr Nicolosi is one of the foremost experts who has worked for over 30 years with clients experiencing SSA. The above quotation was taken from one of his guest appearances for a radio station. If you would like to listen to some fascinating and informative radio interviews featuring Dr Nicolosi – click on these MP3 links Understanding Homosexuality and Politics of Homosexuality and Homosexuality: Science or Political Activism? and The Psychology of Homosexuality.
Wasn’t homosexuality removed from the list of Mental Disorders?
Yes
Psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, a self-proclaimed atheist was "the" instrumental figure in the American Psychiatric Association's decision to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic manual of mental disorders in 1973 - and subsequently have it normalized.
But why is Dr Spitzer an important person on this topic? He later changed his mind
As a psychiatrist, he recently said that in homosexuality, "something's not working."
In effect he changed his mind as to thinking that homosexuality was “normal”. Furthermore, if his own son was dealing with same-sex attraction, Dr. Spitzer added, he hoped he would explore change therapy.
Significant changes of point of view just like this has happened before.
The dramatic fact that Dr Robert Spitzer changed his mind about the condition known as homosexuality is a bit like:
when Norma McCorvey regretted being used as a pawn in the battle for abortion rights in the USA where she was known as Jane Roe in the Roe v Wade case which legalised abortion on demand and she is now pro life and anti abortion.
or maybe it is like the fact that Dr Bernard Nathanson who was instrumental in achieving abortion rights in the USA, the very person who coined the phrase “pro-choice” and who even aborted his own children is now fighting against abortion,
or maybe it is like the fact that the co-inventor of the contraceptive pill Austrian chemist, Carl Djerassi regrets having ever invented it.
Dr Spitzer said because his study found considerable benefit and no harm, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) should stop applying a double standard, in that the APA discourages reorientation therapy, while actively encouraging gay-affirmative therapy to confirm and solidify a gay identity.
Lastly, a note about equality.
It must be highlighted at the outset that all people have the same equal rights as long as they meet certain criteria. The pro homosexual marriage movement however want to remove one of those criteria, in effect move the goal posts.
The list of criteria includes both people should be:
· over 18 years or age,
· one being male, the other female and
· they should not be within the same family.
So everyone has equal rights to get married as long as they fit this criteria.
Should a decision be made to change the definition of marriage to suit certain lifestyle preferences? The answer is No.
