Wednesday, March 13, 2013

Until 1973, Homosexuality was a Disorder!

*******
Same-Sex Marriage: A Convenient Distraction

The greatest threat to Americans is not that we will become a nation of pigs, but that we will become a commonwealth of slaves
Erik Rush
Out of frustration, apathy, and fear of conflict, I imagine a great many Americans of otherwise sound mind have fallen into the delusion that two homosexuals getting “married” doesn’t hurt them, so why not let them do so. Thus, overall opposition to the advancing phenomenon even among conservatives in America has been fairly lax.
I say “delusion” because manifesting this societal paradigm will in fact hurt them – meaning society at large – because perpetuation of the homosexual lifestyle as represented in our culture does destabilize society. Despite the propaganda and the rhetoric, we know that embracing homosexuality has a dramatically deleterious effect on society. In the main, progressives have courted pusillanimous fools who would “allow” same-sex unions, but ban guns and dodge ball; they are too ignorant and self-righteous to realize that this is the road to tyranny.
It has also been established that this issue has implications far more widespread than “loving people committing to each other.” We already have ample proof in the realm of education of how far radical minds will go to indoctrinate American children into moral relativism and deviance. Imagine what they will do if they perceive they have the countenance and approval of most Americans.
Supporters of “same-sex marriage” and liberals in general relish claiming that traditional values, marriage, and Christianity have not been under attack from the left. Why then, was it perceived as necessary in 1996 for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton?
This is why I have argued against the “same-sex marriage” concept. I am well aware that liberals and homophiles will call me a big fag hater with cooties for speaking thus, but I could care less what kind of sex consenting adults have. It’s none of my business – but arresting the progress of an agenda that’s ultimately harmful to all of us is.
As far as our statist politicians go, they are well aware that having attained this dubious milestone, the door will open to advocates for all manner of unions petitioning to be similarly recognized, increasing moral ambivalence in general. It’s a slippery slope, and they know it.
But here’s the insidious part: The issue of “gay marriage,” as well as the issue of gun control of late, are merely political distractions. Though one is banal and one a grave proposition, both engender passionate responses, and so are easy issues upon which the press can get us to fixate.
However, while the masses adroitly monitor activists scrambling to preserve our rights under the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court hearing specious arguments for and against same-sex unions, the Obama administration is coalescing its plans for the long-term. While it’s true that gun control and homosexual unions play a part in this, they pale in terms of scale compared to the myriad machinations Americans are being encouraged not to scrutinize.
Common Core curriculum and technology project
Forget Minority Report; such programs as the Common Core curriculum and technology project
(recently reported on by columnist Michelle Malkin and TheBlaze TV, and which lays bare the incestuous conspiracies of certain captains of industry and government socialists) are right out of the film THX 1138 in their intrusiveness and tyranny.
Then we have the surreal comportment of our government in the face of staggering debt and deficits. While only a handful of Americans really understand the dynamic (despite its simplicity), the stage currently being set by the Federal Reserve will bring about an economic catastrophe unparalleled in modern times. Having witnessed the intentional economic collapse catalyzed by these statists via the Community Reinvestment Act, I see no reason to presume that this is not occurring by design. With its brazen, ever-increasing spending, the Obama administration has telegraphed an intention to add fuel to this fire no matter the circumstances or consequence.
Americans have no doubt found the economic turmoil in Cyprus in recent weeks entertaining, but they remain completely unaware that not only could it happen here, but provisions have been made for precisely this eventuality. Have you wondered how Americans might react when the government begins confiscating our bank accounts to pay its debt?
And we wonder why they want our guns…
The material, social, and cultural prosperity that blossomed out of the American experiment and which provided more for the world than any nation or system in history apparently wasn’t enough for globalist oligarchs. If you have any understanding of evil, know that they are, and that evil is the only reason they need for grooming everyone in the Western World who isn’t fabulously wealthy to eventually occupy part of a mindless, humping, laconically-toiling herd.
The greatest threat to Americans is not that we will become a nation of pigs, but that we will become a commonwealth of slaves.
Erik Rush is a New York-born columnist, author and speaker who writes sociopolitical commentary for numerous online and print publications. In February of 2007, Erik was the first to break the story of President (then Senator) Barack Obama’s ties to militant Chicago preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright on a national level, which ignited a media firestorm that smolders to this day. His latest book, “
Negrophilia: From Slave Block to Pedestal ~ America’s Racial Obsession,” examines the racist policies by which the political left keeps black Americans in thralldom, white Americans guilt-ridden and yielding, and maintains the fallacy that America remains an institutionally racist nation. Links to his work are available at Erikrush.com.
*******
The Deconstruction of Marriage
Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the deconstruction of marriage between men and women
Daniel Greenfield
The only question worth asking about gay marriage is whether anyone on the left would care about this crusade if it didn’t come with the privilege of bulldozing another civilizational institution.
Gay marriage is not about men marrying men or women marrying women, it is about the deconstruction of marriage between men and women. That is a thing that many men and women of one generation understand but have trouble conveying to another generation for whom marriage has already largely been deconstructed.
The statistics about the falling marriage rate tell the tale well enough. Marriage is a fading institution. Family is a flickering light in the evening of the West.
The deconstruction is destruction. Entire countries are fading away, their populations being replaced by emigrants from more traditional lands whose understanding of the male-female relationship is positively reactionary. These emigrants may lack technology or the virtues of civilization, and their idea of marriage resembles slavery more than any modern ideal, but it fulfills the minimum purpose of any group, tribe or country—it produces its next generation.
The deconstruction of marriage is not a mere matter of front page photos of men kissing. It began with the deconstruction of the family. Gay marriage is only one small stop on a tour that includes rising divorce rates, falling childbirth rates and the abandonment of responsibility by twenty and even thirty-somethings.
Each step on the tour takes apart the definition and structure of marriage until there is nothing left. Gay marriage is not inclusive, it is yet another attempt at eliminating marriage as a social institution by deconstructing it until it no longer exists.
There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything.
The left hasn’t gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose.
You can abolish democracy by banning the vote or you can do it by letting people vote as many times as they want, by letting small children and foreigners vote, until no one sees the point in counting the votes or taking the process seriously. The same goes for marriage or any other institution. You can destroy it by outlawing it or by eliminating its meaningfulness until it becomes so open that it is absurd.
Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything
Every aspect of marriage is deconstructed and then eliminated until it no longer means anything. And once marriage is no longer a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman, but a ceremony with no deeper meaning than most modern ceremonies, then the deconstruction and destruction will be complete.
The deconstruction of marriage eroded it as an enduring institution and then as an exclusive institution and finally as a meaningful institution. The trendy folk who claim to be holding off on getting married until gay marriage is enacted are not eager for marriage equality, they are using it as an excuse for an ongoing rejection of marriage.
Gay marriage was never the issue. It was always marriage.
In the world that the deconstructionists are striving to build, there will be marriage, but it will mean nothing. Like a greeting card holiday, it will be an event, but not an institution. An old ritual with no further meaning. An egotistical exercise in attention-seeking and self-celebration with no deeper purpose. It will be a display every bit as hollow as the churches and synagogues it takes place in.
The deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes off.
Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender
Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender. Each deconstruction leads naturally to the next deconstruction with no final destination except total deconstruction.
Gay marriage is not a stopping point, just as men in women’s clothing using the ladies room is not a stopping point. There is no stopping point at all.
The left’s deconstruction of social institutions is not a quest for equality, but for destruction. As long as the institutions that preceded it exist, it will go on deconstructing them until there is nothing left but a blank canvas, an unthinking anarchy, on which it can impose its perfect and ideal conception of how everyone should live.
Equality is merely a pretext for deconstruction. Change the parameters of a thing and it ceases to function. Redefine it and expand it and it no longer means anything at all. A rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but if you change ‘rose’ to mean anything that sticks out of the ground, then the entire notion of what is being discussed has gone and cannot be reclaimed without also reclaiming language.
The left’s social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts
The left’s social deconstruction program is a war of ideas and concepts. Claims of equality are used to expand institutions and ways of living until they are so broad as to encompass everything and nothing. And once a thing encompasses everything, once a rose represents everything rising out of the ground, then it also represents nothing at all.
Deconstruction is a war against definitions, borders and parameters. It is a war against defining things by criminalizing the limitation of definitions. With inclusivity as the mandate, exclusivity, in marriage, or any other realm, quickly meets with social disapproval and then becomes a hate crime. If the social good is achieved only through maximum inclusivity and infinite tolerance, then any form of exclusivity, from property to person to ideas, is a selfish act that refuses the collective impulse to make all things into a common property with no lasting meaning or value.
As Orwell understood in 1984, tyranny is essentially about definitions. It is hard to fight for freedom if you lack the word. It is hard to maintain a marriage if the idea no longer exists. Orwell’s Oceania made basic human ideas into contradictory things. The left’s deconstruction of social values does the same thing to such essential institutions as marriage; which becomes an important impermanent thing of no fixed nature or value.
The left’s greatest trick is making things mean the opposite of what they do. Stealing is sharing. Crime is justice. Property is theft. Each deconstruction is accompanied by an inversion so that a thing, once examined, comes to seem the opposite of what it is, and once that is done, it no longer has the old innate value, but a new enlightened one.
To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery
To deconstruct man, you deconstruct his beliefs and then his way of living. You deconstruct freedom until it means slavery. You deconstruct peace until it means war. You deconstruct property until it means theft. And you deconstruct marriage until it means a physical relationship between any group of people for any duration. And that is the opposite of what marriage is.
The deconstruction of marriage is part of the deconstruction of gender and family and those are part
of the long program of deconstructing man. Once each basic value has been rendered null and void, inverted and revealed to be random and meaningless, then man is likewise revealed to be a random and meaningless creature whose existence requires shaping by those who know better.
The final deconstruction eliminates nation, religion, family and even gender to reduce the soul of man to a blank slate waiting to be written on.
It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all
That is what is at stake here. This is not a struggle about the right of equality, but the right of definition. It is not about whether men can get married, but whether marriage will mean anything at all. It is about preserving the shapes and structures of basic social concepts that define our identities in order to preserve those very concepts, rather than accepting their deconstruction into nullification.
The question on the table is whether the institutions that give us meaning will be allowed to retain that meaning. And that question is a matter of survival. Societies cannot survive without definitions. Peoples do not go on existing through the act of occupying space. The deconstruction of identity is also the destruction of identity.
And that is what we are truly fighting against.
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City writer and columnist. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and his articles appears at its Front Page Magazine site.
Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com
*******
Scouts in the Cross-Hairs of 'The Homosexuality is Normal Movement'

By Lloyd Marcus
March 28, 2013
NewsWithViews.com
Think of us as crew members on the star-ship Enterprise of the Star Trek TV show, boldly going where no one has gone before. Folks, this is what it feels like challenging the Homosexuality is Normal Movement. It is extremely dangerous.
Homosexual activists attempt to humiliate and politically destroy anyone who dares even criticize their agenda. Meanwhile, the MSM (mainstream media) casts us who believe marriage should remain between one man and one woman as the aggressors, hate-filled villains.
Have the Homosexuality is Normal Movement stolen our kids? Despicably, while we were

*******
*******
Unquestionably, lack of access to your child for indoctrination contributes to the Left's hatred for home schools and their relentless attempts to close them down.
Here is another example of homosexual activists in-your-face aggressive indoctrination of our kids. A Massachusetts charter school, grades 7-12, will host a production of the play, “
The Most Fabulous Story Ever Told”, a retelling of the biblical story of Genesis with gay characters. Keep in mind folks, America schools have a cow when a kid brings a Bible or wears a t-shirt with religious, patriotic or U.S. Military images. And yet, this school gleefully hosts a play which blasphemes Christianity while promoting homosexuality.
Our forty year old son and twenty year old granddaughter support homosexual marriage. Their attitude is what's the big deal, it is only fair that gays be allowed to marry. America's youths are parroting the liberal's argument that opposition to same sex marriage is discriminatory and bigoted. According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll,

support for gay marriage is at 65 percent among those 18 to 29 years old. The gay marriage approval rating is probably even higher among high school kids.
A twenty-something year old Christian youth pastor picked me up from the airport in California. Justifying his support of same sex marriage, he said, “God does not care who we love.” Wow, I could hardly believe my ears. This young man who claimed to be a minister of God chose to ignore the Bible and spout the liberal pop-culture spin.
From cooking shows to home improvement and everything in between, it has become difficult to watch TV without the Homosexuality is Normal agenda being forced down your throat. If you do not believe these people are outrageously aggressive, listen to this. The

Folks, I have dear friends and beloved relatives who are homosexual. I am loving and kind to their mates. My 85 year old dad has been a Christian pastor over 50 years. Dad said he loves the homosexuals in his life, but they know were he stands on this topic which is the biblical view.
Dad's tolerance is not enough to please the aggressive Homosexuality is Normal Movement bullying America today. They seek to politically bend Dad's arm behind his back forcing him to declare homosexuality normal against his faith.
My point is homosexual activists are extremely aggressive while portraying themselves as innocent victims of an intolerant society. In reality, we who believe in traditional values are the ones being bullied. The MSM gang vilifies anyone who dares to stand up for traditional marriage. Come hell or high water, they are going to make us embrace homosexuality as being normal by severely punishing those who refuse to comply.

And will someone please tell me why homosexual activists are so hellbent on forcing Christian institutions to betray their faith by embracing the homosexual agenda? Homosexual activists have sued the Boy Scouts of America and launched a war on the Catholic Church.
No one is opposing homosexuals doing their own thing. Rather than aggressively trying to infiltrate the Boys Scouts and the Catholic Church, why not form their own Fabulous Scouts of America and the Church Of 'If It Feels Good Do It' and leave Christian institutions another?
Christian institutions are simply saying you can not come into our house and force us to change the rules – especially when those rules come from God. And what is the MSM's response to Christian institutions defending their religious freedom? The MSM campaigns to brand the Boy Scouts of America and the Catholic Church intolerant haters. We are living in crazy insidious evil times folks.

The Homosexuality is Normal Movement takes no prisoners, not even new Pope Francis. They have already begun finding fault with him because Pope Francis is against gay marriage and gay adoption.
Question. Will homosexual activists get away with branding the Pope a hater?
The Homosexuality is Normal Movement is not passive well meaning victims simply seeking tolerance and their place in the sun. They are relentless, viscous and hell bent on forcing all of us, particularly Christians, to say their behavior is normal. God help us!
Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American

© 2012 Lloyd Marcus - All Rights Reserved
Self proclaimed Black Unhyphenated American, Lloyd Marcus is a featured columnist on American Thinker, Renew America, Canadian Free Press and numerous other Internet websites. A speaker, activist, singer/songwriter, recording artist and entertainer, Marcus was a featured act on the historical 2009 Tea Party Expressed Tour. The finale event was the Sept. 12th Taxpayers March and Rally in Washington DC where Marcus performed for a million people.
His appearances include FoxNews, CNN, PJTV and numerous TV and radio programs. He emcees and performs his patriotic original songs at rallies and special events across America. He was the featured entertainment at the 2009 Free Republic National Convention. Marcus' mission is to use his God given gifts to spread the "truth" that Conservatism is best for all Americans. He resides in Central Florida.
An elected official, Marcus is Chairman for Precinct 424, Volusia County Florida. He is also Creative Director for the Republican Executive Committee of Volusia County.
Lloyd Marcus, Singer/Songwriter of the national "American Tea Party Anthem." President, NAACPC (National Association for the Advancement of Conservative People of Color)
E-Mail: mr_lloydmarcus@hotmail.com

Website: LloydMarcus.com
 *******
Corrupt Media Cheer for Homosexual Rights

By Cliff Kincaid
March 26, 2013
NewsWithViews.com
On the eve of Tuesday’s “ March for Marriage” in Washington, to coincide with Supreme Court consideration of court cases on homosexual rights, more explosive evidence of the media bias driving the campaign to change America’s culture and Judeo-Christian foundations has emerged.
Speaking at a “gay journalists” event in New York City last Thursday night, Natalie Morales of the NBC Today Show declared, “Many of us here in this room—the media—we are responsible for opening the world’s eyes to these issues and the stories that have brought about such change. When you think 18 years ago when this organization was founded—think of where the country was back then. And now, 50 percent—according to the Pew poll that we talked about on the news today—support gay marriage, and…some other polls put that number even higher. [This] reflects a change in attitudes in this country.”
This was not just an event where journalists “came out of the closet” for homosexual rights; it was a fundraiser for the cause. Our media paid big money to participate as sponsors and hosts.
My associate Peter LaBarbera and I covered the homosexual rights fundraiser, held in New York City under the auspices of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), and saw first-hand that it was a “who’s who” of media stars from every major news organization in the U.S. They also included Matt Lauer and Savannah Guthrie of NBC, Gayle King of CBS News, Christine Romans of CNN, Amy Robach of ABC News, and Amanda Drury of CNBC.
The really big star of the evening was Natalie Morales of NBC’s Today Show, who told LaBarbera in a brief interview, “I think what’s happening here is this is a new civil rights movement…And I believe that they should be allowed to get married and love equally.”
In her remarks to the gathering, she joked about getting a lesbian kiss. “Now I have to say I’m a little flustered because on my way in here I was actually in the ladies room, and making out with a woman,” she said at the start of her remarks. “She insisted I was Jane Velez-Mitchell [of HLN]…Seriously she was screaming and shouting, ‘Jane, Jane, Jane!’ And I was like ‘I’m not…’ But I just gave in because we all know HLN stands for the ‘Hysterical Ladies Network.’ And …it was a good kiss, I’ll give her that.” She also commented on the “queens” in the audience of the reception being held in the Prince George Ballroom. CNN’s Javier Morgado introduced her.
While the atmosphere was festive and “gay,” the New York papers were catching up with
news about a new strain of bacterial meningitis breaking out in the gay community. This was something that nobody wanted to talk about, at least publicly.
Contessa Brewer, formerly an anchor at MSNBC, was a major star, posing for pictures before declaring her support for homosexual rights and homosexual marriage and denouncing opponents of such as the equivalent of racists. She wanted my associate Peter LaBarbera to know, in a brief interview captured on camera, that she felt this way even though she was the daughter of a Baptist preacher.
Here is the transcript:
Peter LaBarbera: “I’m Peter LaBarbera with Americans For Truth. We’re sort of on the other side of the issue. We’re for traditional marriage and so forth….My question is: for some in the media, are you afraid that there’s not fair coverage for the other side—[that] now it’s veering so far the other way…that sometimes there’s a tendency to—
Brewer: “You know what’s so funny about this? When we’re talking about racism, nobody ever says, ‘Do you think there’s fair coverage for racists?’ That’s my feeling about the matter. I think that there’s a difference between being objective and being fair. And sometimes wrong is wrong, and the right thing to do is say when it’s wrong.
LaBarbera: “A lot of Christians, for example, think that racism is a sin, but they also think that homosexuality [is a sin].”
Brewer: “You know what I say? I grew up as the daughter of a Baptist preacher, and you know what my answer always is? If you think it’s wrong, then don’t do it. Thank you [she walks away].”
NBCUniversal was the big host, with other media sponsors Bloomberg, CNN, CBS News, Fox News, BuzzFeed, The New York Times, and Newsday. Company sponsors were Vodka maker Voli, JetBlue, Heineken, Hillshire, Eli Lilly and Company. General Motors, the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation, and Fleishman-Hillard.
The new president of the NLGJA is Jen Christensen of CNN, who previously worked on CNN’s “Special Investigations Unit.” She says, “We are not an advocacy group,” referring to the NLGJA. But the entire evening was advocacy. There was no pretense of being even-handed in covering the homosexual rights movement, of which they are clearly a major part.
It is worthwhile to examine the nature and depth of the bias as the Supreme Court takes up important court cases on homosexual rights because of the influence of the major media in bringing the country to this point in time. This event was concrete evidence of the bias from those in the media who have driven the campaign for homosexual rights for decades.
Morales was ecstatic: “What a difference a year makes. Think about where we were just even a year ago—all that has happened in the news for the LGBT [Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender] community in particular: the repeal of the military’s ban on gays and lesbians, the widening support for same-sex marriage. The world seems to be evolving slowly but surely—from the President changing his position [on same-sex marriage] last year, to most recently this week…former Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton now saying gays and lesbians are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. And last week of course Republican Senator Rob Portman said he now supports gay marriage because he wants his son, who is gay, to have the same rights to love equally. I mean this of course is 2013 but it is happening.”
She went on, “We are at a turning point. I mean could this event be more perfectly timed? …Next week the Supreme Court will start to hear arguments on two major cases addressing gay rights: of course Proposition 8 (California law), and the Defense of Marriage Act. This is an issue at the forefront of our nation’s collective conscience right now, and making headlines all over the world.”
Even though this event featured all kinds of media celebrities, you will not find the media reporting on themselves, because it would blow their cover—and blow the whistle on the bias they are implementing on a day-to-day basis. That is why Peter LaBarbera and I covered the event. We figured the media would not hesitate to pat each other on the backs.
Now that the nature of the bias is evident for everyone to see, however, the bias will take another turn, as journalists will ignore the evidence that the major media have taken one side of the debate. What is significant is the lack of any real major media opposition to this bias.
The “March for Marriage” on Tuesday is one way to get the attention of the public and the media. But if what we heard at the NLGJA event is any indication, the demonstration for traditional values will be treated by most of the media as a gathering of bigots and haters, if it is covered at all.
© 2013 Cliff Kincaid - All Rights Reserved
Cliff Kincaid, a veteran journalist and media critic, Cliff concentrated in journalism and communications at the University of Toledo, where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree.
Cliff has written or co-authored nine books on media and cultural affairs and foreign

policy issues. One of Cliff's books, "Global Bondage: The UN Plan to Rule the World" is still awailable.
Cliff has appeared on Hannity & Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor, Crossfire and has been published in the Washington Post, Washington Times, Chronicles, Human Events and Insight.

Cliff Kincaid is president of America’s Survival, Inc.
E-Mail:
cliff.kincaid@aim.org
*******
How America Went Gay
by Charles Socarides M.D.
(Edited & Abridged by henrymakow.com)
March 10, 2013
http://henrymakow.com/2013/03/how-america-went-gay.html
Charles W. Socarides, M.D., (1922-2005) was clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore
Medical Center in New York. Over 40 years, he treated hundreds of gays and helped about one third of them return to heterosexuality.
The classic 1995 essay by the psychiatrist who pioneered the treatment of homosexuality.
"Normalizing" homosexuality was the first step to supplanting heterosexuality.
Under the guise of gay rights, Satanists (the Illuminati) are waging a vicious, bigoted attack on heterosexual society, which is too docile to realize it. Liberals accuse their opponents of "hatred" but the hatred begins with them.
For more than 20 years,
I and a few psychiatrists have felt like an embattled minority, because we have continued to insist that gays aren't born that way.
For most of this (20th) century, we have considered this behavior aberrant...a pathology. We had patients who would seek out one sex partner after another-total strangers-on a single night, then come limping into our offices the next day to tell us how they were hurting themselves. Since we were in the business of helping people learn how not to keep hurting themselves, many of us thought we were quietly doing God's work.
Now, in the opinion of those who make up the so-called cultural elite, our view is "out of date." The elite say we hurt people more than we help them, and that we belong in one of the century's dustbins. They have managed to sell this idea to a great many Americans, thereby making homosexuality fashionable and raising formerly aberrant behavior to the status of an "alternate lifestyle."...
HOMOSEXUAL REVOLUTION ORCHESTRATED
How did this change come about? Well, the revolution did not just happen...
It was all part of a plan, as one gay publication put it, "to make the whole world gay." I am not making this up. You can read an account of the campaign in Dennis Altman's The Homosexualization of America. In 1982 Altman, himself gay, reported with an air of elation that more and more Americans were thinking like gays and acting like gays. There were engaged, that is, "in numbers of short-lived sexual adventures either in place of or alongside long-term relationships." Altman cited the heterosexual equivalents of gay saunas and the emergence of the swinging singles scene as proofs that "promiscuity and 'impersonal sex' are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women."Heady stuff. Gays said they could "reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves." To do this, these re-inventors had to clear away one major obstacle. No, they didn't go after the nation's clergy. They targeted the members of a worldly priesthood, the psychiatric community, and neutralized them with a radical redefinition of homosexuality itself. In 1972 and 1973 they co-opted the leadership of the American Psychiatric Association and, through a series of political maneuvers, lies and outright flim-flams, they "cured" homosexuality overnight-by fiat. They got the A.P.A. to say that same-sex sex was "not a disorder." It was merely "a condition"-as neutral as lefthandedness.
HATRED, INTIMIDATION & INTOLERANCE
This amounted to a full approval of homosexuality. Those of us who did not go along with the political redefinition were soon silenced at our own professional meetings. Our lectures were canceled inside academe and our research papers turned down in the learned journals. Worse things followed in the culture at large. Television and movie producers began to do stories promoting homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle.
["For some years now, gays have been disrupting our meetings, shouting down people trying to deliver their scientific papers, threatening individual doctors like myself...The gay activists have a ferocious irrationality. They turn every scientific agreement into a political issue -- which is all they can really do, since the only science they have going for them is pseudoscience." Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far pp.153-154]
A gay review board told Hollywood how it should deal or not deal with homosexuality. Mainstream publishers turned down books that objected to the gay revolution. Gays and lesbians influenced sex education in our nation's schools, and gay and lesbian libbers seized wide control of faculty committees in our nations' colleges. State legislatures nullified laws against sodomy.
If the print media paid any attention at all, they tended to hail the gay revolution, possibly because many of the reporters on gay issues were themselves gay and open advocates for the movement. And those reporters who were not gay seemed too intimidated by groupthink to expose what was going on in their own newsrooms.
And now, what happens to those of us who stand up and object? Gay activists have already anticipated that. They have created a kind of conventional wisdom: that we suffer from homophobia, a disease that has actually been invented by gays projecting their own fear on society. And we are bigots besides, because, they say, we fail to deal with gays compassionately.
Gays are now no different than people born black or Hispanic or physically challenged. Since gays are born that way and have no choice about their sexual orientation, anyone who calls same-sex sex an aberration is now a bigot. Un-American, too. Astoundingly now, college freshmen come home for their first Thanksgiving to announce, "Hey, Mom! Hey, Dad! We've taken the high moral ground. We've joined the gay revolution."
BRAINWASHED
My wife, Clare, who has an unerring aptitude for getting to the heart of things, said one day recently in passing, "I think everybody's being brainwashed." That gave me a start. I know "brainwashing" is a term that has been used and overused. But my wife's casual observation only reminded me of a brilliant tract I had read several years ago and then forgotten. It was called
After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.
That book turned out to be the blueprint gay activists would use in their campaign to normalize the abnormal through a variety of brainwashing techniques once catalogued by Robert Jay Lifton in his seminal work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China.
These activists got the media and the money to radicalize America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion. They would desensitize the public by selling the notion that gays were "just like everyone else." This would make the engine of prejudice run out of steam, i.e., lull straights into an attitude of indifference.
They would jam the public by shaming them into a kind of guilt at their own "bigotry." Kirk and Madsen wrote:
All normal persons feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like one of the pack....The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame...when his homo-hatred surfaces. Thus, propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homo-hating bigots as crude loudmouths....It can show them being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred-suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause.
Finally-this was the process they called conversion-Kirk and Madsen predicted a mass public change of heart would follow, even among bigots, "if we can actually make them like us." They wrote, "Conversion aims at just this...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."
In the movie "Philadelphia" we see the shaming technique and the conversion process working at the highest media level. We saw Tom Hank's character suffering (because he was gay and had AIDS) at the hands of bigots in his Philadelphia law firm. Not only were we ashamed of the homophobic behavior of the villainous straight lawyers in the firm; we felt nothing but sympathy for the suffering Hanks. (Members of the Motion Picture Academy felt so much sympathy they gave Hanks an Oscar.) Our feelings helped fulfill Kirk and Madsen's strategy: "to make Americans hold us in warm regard, whether they like it or not."
 Few dared speak out against "Philadelphia" as an example of the kind of propaganda Kirk and Madsen had called for. By then, four years after the publication of the Kirk-Madsen blueprint, the American public had already been programmed. Homosexuality was now simply "an alternate lifestyle."
Best of all, because of the persuaders embedded in thousands of media messages, society's acceptance of homosexuality seemed one of those spontaneous, historic turnings in time-yes, a kind of conversion. Nobody quite knew how it happened, but the nation had changed. We had become more sophisticated, more loving toward all, even toward those "afflicted" with the malady-excuse me, condition.
By 1992 the President of the United States said it was time that people who were openly gay and lesbian should not be ousted from the nation's armed forces. In 1993 the nation's media celebrated a huge outpouring of gay pride in Washington, D.C. Television viewers chanted along with half a million marchers, "Two, four, six, eight! Being gay is really great." We felt good about ourselves. We were patriotic Americans. We had abolished one more form of discrimination, wiped out one of society's most enduring afflictions: homophobia. Best of all, we knew now that gay was good, gay was free.
Note - A sign of things to come. Searched Google images for "gay zealots" and all I got were anti-gay zealots. They are filtering perception.
Socarides is a co-founder of NARTH,
National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.
- See more at: http://henrymakow.com/2013/03/how-america-went-gay.html#sthash.XiM4cNLP.dpuf

*******
Excuse Me, Gay is Not Good
by Charles Socarides M.D.
(Edited & Abridged by henrymakow.com)
March 11, 2013
http://henrymakow.com/2013/03/Excuse-Me-Gay-is-Not-Good%20%20.html
Charles W. Socarides, M.D., (1922-2005) was clinical professor of psychiatry at Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore
Medical Center in New York. Over 40 years, he treated hundreds of gays and helped about 33% return to heterosexuality. 
This is the second part of  "How America Went Gay" the classic 1995 essay by Charles Socarides, the psychiatrist who pioneered the treatment of homosexuality.
Here he explains the root causes of homosexuality which are anything but normal.
[My patients] were caught up in this mysterious compulsion to have sex with other men. They were not free. They were not happy. And they wanted to see if they could change.
Excuse me. Gay is not good. Gay is not decidedly free. How do I know this? For more than 40 years, I have been in solidarity with hundreds of homosexuals, my patients, and I have spent most of my professional life engaged in a kind of "pastoral care" on their behalf.
But I do not help them by telling them they are O.K. when they are not O.K.
Nor do I endorse their "new claim to self-definition and self-respect."

Tell me: Have we dumped the idea that a man's self-esteem comes from something inside himself (sometimes called character) and from having a good education, a good job and a good family-and replaced that notion with this, that he has an affinity to love (and have sex with) other men?
In point of fact, many of my patients had character; they had an education; they were respected ad men and actuaries and actors. But they were still in pain-for one reason and one reason alone. They were caught up in this mysterious compulsion to have sex with other men. They were not free. They were not happy. And they wanted to see if they could change.
Over the years, I found that those of my patients who really wanted to change could do so, by attaining the insight that comes with a good psychoanalysis. Others found other therapies that helped them get to the bottom of their compulsions, all of which involved high motivation and hard work. Difficult as their therapeutic trips were, hundreds and thousands of homosexuals changed their ways. Many of my own formerly homosexual patients-about a third of them-are married today and happily so, with children. One-third may not sound like a very good average. But it is just about the same success rate you will find at the best treatment centers for alcoholics, like Hazelden in Minnesota and the Betty Ford Clinic in California.
Another third of my patients remain homosexual but not part of the gay scene. Now, after therapy, they still have same-sex sex, but they have more control over their impulses because now they understand the roots of their need for same-sex sex. Some of these are even beginning to turn on to the opposite sex. I add this third to my own success rate-so that I can tell people in all honesty that my batting average is .667 out of more than a thousand "at bats."
Of course, I could bat .997 if I told all my patients in pain that their homosexuality was "a special call" and "a liberation." That would endear me to everyone, but it would not help them. It would be a lie-despite recent pieces of pseudo-science bolstering the fantasy that gays are "born that way."
The media put its immediate blessing on this "research," but we were oversold. Now we are getting reports, even in such gay publications as The Journal of Homosexuality, that the gay-gene studies and the gay-brain studies do not stand up to critical analysis. (The author of one so-called "gay-gene theory" is under investigation by the National Institutes of Health for scientific fraud.)
CAUSES OF HOMOSEXUAL DISORDER
I was not surprised to hear this. My long clinical experience and a sizable body of psychoanalysis research tell me that most [homosexuals]are reacting, at an unconscious level, to something amiss with their earliest upbringing- over-controlling mothers and abdicating fathers. Through long observation I have also learned that the supposedly liberated homosexual is never really free. In his multiple, same-sex adventures, even the most effeminate gay was looking to incorporate the manhood of others, because he was in a compulsive, never-ending search for the masculinity that was never allowed to build and grow in early childhood...
Once my patients have achieved an insight into these dynamics-and realized there is no moral fault involved in their longtime and mysterious need-they have moved rather quickly on the road to recovery. Their consequent gratitude to me is overwhelming. And why shouldn't it be? They were formerly caught up in compulsions they could not understand, compulsions they could not control. Now they are in charge of their own lives.
Their former promiscuity may have looked a lot like "liberation." But it was not true freedom. It was a kind of slavery. And it was not a lifestyle. With the onset of AIDS, as the playwright and gay militant Larry Kramer said in a 1993 interview, it turned out to be a death style. I have had some patients tell me, "Doctor, if I weren't in therapy, I'd be dead."
[ In addition, child and youth sexual abuse is a major cause of homosexuality. A 1992 study of 1000 homosexuals found that 37% had been abused sexually by an older male. Socarides, Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far , p. 88)
IN WAR, FIRST CASUALTY IS TRUTH
Testimonials from my recovered patients make me feel my work is worthwhile-despite regular demands from the gay rights community for my silence. What would they have me do? Pack my bags, find a new profession, lock up a lifetime of research and analysis, hide my truth under a bushel? It is not my psychoanalytic duty to tell people they are marvelous when they are out of control, much less ask disingenuous rhetorical questions like, "What kind of God would afflict people with an 'objective disorder' in the disposition of their hearts?"
Giving God the credit for their gayness is a persistent refrain in much gay literature today, and I am saddened to see people of evident good will become unwitting parties to the blasphemy. Gays ascribe their condition to God, but he should not have to take that rap, any more than he should be blamed for the existence of other man-made maladies-like war, for instance, which has proven to be very unhealthy for humans and for all other living things. God does not make war. Men do.
And, when homosexuality takes on all the aspects of a political movement, it, too, becomes a war, the kind of war in which the first casualty is truth, and the spoils turn out to be our own children. An exaggeration? Well, what are we to think when militant homosexuals seek to lower the age of consensual sexual intercourse between homosexual men and young boys to the age of 14 (as they did in Hawaii in 1993) or 16 (as they tried to do in England in 1994)? In the Washington March for Gay Pride in 1993, they chanted, "We're here. We're queer. And we're coming after your children."
What more do we need to know?
*******
Also See:
Homosexual Degenerates and Power

14 February 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/02/homosexual-degenerates-and-power.html
and
Same-Sex Marriage
17 August 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/08/same-sex-marriage.html
and
The Message in Animated Movies!
07 October 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/10/do-animated-movies-prepare-children-for.html
and
Our Society is Now Advocating Homosexuality
31 December 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/12/our-society-is-now-advocating.html
and
What do You Know about the Sexual Revolution?
15 August 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/08/what-do-you-know-about-sexual.html
and
The Debate on Gay Marriage Continues!
11 May 2012
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2012/05/debate-on-gay-marriage-continues.html
*******