By Thomas Coy

2008

Scientific/clinical refresher relevant to political perspectives

The standard scientific/clinical definition of sexual orientation is a person’s choice of sexual object. There are many types of sexual orientations. Heterosexuality (individuals whose choice of sexual object is a person of the opposite sex) is the sexual orientation of roughly 95 percent of the population. In American society pedophilia (adults whose choice of sexual object is children) is probably the most the despised sexual orientation. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation where a person’s choice of sexual object is a person of the same gender. There is no scientific evidence that shows homosexuality is a condition individuals are born with. Yet homosexuals do not choose their homosexual desires. There is over fifty years of evidence showing that homosexuality can be caused by a combination of factors that include, but are not limited to, a child’s perceptions of rejection by the same sex parent or peers, a child’s dysfunctional relationship with parents or peers, the temperament of a child, sexual abuse as a child, and gender identification disorders.

Sexual orientations are changeable and therefore homosexuality is a changeable condition. Homosexuality is not easily changeable and roughly 30 percent of those who seek to change their homosexual orientation to heterosexual are able to do so through psychotherapy, support groups, or on their own. I will not elaborate any more on the causes and treatments of homosexuality in this essay, but refer the reader to the  link “Homosexuality – Academic Intro” in the left column for more information from an academic perspective.

Special interest groups

The homosexual political movement or the gay political movement is arguably the most influential special interest group in the United States today. It is most influential in the Democratic Party, but is also influential in the Republican Party and the Libertarian Party. The gay political movement has special interest groups dedicated to the single issue of gay rights attempting to influence every corner of American society. The Human Rights Campaign is the largest gay lobbying organization in Washington, D.C. The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has been extremely successful in many political arenas, especially its influence in medical professional organizations. GLSEN – the Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network – works hand in hand with teachers unions and helps students and teachers start gay interest groups in the public schools. PFLAG counsels parents and the public to support gay rights. Since 1973 there have been gay special interest legal teams, Lambda, using the courts to expand gay rights. The ACLU has a department specifically funded to bring lawsuits that expand gay rights. A gay special interest organization has been formed to pressure the military, and medical associations like the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association have influential gay interest groups within their organizations. Other gay special interest groups aim to influence churches, and many universities have LGBT – lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender – departments that act as a gay lobbying organization within the university. At the liberal universities with official LGBT departments, opposing viewpoints to the gay lobbyists in the LGBT departments are not sought and if one surfaces it is usually not tolerated.

Organizations opposed to the agenda of the gay political movement are usually not solely focused on opposing gay political actions. Instead they are generally involved in a wide range of family issues. Some of the main organizations include Focus on the Family, the American Family Association, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Counsel, and the Alliance Defense Fund. A professional organization that serves as the anti-thesis of the gay interest groups in the medical associations is the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and the anti-thesis of PFLAG is a parent support group called PFOX. In the last several years there have been a number of interest groups formed solely to put state constitutional amendments before the people that limit marriage between one man and one woman.

What kind of minority group?

For a minority group of approximately 3 percent of the population LGBT activists have been very active and very successful. Their success has been directly related to how they have been able to portray their civil rights issues as similar to the civil rights movements of Blacks and women.

Indeed homosexuals are a minority group and transgender people are another minority group. But society does not give equal rights to all minority groups, and most citizens agree to this type of discrimination. For example, people who use or sell marijuana are a minority group, as are people who use or sell heroin or cocaine. People with other sexual orientations like pedophilia, pederasty (adult males whose sexual object choice is adolescent boys), and bestiality (choice of sexual object is an animal) are also minority groups. At this point in history gay activists are seeking special rights for homosexual behavior between adults, but the pederasty minority benefits from gay civil rights when the adolescent is at or above the legal age of consent. If the age of consent is lowered legal pederasty relationships will be expanded even more for that minority.

With this understanding the critical question to be asked is whether this LGBT minority coalition is more akin to Blacks as a minority group or the other sexual orientation minority groups like pedophiles, pederasts, etc, and is it similar to the minority groups that use illegal drugs.

Many Blacks are offended that homosexual activist groups claim they are civil rights victims. These outspoken Black individuals point out that the average income of homosexuals is well above the national average and that homosexual orientations can be changed. Both these points are true and distinguish homosexuals from Black civil rights victims. On the other hand homosexuals have been civil rights victims in the sense that homosexuals have been denied jobs because of their sexual behavior and they have been arrested for their sexual behavior. In this respect homosexuals share a civil rights victim status with Blacks who have been denied jobs and arrested because of their race. But homosexuals also share that victim status with pedophiles, pederasts, marijuana users, heroin users, and cocaine users who have been denied jobs and arrested because of their sexual orientation or behavior. So the fact that homosexuals have been denied jobs and arrested for their sexual orientation ties them to pedophiles and drug users as much as it does the Black civil rights movement.

Pedophilia and pederasty are changeable, but hard to change and are therefore akin to homosexuality. Drug addictions are also changeable, but also hard to change, they too are akin to homosexuality in that respect. A person’s race is not changeable. From this brief examination it is obvious that the gay political movement has no defining link to the Black civil rights movement.

It has been a political coup for the gay political movement to successfully link its case for civil rights to the Black civil rights movement. The success has been sustained through the support of the media, medical associations, and academia; all of whom are directly influenced by the political influence of gay activists. Ph. Ds, M.D.s, and conservative writers have offered the same evidence just presented that homosexuality is more akin to the abhorrent sexual orientations than race, and even more akin to drug addiction than race, but the evidence is not accepted by those in positions of power and committed to gay political objectives. Instead of accepting the evidence these influential institutions continue to sustain the deception that homosexuality is an innate condition similar to race and gender, thereby justifying their support of the gay rights movement.

Media bias

For decades gay identified individuals in professional and corporate positions have used their positions of influence to change policies and promote gay objectives. The political moves is professional organizations, academia, and the corporate world usually do not get the same attention that gay legislative efforts get, but they influence society just as much as governmental legislation. Some change has been good, even from the point of view of most conservatives, because it has promoted basic human respect for individuals who have homosexual attractions. Other change sought by gay activists has been strongly opposed by conservatives because it seeks to change the cultural norms on sexuality.

It would take many volumes of books to document all the political arenas that gay activists influence. This introduction will focus on just one aspect of the political arena known as the national media. A gay political tactic to change cultural norms has been the demonizing of Christians who believe that homosexual behavior is a perversion. One finds a frequent theme in television shows and movies that gay is good and conservative Christians are bad. This reaccuring theme is the result of internal political successes by gay activists and their supporters in the national media

One of the most successful attempts to demonize conservative Christians came after the murder of Matthew Shepard in 1998. Matthew Shepard became the poster boy for gay civil rights when he was brutally beaten up and left to die by two supposedly heterosexual men he had met at a bar. The killer of Shepard was on a methamphetamine binge and wanted to rob a drug dealer the night he killed Shepard. When the robbery opportunity did not pan out the killer saw the well dressed Shepard as an easy target. Matthew Shepard was drunk and the killer and his accomplice agreed to take him home. After beating Matthew Shepard with a pistol and taking the $30 in his wallet the duo drove into the Wyoming countryside and tied Matthew to a fence. The killer brutally beat Matthew again and again, then the two men drove off leaving Matthew Shepard there to die. Matthew Shepard was found 18 hours later still tied to the fence. He died five days later in the hospital. (Most of the information on Matthew Shepard’s murder came from http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=277685)

Gay activists immediately went to the media to charge Christian leaders as accomplices in the murder of Matthew Shepard. The activists accused Christian leaders like Dr. James Dobson of creating a climate of hatred against homosexuals. Dobson, who founded the family organization called Focus on the Family, had blood on his hands according to gay activists. The media repeated this accusation until Dr. Dobson’s name had been smeared all around the world.

Nothing in any of Dr. Dobson’s messages had ever advocated physical violence or hatred toward homosexuals, gay activists, abortionists, pornographers or any individual involved on the opposite side of the cultural and political issues he champions. What irritated gay activists was Dobson’s outspoken opposition to gay marriage and special rights for homosexuals. Focus on the Family’s radio show had at times featured ex-gays and a psychologist that helps homosexuals to change their sexual orientation. Both are targets of gay intolerance. l

Later it would come out that Matthew Shepard was killed by a man in a methamphetamine rage looking to rob an easy target. There was also evidence that the killer was bisexual, but there were no apologies to conservative Christian leaders. Gay activists had successfully used the media to exploit the murder to smear conservative Christians, and that was more important politically than the truth. The political damage done by the media to Dr. Dobson and conservative Christians was significant, and the same theme of conservative Christians creating a atmosphere of hatred continues to be used by gay advocates in the media. From my vantage point, this demonizing strategy by gay activists resembled an act of hatred.

There is one so-called Christian group creating an atmosphere of hatred. The radical sect led by Fred Phelps in Topeka, Kansas is the group that protested at the funeral of Matthew Shepard and has protested at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq. Phelps’ followers display signs like “God hates fags.” Conservative Christian leaders have unanimously condemned the hateful actions of Phelps’ church, and Phelps has in turn condemned conservative Christian leaders and ex-gays along with his condemnation of all homosexuals. In fact Phelps’ group has protested Dr. Dobson’s organization Focus on the Family.

The murder of Matthew Shepard made headline news in newspapers and on television across America and the world in 1998. Conservative Christians would cry foul one year later when two homosexual men murdered a 13 year old boy in Arkansas. The story was more sensational than the murder of Matthew Shepard, but it would remain out of the news media headlines. The most attention it received nationally came long after the crime was committed and focused on the outrage of conservative Christians over the double standard the media had shown by not reporting the story. Conservative Christians argued that the reason the story was not reported was because the story would set the gay political movement back.

The victim in this tragic murder was Jesse Dirkhising and the murderers were considered family friends. Jesse’s mother and stepfather allowed Jesse to spend weekends with a male homosexual couple in another town so that he could earn money cleaning a beauty salon that one of the homosexual men managed. Jesse was confused about his sexuality and the younger homosexual man claimed to have seduced the 13 year old Jesse into oral sex on earlier weekend visits. Gay advocates would define the young Jesse as gay because he had attractions to guys and had engaged in consensual homosexual sex.

One night in September of 1999 the older homosexual and manager of the beauty salon hatched a plan to sexually abuse their young guest; he would later refer to the abuse as a game. The older homosexual had his younger partner tie up Jesse, blindfold him, and gag him with dirty underwear and duct tape. He then encouraged his homosexual partner to sexually assault the boy anally. Jesse was sodomized by the younger homosexual with his fingers, his penis, a sausage, a cucumber, and an enema laced with a sedative drug. While the younger homosexual did the sodomizing, the older watched in the bedroom door and masturbated. After about five hours the younger homosexual went to eat a sandwich, leaving Jesse bound and gagged, and with duct tape holding a cucumber in his anus. When he returned to the bedroom he found Jesse no longer breathing. The homosexual couple could not revive Jesse and called 911. The police found Jesse naked. His face was blue. He had blood in his mouth and his body was covered with feces. It is easy to see that national exposure of this murder would have painted a bleak picture of homosexuality and set the gay political movement back. This story gives an outsider a glimpse of how much gay influence is in the media, because this story was suppressed nationally. (Most of the information on Jesse Dirkhising’s murder came from http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29026)

“Sexual orientation” and hate crime laws

A battle cry of the gay rights movements is that society should not discriminate based on sexual orientation. In reality most gay people do not agree with that banner, because, as this essay has already pointed out, sexual orientations include pedophilia, pederasty, bestiality, and a host of other obscure and perverted sexual attractions and behaviors. Gay rights advocates usually define “sexual orientation” in the legislation they sponsor. Their current definition includes three sexual orientations (heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual) and the gender identity disorder known as transgender. This has been yet another political tactic by gay advocates to link gay civil rights to the civil right struggles of Blacks and women,because when “sexual orientation” is added in legislation that protects people from discrimination based on race and gender, it creates another link to those civil rights movements. It has been a very effective tactic primarily because the media and academia have ignored the deception involved.

Sexual orientation has clinically and scientifically been defined as a person’s choice of sexual object. Gay activists and their supporters have used the legal system to redefine the term based on political objectives. The legal deception is twofold. Not only are there many perverted sexual orientations left out of the legal definition of sexual orientation, but being transgender is not a sexual orientation at all. Transgender individuals are not a classified because of their choice of sexual object; they are a classification based on their belief that they are the opposite sex of their genitalia. Some transgender individuals are heterosexual, some are homosexual, some are bisexual, and some would fall into the more perverted categories of sexual orientation.

One specific piece of “sexual orientation” legislation gay advocates seek is hate crime laws. Many opponents of hate crime laws dislike the concept of hate crimes because these laws attempt to increase criminal penalties based on the perceived emotional motivation of the criminal. Opponents of hate crime laws argue that criminals should be charged with the crime only. Opponents also question why some forms of hate are punished and others are not.

Gay activists not only see hate crime laws as a means of putting “sexual orientation” along side race and gender, they see it as a way to silence their opposition. In states and countries with hate crime laws that include sexual orientation it has become increasingly difficult to oppose the gay political movement. Canada in particular has made it a crime to publicly state that homosexuality is a sin and/or perversion. It may seem hard to imagine for average Americans, but this type of special interest legislation can trump the freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of the press, and freedom within science.

Thankfully, violence against homosexuals decreased dramatically in the twentieth century due to clinical research showing that bad parental relationships and sexual abuse were often a causal factor in same-sex attractions. While hate crime laws have been used to advance the political cause of the gay rights movement, in general they have not protected the homosexual from violence or acted as a deterrent. Let’s examine the tragic incident used by gay advocates to justify hate crime laws – the case of Matthew Shepard – and then compare it to the tragic incident the media suppressed – the death of Jesse Dirkhising.

Eighteen year old Matthew Shepard was brutally beaten and murdered by a heterosexual/bisexual man and a heterosexual accomplice. Shepard openly identified as gay man and put his hand on his killer’s knee while in the killer’s truck. Although the killer was high on methamphetamine and planned on robbing the victim, the hand on the knee triggered the first assault on the intoxicated Shepard. Both men involved in the death of Matthew Shepard faced the death penalty for murder, kidnapping, and robbery. A hate crime law would not have been a deterrent to the murderers of Shepard. The two men already were faced with the death penalty. Both men pleaded guilty to avoid the death penalty and are serving two consecutive life terms.

Jesse Dirkhising was cruelly molested and murdered by a homosexual man and his homosexual partner. Because 13 year old Jesse had same-sex attractions a hate crime law would probably categorize him as homosexual. Hate crime laws would not enter into this crime because this would be categorized as gay on gay violence. The acts committed on Jesse did not involve hatred toward Jesse’s confused homosexual attractions. These acts of violence were motivated by a perverted lust.

If Jesse did not have same-sex attractions, and the same molestation and murder took place, hate crime laws would still not enter into the crime, because the two homosexual men would not be molesting Jesse because of anger toward heterosexuals. They were just playing a perverted sexual game. Only if the two homosexual men raped Jessie because of a hatred of heterosexuals would a sexual orientation hate crime law have been committed. The two homosexuals involved in Jesse’s death faced the death penalty, and pleaded guilty to avoid the death penalty. So even if a hate crime law covered the murder of Jesse, it would not be an added deterrent.

It is important to emphasize that hate crime laws will not deter gay on gay violence or the molestation of the young. Had Jesse not died, the rape would probably not have been reported. Jesse would have become a troubled young man similar to Matthew Shepard, who had himself been raped as an adolecent on a high school trip to Morocco. Ironically, what hate crime laws would do is deter the exposure of gay on gay violence for fear that gay activists would claim that the exposure was based on hatred of homosexuals. This scenario is not out of the realm of possibility. Gay activists repeatedly call the testimonies of ex-gays hateful, because they often paint a bleak picture of gay life and see their past behavior as immoral. The psychotherapy to help homosexuals change their sexual orientation has also been labeled as hateful by gay activists, as well as any preaching from the pulpit that says homosexual behavior is immoral.

The political battle is ultimately between two moral codes

Looking at the broad political picture on homosexuality I believe the main principle is: do and should the citizens of a nation have the right to discriminate against homosexuals. Certainly, most American’s believe that laws should discriminate against the sexual orientations of pedophilia, pederasty, and bestiality, so the debate is not about ending discrimination based on sexual orientation. The debate is whether homosexuality should be given the same social status as heterosexuality.

We can find pros and cons for each side of the debate on whether homosexuality should share the same social status as heterosexuality. Many of the arguments for elevating homosexuality are based on the liberal moral principle that all adult consensual sexual relationships are moral. This liberal moral principle is a rejection of biblical morality for a so-called more reasonable morality, but this same moral principle can be used to elevate polygamy, prostitution, and incestuous relationships to new social status. If the liberal moral principle of sexuality is the basis of elevating homosexuality to heterosexuality, these other consensual sexual behaviors should be elevated with homosexuality.

The instituting of gay marriage by state supreme courts has also been a rejection of the biblical norm of sexual behavior. By rejecting the traditional cultural morality liberal judges have forced their own morality on the citizens of the United States. In the debate over gay marriage there has been this constant theme of moral liberals telling conservative Christians that they cannot force their morality on the populace. So what do these moral liberal judges do – they force their morality on the populace. The actions of the California and Massachusetts Supreme Courts have been an exercise in hypocrisy and abuse of power.

The political battles over homosexuality are ultimately a battle over the nation’s moral norms. Gay advocates and moral liberals believe it is immoral to call homosexuality a perverse sexual behavior and discriminate against a homosexual in any way whatsoever. Moral conservatives believe that homosexual behavior is an immoral behavior and should be discriminated against by not giving it equal status to heterosexuality. In any democracy the populace should have the right to determine the morality and legality of marriage. Gay activists and moral liberals have every right to try and change the nation’s moral norms on sexuality, and conservative Christians have every right to keep the nation’s sexual moral standard heterosexual marriage.

Each side of the political battles over homosexuality has its own moral code regarding homosexuality. The political battle is ultimately over which side can win the minds of the people and have the law of the land reflect their moral code.

Copyright 2008