Ryan Sorba's Blog

Homosexuality and Mental Health

2012-01-12T00:45:00.000-08:00

It was never a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast…It was a political move…That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.
-Barbara Gittings, Activist

Getting Started

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) currently considers same-sex attraction a diagnosable and treatable mental disorder –if one is marked by persistent distress about their “sexual orientation.” The disorder is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV TR (DMS-IV TR) as a paraphilia, euphemistically entitled, “Sexual Orientation Not Otherwise Specified.”

Psychiatrists began to use this clunky phrase to refer to homosexuality in 1987, after compromising with radical activists for more than a decade about what constitutes politically-correct verbiage. Negotiations have centered primarily on how to balance the demands of radical political activists with the right of the individual patient to self-determination, which requires that psychiatry leave the doors open to treatment and implies that homosexuality is in fact a mental disorder. Just think, would the APA treat a white man who wished he were black by encouraging him to believe that he is black even though he is not? Or would the APA seek to help the man reduce anxiety about being white? Each decision about how to label the mental illness has been driven primarily by politics, not science. In Homosexuality and American Psychiatry pro-sodomy author Ronald Bayer notes that in the APA’s original DSM-I published in 1951,

…homosexuality and other sexual deviations were included among the sociopathic personality disturbances. These disorders were characterized by the absence of subjectively experienced distress or anxiety despite the presence of profound pathology.

In 1968 the APA published DSM-II. In the new manual homosexuality was removed from the category of sociopathic personality disturbances and placed under the general category of sexual deviations alongside gender identity disorder, sadism, masochism, voyeurism, exhibitionism, fetishism, incest, transvestitism, necrophilia, rape, pedophilia, zoophilia, and more. In 1973 the APA voted to downgrade homosexuality to a “Sexual Orientation Disturbance.” The new entry read as follows:

302.0 Sexual Orientation Disturbance [Homosexuality]

This is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward people of the same-sex and who are either disturbed by, in conflict with, or wish to change their sexual orientation. This diagnostic category is distinguished from homosexuality, which by itself does not constitute a psychiatric disorder. Homosexuality per se is one form of sexual behavior, and with other forms of sexual behavior which are not in themselves psychiatric disorders, are not listed in this nomenclature.

Thus, it became “disordered” for one to wish that the way one expresses his or her instincts be in accord with the physical organs that do the expressing, as though a fish who thinks itself a bird should be thought ill for hoping one day to be happy in the water. In the words of Ronald Bayer:

On a conceptual level opponent’s of the Board’s decision found it utterly astounding that “subjective distress” could provide a standard by which to determine the presence or absence of psychopathology. Indeed it was the absence of such discomfort that revealed the depths of pathology.

The sociopath example led to profound disagreements within the APA about subjective distress as the basis for what constitutes pathology. If a sociopath experiences no distress can he be considered pathological? A pure political compromise, this peculiar category would last but a few years, before being renegotiated by a more sober APA leadership team in 1976. Prior to discussing the 1976 renegotiation and those that came after, let’s take a deeper look into the context in which the 1973 vote to remove homosexuality per se took place, since the 1973 vote was a turning point for the homosexual movement. This vote was driven by politics, not science.

Evelyn Hooker

A life long hard-left political activist, the psychologist and UCLA professor Evelyn Hooker is more than anyone else credited with having provided the pseudo-scientific rationale for the view which asserts that homosexuality is not a psychological disorder. In the book A Natural History of Homosexuality, author Francis Mark Mondimore records that,

…after receiving her PhD in psychology, Hooker joined the faculty at the University of California at Los Angeles and taught some courses. Among her students was a [man who had developed Same-Sex Attraction Disorder], whom she befriended, and in time was introduced to his circle of friends, mostly other [men who had developed Same-Sex Attraction Disorder].

Hooker’s students “were acutely aware of what was being written about them in the psychology books, and as the relationship between Dr. Hooker and these men grew closer, some of them suggested that she study them as research subjects” not objectively, but with the sole purpose of challenging the APA’s categorization of homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder. “After some hesitation, Hooker agreed; in fact, she applied for and received a grant from the National Institutes of Mental Health to do so.” Hooker’s study, “The Adjustment of the Male Overt Homosexual,” published in Projective Testing in 1957 was one of only two, along with Kinsey’s Sexual Behavior of the Human Male upon which in 1973 the American Psychiatric Association decided to remove homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manuel of Mental Disorders II (DSM II).

Despite being discredited in April of 1993 by the official journal of the American Psychological Association, American Psychologist, Hooker’s is the only study discussed in the APA’s 2003 amicus brief in Lawrence v. Texas, the United State Supreme court case which suspended the power of states to enforce anti-sodomy laws. Even today, more than fifty years after its publication, and fifteen years after its being exposed as contrived, her study is the only paper referenced in detail on the main website of the American Psychological Association in its discussion of “Gay” and “Lesbian” issues, as it attempts to make the case that there is no evidence for an association between Same-Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD), Adult Same-Sex Intercourse (ASSI), and psychopathology.

The controversial claims of Hooker garnered her almost instant recognition within homosexualist circles, and in the wake of the Stonewall riots in 1969, as politics began to trump science, militant activists increasingly relied on Hooker’s study to support their demands that the APA remove homosexuality from the DSM.

Eight years after Hooker’s now-repudiated study, in 1965, Judd Marmor, an influential USC /UCLA psychiatrist (and “new left” political activist, who had been previously involved with both anti-war and pro-abortion issues) hand-picked Evelyn Hooker to chair the American Psychiatric Association ‘s newly established National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Task Force on Homosexuality. The only other “mental health” representatives listed as serving on the Board of the NIMH Task Force during this time were Alfred Kinsey’s close colleagues and fellow closeted pedophiles Paul Gebhard, then Director of the Institute for Sex Research at Indiana University and John Money from Johns Hopkins. Both men openly advocated the social legitimization of sex between adults, children, and even infants, and engaged in despicable, vile, and criminal activities in order to gain the pseudo-scientific evidence they needed to support and promulgate their ideas about sodomy and pedophilia (For more see below).

The successful creation of the NIMH Task Force on Homosexuality marked the beginning of a power shift within the American Psychiatric Association. Between 1965 and 1969 as NIMH deliberations were carried out, several clinicians whom had worked for years with persons struggling with SSAD individuals and wanted to be involved in deliberations were intentionally left out of discussions for ideological reasons. In addition, one objective committeeman, a judge from Washington D.C., the Honorable David M. Bazelon, resigned during the Task Force deliberations after becoming aware of the distinctly unscientific direction that Judd Marmors’ hand-picked board members were set on taking the NIMH.

In October of 1969, the blatantly biased NIMH issued a report on “Homosexuality.” Unsurprisingly, the report claimed, parroting pedophile Alfred Kinsey almost word-for-word, that sexuality is a continuum from exclusive homosexuality to exclusive heterosexuality, and th1at some degree of bisexuality is the human norm. (It avoided mentioning however that in Kinsey’s view human sexual taste is almost infinitely malleable and that it logically follows from this view that no sexual behavior can be considered abnormal.) Without any evidence, the report stated that any suffering by men who engage in sodomy is caused by societal prejudice. Thus, according to the Task Force, there is nothing problematic with homosexuality per se. This report, along with the Kinsey Report and Hooker study, gave homosexualists the pseudo-scientific rationale that they needed to begin to challenge the APA’s official position on homosexuality.

1970

Within a few years new left UCLA psychologist and closeted pedophile Judd Marmor, the same man who had handpicked Evelyn Hooker to chair the NIMH Task Force several years prior became Vice President of the entire American Psychiatric Association. With Hooker and Marmor in prominent roles, agitators outside the profession could count on their collaboration in organizing protests aimed at the removal of homosexuality from the DSM and radicalizing the APA.

Author Ronald Bayer, who served as a Fellow at the Hastings Institute in New York during the time takes note of this in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry when he writes that in 1970 the leadership of a faction of pro-sodomy psychiatrists within the APA planned a “systematic effort to disrupt annual meetings of the American Psychiatric Association.” Although politically motivated protests directed at psychiatrists had taken place prior, one can see the beginnings of a coordinated effort to politicize the APA at its 1970 annual meeting in San Francisco. Here psychiatrists discussing various issues surrounding the subject of the pathology of homosexuality were surprised by activists who had been secretly brought into the meeting to shout them down. The Gay Militants, a book about this time, tells the story:

On May 14, 1970 psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of gay and women’s liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco to protest the reading of a paper by an Australian psychiatrist on the subject of “aversion therapy,” a system of treatment which attempts to change gay orientation by keying unpleasant sensations (such as electric shocks) to homosexual stimuli. By the time the meeting was over, the feminists and their gay cohorts were in charge…and the doctors were heckling from the audience.

Pro-sodomy activists took over the podium and microphones. Then, Konstantin Berlandt, of the Berkeley chapter of the Gay Liberation Front, “paraded through the hall in a bright red dress. Paper airplanes sailed down from the balcony. With two papers still unread, the chairman announced adjournment.” As the meeting adjourned several arguments broke out between the psychiatrists who were angry about the surprise disruption. One activist shouted to a psychiatrist, “Don’t shake your fu**ing finger at me,” to which the psychiatrist replied, “I’ll shake whatever I please.” In another argument Psychiatrist Dr. Irving Bieber stated that he believed persons experiencing Same-Sex Attraction (SSAD) were the subjects of “misplaced sexual adjustment,” to which a pro-sodomy activist shrieked and called him a “Mother Fu**er!”

Emboldened by a lack of punishment for having trampled over the medical community’s monies and freedoms of assembly and speech, activists disrupted another meeting of the American Psychiatric Association on June 23, 1970. This time in Chicago, they repeatedly shouted down the main speaker’s discourse. Then, in October, during a meeting at the University of Southern California, pro-sodomy activists struck again, by shouting down yet another speaker and taking over the stage and microphone. In November of 1970, The Advocate, a pro-gay magazine, reported on these and other disruptions under the headline, “PSYCHOLOGISTS GET GAY LIB THERAPY.”

As the autumn air chilled the nation in 1970 the sexual anarchists became increasingly bitter. Dr. Jeffry Satinover notes in his book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth that activists even began threatening physical attacks and making terrorist threats, over the telephone and through anonymous letters to those psychiatrists who were courageous enough to continue to speak of their scientific findings.

1971

Early in 1971, the APA’s national convention program chairman Dr. John Ewing was warned by Dr. Kent Robinson, who acted as a kind of ad hoc intermediary between pro-sodomy activists and the APA at the time, that if a panel—not simply about Homosexuality, but one consisting of sexual anarchist activists—was not approved, activists would ruin the entire convention. Acceding to intense pressure, Ewing agreed to sponsor a special panel for activists at the May 1971 annual convention in Washington D.C. under only one condition, that a psychiatrist Chair the panel, as required by APA rules. Since Dr. Kent Robinson knew of no one else willing he somewhat reluctantly agreed to do so himself.

Thus, rather than respond appropriately to threats by outside activists, through a visibly increased security force, convention planner John Ewing caved to the demands of the radicals. Not only did Ewing yield to bullies, he went a step further. He ordered his security team to wear plain clothes, which, according to pro-sodomy historian, Ronald Bayer, in his 1981 book Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, “entailed a willingness to ride out rather than to prevent demonstrations.” To those activists who had “challenged the professional authority of psychiatry it was clear that only the threat of disorder and even violence had been able to create the conditions…” out of which change would occur. “That lesson would not be forgotten.”

After this quick capitulation activists decided to make more demands. In lieu of the May convention in Washington D.C., in an effort to plan not only more but worse disruptions, a secret group of pro-sodomy psychiatrists and outside agitators sought the services of left-wing radical and pro-beastiality and pro-hard core pornography activist Franklyn Kameny, who had led the Washington D.C. chapter of the Mattachine Society during the 1960’s. In the words of pro-sodomy historian Ronald Bayer:

“Aware of the organizational weakness of his own Mattachine Society…Frank Kameny turned to a Gay Liberation Front collective in Washington to plan the May 1971 demonstrations. Together with the collective, Kameny developed a detailed strategy of disruption, paying attention to the most intricate logistical details, including the floor plan of the hotel in which the convention was to be housed.” Kameny states his objective clearly, “I feel that the entire homophile movement…is going to stand or fall upon the question of whether or not homosexuality is a sickness, and upon our taking a firm stand on it…”

Despite agreeing not to protest in return for a special panel, all hell broke loose at the APA’s 1971 national convention at the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington D.C. Kameny’s cadre of anti-Vietnam War protestors, who just finished a massive demonstration of their own, along with members of the Gay Liberation Front, who had forged credentials, provided by allies on the inside (some at the very top), broke into a widely attended special lifetime service award meeting entitled the, “Convocation of Fellows.” They grabbed the microphone and Kameny declared psychiatry the “enemy incarnate.” An August 1971 edition of Newsweek explains:

But even more than the government, it is the psychiatrists who have experienced the full rage of the homosexual activists. Over the past two years, [1970-71] gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movement’s most aggressive demonstration so far—a group of 30 militants broke into a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in Washington, where they turned the staid proceedings into near chaos for twenty minutes.

We are here to denounce your authority to call us sick or mentally disordered,” shouted the group’s leader, Dr. Franklin Kameny, while the 2,000 shocked psychiatrists looked on in disbelief. ‘For us, as homosexuals, your profession is the enemy incarnate. We demand that psychiatrists treat us as human beings, not as patients to be cured! Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us…We’re rejecting you all as our owners. You may take this as our declaration of war!

Regardless of the disruption, a few hours later, the promised panel discussion—presented by the same group of protestors—proceeded without objection by the APA, “In addition to Kameny the panel included Larry Littlejohn, of the Society for Individual Rights in San Francisco, Del Martin, a founder of the female pro-sodomy activist group Daughters of Bilitis, Lilli Vicenz, a lesbian activist, and Jack Baker” the student body president-elect at the University of Minnesota.” Ironically, at the very moment, in 1971, while the aforementioned activists were making the case that sodomy is healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying of AIDS.

According to Ronald Bayer, “toward the end of the convention Kameny and Littlejohn informed Kent Robinson that they wanted to present their demands for the deletion of homosexuality from the APA’s official nosology, DSM II, to members of the Associations Committee on Nomenclature.” Again, under intense pressure, a meeting was arranged and although nothing came of it, the process, “of transforming general outrage into a specific political demand had been set in motion.”

Shortly after the May convention, on June 7, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to Psychiatric News threatening the APA with not only more, but worse disruptions. In this letter he states:

“Our presence there was only the beginning of an increasingly intensive campaign by homosexuals to change the approach of psychiatry toward homosexuality or, failing that, to discredit psychiatry.”

Protests continued over the course of the next several years. Kay Tobin Lahausen, co-author of The Gay Crusaders describes a variety of activism:

We did all sorts of protests…When the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations came out of some meeting and got in his big black limousine, I remember going crazy, rocking and beating on the limousine…He had never been besieged by a bunch of homosexuals before. But he had said something that got us going.

Lahausen’s lover Barbara Gittings was a well known activist during this time as well. Although Gittings was not a librarian, she was the first head of the American Library Association’s “Gay Task Force.” Her objective was to bring books advocating sodomy to the attention of librarians, in hopes of having them included in their libraries. At one American Library Association meeting Gittings set up a same-gender kissing booth to attract attention to her cause. Gittings tells about her activism against the APA:

Besides the ALA, I was also very involved, along with many other people, in efforts to get the American Psychiatric Association… to drop its listing of homosexuality as a mental illness. Psychiatrists were one of the three major groups that had their hands on us. They had a kind of control over our fate, in the eyes of the public, for a long time. Religion and law were the other two groups that had their hands on us. So, besides being sick, we were sinful and criminal. But the sickness label infected everything that we said and made it difficult for us to gain any credibility for anything we said ourselves. The sickness issue was paramount.

1972

Barbara Gittings worked with Franklyn Kameny to put together a panel at the 1972 APA annual convention in Dallas. The activists understood that by continuing to host panel discussions on the subject of the removal of Homosexuality from the DSM, they could make it appear as though psychiatrists were at least divided on the issue. Activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen explain this point in a later book entitled After the Ball when they assert that, “Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject…” Dr. Kent Robinson again “played a central role, this time making arrangements for a fully institutionalized presence” and “a grant from the Falk Foundation covered the travel expenses of several activists as well as the cost of a booth in the scientific exhibition era.”

The panel again included Franklyn Kameny, Barbara Gittings, and new-left UCLA psychiatrist and then vice president of the APA, Judd Marmor, as moderator. The panel also included a six foot four, three hundred pound psychiatrist from a secret pro-sodomy faction within the APA called the “Gay-PA,” who wore a disguise which consisted of a rubber mask, a huge wig, and a baggy tuxedo. This disguised psychiatrist also spoke through a microphone which distorted his voice, and was identified at the meeting only as “Dr. H. Anonymous.” This psychiatrist would later come to be known as Dr. John Fryer, who at the time was an untenured professor at Temple University in Philadelphia.

During the panel, amidst a crowd of over 200 psychiatrists, “Dr. Anonymous” announced the existence of the “Gay-PA,” which met socially, admitted to frequenting bath-houses, and hosted a secret dinner each year during APA annual conventions. He also announced that over 100 “Gay-PA” members were present at the convention. For pro-sodomy activists this bold panel discussion was a huge success. Its very presence at the convention prompted the pro-sodomy publication the Advocate to report that “Psychiatry and the gay community may finally have reached a turning point.”

In addition to the panel, author Edward Alwood notes in his book Straight News that Kameny also, “recognized that by participating in the convention he had a rare opportunity to integrate the event. He even attended the annual psychiatrists’ ball. When the band struck up the music, Kameny grabbed Phil Johnson, a local Dallas [pro-sodomy activist] and “the two men waltzed out onto the dance floor. The stunned psychiatrists and their spouses watched speechlessly, most of them pretending they were not seeing it.

Following the panel at the 1972 convention a manufactured internal debate generated by a few activists within the APA emerged when pro-sodomy activist Richard Green, then Director of the Gender Identity Research and Treatment Program at the UCLA Medical School published an essay entitled “Homosexuality as a Mental Illness” in the International Journal of Psychiatry. Ronald Bayer notes in his book Homosexuality and American Psychiatry that,

Green’s essay was followed by at least six formally invited responses, at least four of which were calculated to sharpen awareness of the profound disagreements that had begun to characterize opinion on homosexuality. Rather than expressions of doubt and uncertainty, they were unmistakably partisan declarations.

Judd Marmor and Martin Hoffman expressed clear and unambiguous support for the position that the classification of homosexuality as a mental illness represented nothing more than the cloaking of moral judgments in the language of science. Charles Socarides and Lawrence Hatterer defended the traditional psychiatric perspective. Especially for Socarides, there was no reason to reopen the issue of the pathologic status of homosexuality. Indeed, he perceived Greens pseudo-agnostic stance as a rejection of the findings of science—a rejection cloaked in the guise of scientific posture.”

By mid-1972 pro-sodomy activists had created the illusion that many psychiatrists were breaking ranks with traditional views about the inclusion of homosexuality within the DSM. As a result, many psychiatrists who may have felt civil rights sentiments related to the movement, yet did not study human sexuality at length and were largely ignorant of many of the most important theories related to the matter, began to break ranks and jump on the newly perceived band-wagon in support of the removal of Homosexuality as a category within the DSM.

On October 8, 1972, after the APA’s annual convention, “activists staged what would come to be seen as one of their most important “zap” demonstrations when they targeted a meeting of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy in New York. During the meeting, more than one hundred members of the Gay Activists’ Alliance (GAA)” protested and distributed a flier outside the hotel entitled “Torture Anyone?” –referring to the shock treatment associated with aversion therapy. Meanwhile, inside, several activists were able to penetrate security and infiltrate a session on aversion therapy. “This is it!” shouted Ronald Gold, GAA’s media director. “We’re taking over!” Gold commandeered the microphone and demanded that the sickness label attached to homosexuality be removed from the psychiatrists’ official diagnostic manual.” The story “was prominently featured in the next morning’s New York Times.”

1973

During this time “a dramatic shift in events was shaping up behind the scenes at the APA.” While militants were zapping psychiatrists at conventions they were also working behind the scenes to elect psychiatrists sympathetic to their agenda to the APA Board. The timing was perfect since the APA was extremely divided at the time over the Vietnam War. Homosexualists combined their efforts with the anti-Vietnam sentiments and formed a new Committee, calling itself the “Committee of Concerned Psychiatrists” and began a campaign to elect anti-Vietnam activists and homosexualists to the Board of the APA. According to Medscape Medical News:

From the end of World War II to until into the 1970’s the APA had been run by a clique; the nominating committee would present a slate with single candidates for each office who would automatically be elected. It was known as an old boys club and there was great resentment. That group resisted change or reform in regards to the Vietnam War, or to sexuality, or to a number of other issues of the day.

“The Committee of Concerned Psychiatrists” recruited Dr. Alfred Freedman to run for president against the establishment. He accepted their nomination and after a contentious campaign, he won the election, “with a margin of 3 votes out of 20,000.”

Medscape Medical News notes that as soon as Dr. Freedman took office he supported the move to remove homosexuality from the DSM:

By then, the APA Board had many newly elected members who were committed to reform and supportive of Dr. Spitzer’s resolution. “So in 1973 the election was very important because the board of the previous year would never have supported the declassification of homosexuality,” Dr. Freedman noted.

Freedman recounts further:

In the APA elections of 1972 and 1973 concern over social issues brought in a number of individuals as members of the Board of Trustees who were committed to change, including removal of homosexuality per se from the official APA nomenclature.

Ronal Bayer agrees:

…psychiatrists committed to social activism had recently mounted a successful challenge to the Association’s old guard, and those who were threatened by the orientation of the new leadership could be counted upon to react almost viscerally in opposition.

During this time:

…a dramatic shift in events was shaping up behind the scenes at the APA. During the zap of the psychiatrists at the May [1972] annual convention, one member of the audience had recognized Gold from having attended college with him and introduced him to Robert Spitzer, a member of the APA’s Nomenclature Committee, which set the official classifications for illnesses. As a former reporter for the entertainment trade newspaper Variety, Gold instantly recognized the value of his new contact and began to lobby for a meeting of the Nomenclature Committee and representatives of GAA.

The APA’s committee on Nomenclature and Statistics was responsible for publishing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Loosely coordinated with the international classification of medical diseases, the enormously influential DSM had defined homosexuality medically, on par with many other sexual deviations because persons who had developed Same-Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD) did not have an adult person of the opposite sex as their primary object of sexual interest. Robert Spitzer, who would eventually become the pre-eminent expert in the classification of mental disorders on a statistical basis and the overall director of psychiatry’s official classification system, was then a consultant to the Nomenclature Committee. Spitzer sympathized with the activists on civil rights grounds.

[Spitzer]…eventually agreed to set up the meeting, provided it was kept hush-hush. After agreeing to the stipulation Gold went behind Spitzer’s back and notified the press. On February 9, 1973 Boyce Rosenberger, a science writer at the New York Times wrote a story on the issue. The headline read: PSYCHIATRISTS REVIEW STAND ON HOMOSEXUALS.

Although the article infuriated the APA, it assured the activists that they would be given a hearing. Gold notes that:

The article not only got attention far and wide once it was in the times but it put them on record…Although the Nomenclature Committee stopped short of approving the change, Spitzer, who was the head of the committee invited Gold to make his case before the association’s entire membership at its 1973 annual convention in Hawaii the following May.

“By the time of the May 1973 APA convention in Honolulu, Spitzer’s views had moved quite far.” Contact with pro-sodomy activists who insisted that they were fully satisfied with their lives and who used the Kinsey and Hooker studies to ground their claims persuaded Spitzer to reconsider his views. However, in order justify reconsidering his views; Spitzer was also forced to reconsider his entire concept of what constitutes a psychiatric disorder.

Eventually, rather than acknowledge that homosexuality did in fact constitute a psychiatric disorder under the APA’s 1973 definition of a disorder, as “that which inhibits the natural functioning of one’s physical design,” Spitzer opted to change the definition of a what the term “disorder” actually means altogether. Spitzer’s new definition of “mental disorder” thus became:

“that which regularly causes subjective distress or is regularly associated with some generalized impairment of social effectiveness or functioning.”

During the time Spitzer was shifting his position and hubristically formulating his own new definition of the phrase “mental disorder,” a true case of putting the cart before the horse, he was also planning the panel discussion that he had promised activists would take place at the May 1973 APA annual convention in Honolulu. As Spitzer altered his views he became increasingly willing to stack the panel discussion in favor of the activists. The end result was the inclusion of only two psychiatrists against the removal of homosexuality, Charles Socarides and Irving Bieber, and four psychiatrists in favor of the removal; Judd Marmor, then vice president of the APA and new left political activist, Robert Stoller, Richard Green, and Ronald Gold.

On the day of the convention Gold stood at the lectern before a crowd of 5000 psychiatrists and urged them to, ‘Stop, calling Homosexuality a sickness.’” “Later that afternoon the associated press carried a story about the session, prompting coverage in newspapers across the nation. DOCTORS URGED NOT TO CALL HOMOSEXUALITY A SICKNESS was the headline on the short AP story in the New York Times on May 10.” Newsweek’s interpretation of the event was more cavalier, “The indications seem to be that the [Nomenclature] Committee will decide to drop homosexuality from its list of mental aberrations.

After the convention Ronald Gold brought Robert Spitzer (who had never met a working psychiatrist who openly admitted to engaging in sodomy) with him to a secret function of the “Gay PA.” Although members of the “Gay PA” were initially angry that Gold had exposed them to an outsider, they eventually settled on the circumstance as an opportunity to offer emotional arguments to Spitzer in their own favor. Indeed, in pro-sodomy author Ronald Bayer’s book Homosexuality and American Psychiatry he notes that Spitzer’s meeting with the “Gay PA” members:

…provided an emotional jolt that moved him to prepare, within a month, a proposal for the deletion of homosexuality from the nomenclature.

Spitzer quickly brought the issue to the attention of Dr. Henry Brill, who was the chair of the Task Force on Nomenclature and Statistics for the APA at the time. Brill then assigned Spitzer to prepare a “scientifically sound” and “persuasive” memo and resolution to be presented to the APA’s Council on Research and Development, to the Reference Committee, and to the Board of Trustees. Dr. Spitzer quickly drafted a three page resolution and solicited Dr. Charles Silverstein and Wardell Pomeroy to help him present the majority of the pro-sodomy case before the APA’s Council on Research and Development and Reference Committee. Crucially:

Since none of the Committee members was an expert on homosexuality, there was considerable interest in the data that had been presented, much of which was new to those who would have to evaluate the issues raised by the call for a revised nomenclature.

Rarely, has such a crucially important decision, affecting many, been made for the APA, by so few, who knew so little about a subject, and in so poor a position to judge the scientific quality of the representation being offered them.

Pedophile Charles Silverstein led off his presentation before the Committee with Hooker’s illegitimate study and also introduced some of Kinsey’s now repudiated work. He emphasized Kinsey’s claims about the frequency of sodomy, but passed over in silence the fact that Kinsey was also a pedophile who considered sexuality to be a changeable preference. “The committee was impressed,” writes Ronald Bayer, “by the sober and professional manner” in which Charles Silverstein, Ph.D., (who would later author The Joy of Gay Sex and The New Joy of Gay Sex) presented the pro-sodomy case.

Fellow pedophile Wardell Pomeroy, co-author of the first Kinsey volume and (like all his male colleagues) one of Kinsey’s lovers, also argued before the committee. Pomeroy argued that the Kinsey data found that Homosexuality was not associated with psychopathology and that all other studies of Homosexuality were intrinsically flawed because they were based on “clinical” samples rather than samples from the regular population—as though this were not what a quantitative comparative pathography would require? Even so, both statements were flat falsehoods, especially outrageous in that the Kinsey data itself—for which Pomeroy was largely responsible—was fraudulently skewed by blatant population sampling biases, and the badgering and even bribing of its imprisoned and otherwise institutionalized subjects, which were not reported as such. Pomeroy later admitted the shortcomings of the Kinsey Report in his book Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research published shortly before this very meeting—which even so, he neglected to mention.

After Silverstein and Pomeroy presented to the Reference Committee, Robert Spitzer presented the “official position” of the Evelyn Hooker led, “NIMH Task Force on Homosexuality” to the APA’s Board of Trustees. According to Psychiatric News, it was “essentially upon the rationale of Dr. Spitzer’s presentation that the Board made its decision.” In short, Spitzer argued that:

1. “Exclusive Homosexuality” was a normal part of the human condition, a claim based on the now debunked Kinsey data.

2. Homosexuality did not meet the requirements of a psychiatric disorder since it “does not either regularly cause subjective distress or is regularly associated with some generalized impairment in social effectiveness or functioning [sic],” a claim which changed the definition of the term “disorder” for all psychiatry and all disorders.

3. Spitzer argued, based on Marcell T. Saghir and Eli Robin’s “Male and Female Homosexuality” that homosexuality was normal. (Their research—which was astoundingly shoddy—was roundly criticized by colleagues as the time, but no critique was addressed by the presenter or the committee.)

Although Spitzer did not say so then, in later correspondence he has said that another important component of the case was the work of Evelyn Hooker. The APA committee however failed to reference critical studies such as Saghir and Robin’s suicide studies, which indicated that homosexuality does cause “subjective distress” and that their study had found differences in the behavioral patterns and psychology of homosexuals as compared with all other men. As fraudulent as Hooker’s finding were, these differences would have complicated even her perceived findings.

Nonetheless, on December 15, 1973, following the advice of the APA’s new advisors, two pedophiles, Dr. Charles Silverstein and Wardell Pomeroy, two-thirds of the APA’s Board of Trustees (barely a quorum) capitulated to the demands of the radicals and adopted Spitzer’s resolution by voting to downgrade homosexuality from the status of an illness to the milder category of a “Sexual Orientation Disturbance,” with only two abstentions.

Thus, the seventh printing of the DSM in 1974 placed a special note that announced that the APA had voted to eliminate “Homosexuality” per se as a metal disorder and to substitute it with a new category entitled, “Sexual Orientation Disturbance.” The new entry reads as follows:

302.0 Sexual Orientation Disturbance [Homosexuality]

This is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward people of the same-sex and who are either disturbed by, in conflict with, or wish to change their sexual orientation. This diagnostic category is distinguished from homosexuality, which by itself does not constitute a psychiatric disorder. Homosexuality per se is one form of sexual behavior, and with other forms of sexual behavior which are not be themselves psychiatric disorders, are not listed in this nomenclature.

As mentioned, it became “disordered” for one to wish that the way one expresses his or her instincts be in accord with the physical organs that do the expressing, again, as though a fish who thinks itself a bird should be thought ill for hoping one day to be happy in the water. In the words of Ronald Bayer:

On a conceptual level oponants of the Board’s decision found it utterly astounding that “subjective distress” could provide a standard by which to determine the presence or absence of psychopathology. Indeed it was the absence of such discomfort that revealed the depths of pathology.

A pure political compromise, this peculiar category would last but a few years, before being renegotiated by a more sober APA leadership team. In a press release following the decision APA President Alfred Freedman,

…underscored the limited scientific meaning of the vote to delete homosexuality from DSM-II, while emphasizing its enormous social significance.

Dr. Freedman is right. This wasn’t a scientific decision it was a poitical move. As shown, the APA Board was stacked in the 1973 election due to sentiments about the Vietnam War, the black civil rights movement, and sympathy for homosexuals due to their stigmatized status in society. The man who was elected president of the APA during this time, President-elect John Spiegel was even a homosexual him self, of course he was still closeted at the time of his election. With a Board stacked by homosexual sympathizers, activists were given the tacit authority to terrorize opposing psychiatrists. An article appearing in Psychiatric News about this time recalls that pro-sodomy activists were beginning to speak of unyielding psychiatrists as “war criminals,” with obvious implications. Possibly in fear for their safety, and certainly wearied by constant harassment, two members of the Board simply abstained from voting.

The fact that the Board was influenced and intimidated is no secret. Pro-sodomy journalist Andrew Sullivan has written that in December of 1973 the APA, “…under intense political pressure…removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders…” The Advocate, talks of,

…what happened in 1973…referring to the widespread protests by the gay and lesbian community that led to the APA’s dropping homosexuality from the DSM.

Activist Mark Thompson writes,

Just before the first of the year, the American Psychiatric Association’s Board of Trustees declared we were no longer sick.

1974

After the December 15, 1973 APA vote to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM, many members became outraged at how politicized their profession had become. They felt that psychiatry (which was supposed to be a science) had been changed solely as a result of political pressure. For the first time in the “history of health care…a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than scientific evidence” and the dissenters feared that science would be defenseless against an endless wave of protests:

It now seems that if groups of people march and raise enough hell they can change anything in time…Will schizophrenia be next?

In response to the political decision that had been made under the guise of science a group of opposing psychiatrists led by Dr. Charles Socarides filed a petition for a referendum to reverse the action of the Board the very next day. They called for a full vote by the APA’s 17,905 members. Although the call for a full vote had the potential to further politicize the APA, which these members were opposed to, they felt that the scientific credibility of their discipline hung in the balance and that this was the only way to reverse the unscientific damage done to their profession.

Most homosexualists feared a full vote. The “National Gay Task Force” (NGTF) was prepared however. Someone on the inside, most likely Judd Marmor who was running a campaign for president at the time, provided them with the entire list of APA member addresses. With-out identifying itself as an organization the NGTLF sent a letter to every member on file urging each to vote to remove homosexuality from the DSM. The letter appeared to be from the APA Board of Trustees and had nothing to do with the scientific credibility of the move to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. Instead, the letter stated the following:

It would be a serious and potentially embarrassing step for our profession to vote down a decision which was taken after serious and extended consideration by the bodies within our organization designated to consider such matters.

On April 9, 1974, the results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members voted in the election. The results were as follows:

Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905

Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555

Number of members that “Abstained”: 367

Number of “No” votes -votes to keep Homosexuality in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810

Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove Homosexuality from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854

Bruce Voeller, the head of the NGTLF admits, “Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference.” Thus, a critically important letter ostensibly from its signers was actually from radical homosexual activists. In light of the facts how serious can the vote declaring homosexuality no loner a mental disorder be taken? The vote was not the result of any scientific breakthrough. It was the result of a political campaign. Catholic scholar Enrique Rueda agrees:

This vote was not the result of scientific analysis after years of painstaking research. Neither was it a purely objective choice following the accumulation of incontrovertible data. The very fact that the vote was taken reveals the nature of the process involved, since the existence of an orthodoxy in itself, contradicts the essence of science.

When activists publicly claim that the vote was a scientific decision they hide years of intimidation, deceit, internal lobbying and election and committee take-over’s. In pro-sodomy circles however, activists are remarkably candid about the reality of the vote. Pro-sodomy author Ronald Bayer remarks that the APA:

…had fallen victim to the disorder of a tumultuous era, when disruptive conflicts threatened to politicize every aspect of American life. A furious egalitarianism…had compelled psychiatrists to negotiate the pathological status of homosexuality with homosexuals themselves. The result was not a conclusion based upon an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.

Homosexual lovers Kay Lahusen and Barbara Gittings know what really happened. In the book Making History they are quite open about the reality.

Kay: “This was always more of a political decision than a medical decision.”

Barbara: “It never was a medical decision—and that’s why I think the action came so fast. After all, it was only three years from the time that feminists and gays first zapped the APA at a behavior therapy session to the time that the Board of Trustees voted in 1973 to approve removing homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. It was a political move.”

The APA was thoroughly intimidated. In 1974, after the APA’s vote, Gittings was interviewed by pro-sodomy movement historian Jonathan Ned Katz. Gittings brags, “That’s how far we’ve come in ten years. Now we even have the American Psychiatric Association running scared.”

1975

In 1975 The American Psychological Association—which is three times larger than the American Psychiatric Association— also got the message of intimidation when they caved to the demands of the radicals and pressure from the more authoritative Psychiatrists. In the book, The Long Road to Freedom the author explains,

January…The American Psychological Association and American Association for the Advancement of Science echoed the American Psychiatric Association in deeming homosexuality not an illness.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) publishes the scientific journal Science. Intimidation by homosexualists was over for them too:

“Under pressure from gay scientific groups, Science magazine banned anti-gay bias in its staff hiring and advertisement.”

In 1977, the National Association of Social Workers voted to follow suit, no longer would they recognize homosexuality as a mental disorder. Despite the capitulations, all was not well for homosexualists within the American Psychiatric Association in 1975.

1977

By 1977 some of the political pressure had subsided surrounding the issue of homosexuality and opinions began to shift once again, this time in a more sober direction. A survey conducted during this time by the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality found that 69 percent of psychiatrists disagreed with the votes to remove homosexuality from the DSM’s list of Mental Disorders.

These new findings suggested that the APA leadership no longer represented the majority opinion. Analysis of the first 2,500 responses to a poll of 10,000 psychiatrists found that 69 percent believed that homosexuality usually represented a pathological adaptation. Only 18 percent disagreed with this proposition. Sixty percent of the respondents asserted that homosexual men were less capable of “mature, loving, relationships” than their heterosexual counterparts. Finally 70 percent supported the view that the problems experienced by homosexuals were more often the result of “personal conflicts” than of stigmatization.

Thus, in 1977, a mere four years after the APA membership had voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM-II as a mental disorder an overwhelming majority of Psychiatrists conveyed to surveyors that they still considered homosexuality a mental disorder. Could the 1973 vote have been rigged? Could fraud have been involved? Given the homosexualist’s willingness to do almost anything to get their way, it is not something that can be totally ruled out. Harold Leif, the editor of Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, which conducted the study postulated that the earlier vote may have been affected by socio-political considerations rather than psychiatric theories.

The study was confusing for the public and embarrassing for the APA leadership. Shortly after its release Time magazine carried the headline: “Sick Again?” This survey provided the context in which the debates surrounding homosexuality would take place for DSM-III, set to be published in 1977.

The survey highlighted the fact that the arguments made by Dr. Charles Satinover and Dr. Irving Bieber in the 1973 debate turned out to have been far and away more persuasive for most psychiatrists. Robert Spitzer himself finally acknowledged the weaknesses of his own arguments. Dissatisfied with his own arguments justifying replacing homosexuality with the politically-correct category of “sexual orientation disturbance” in 1973, he began to formulate new reasons for his decision. Thus, instead of correcting himself and replacing the category of homosexuality as a mental illness within the DSM, he simply exchanged one set of weak arguments for its removal for another.

As noted, the weaknesses in Spitzer’s 1973 definition stemmed from the fact that “subjective distress” and the specific and very limited definition of “generalized social impairment of social functioning” were not adequate for including many other very obvious mental disorders. To do so would force psychiatrists to preclude sociopaths from the DSM III for example, who by their very definition don’t experience “subjective distress,” not to mention all the other sexual deviations, which most psychiatrists agreed ought to be included in the DSM III. Thus, Spitzer altered his own definition, the definition upon which the 1973 decision had been based, to include the phrase “inherent disadvantage” which was just a fancy way of saying that homosexuality should not be considered a psychiatric disorder per se because, “it did not preclude the possibility of an affectionate relationship between adult human partners.” Other sexual deviations, such as fetishism, voyeurism, etc. claimed Spitzer, were “disadvantageous.” Thus Spitzer exchanged one bogus argument for another, in an effort to keep homosexuality out of DSM III.

Although Spitzer knew that most psychiatrists wanted homosexuality back in the 1977 edition of the DSMI III, Spitzer held considerable power within the APA and used that power to seek a compromise to fend off full reintegration. He offered to replace his badly defined classification of “sexual orientation disturbance” with “homodysphilia.” He was attempting to placate the will of the majority with semantics, by merely shifting the terminology involved –a mere sleight of hand. Spitzer was surprised however to find that it was the homosexualists who reacted negatively to his new classification. Unlike “sexual orientation disturbance” which was vague about the disorder it was meant to classify, homodysphilia was too obviously associated with homosexuality. Thus, “Spitzer was threatened with another ‘period of militancy’ if he persisted in his course.” Spitzer responded in defense of his position, now called “dyshomophilia”:

The concept of dyshomophilia takes a middle position regarding the pathological status of homosexuality… I believe our current state of ignorance regarding this is a scientifically defensible position. I believe if we remove dyshomophylia… we could justifiably be accused of responding to political pressure.

Despite Spitzer’s response pedophiles Richard Green, Paul Gephard, and “Dr. H Anonymous” –John Money were able to successfully organize effective resistance to the term “dyshomophilia.” Spitzer thus acceded to a new and even more clunky term, “homosexual conflict disorder.”

Although the homosexualists were in a conflict over the precise term to introduce neither side wanted the fight to go public. Both sides recognized that public awareness about the infighting might lead the now much more sober APA to reverse its 1973 decision entirely and reclassify homosexuality per se as a mental disorder in the DSM III. Homosexualists Michael Mavroidis who was serving as a liaison between psychiatrists and “gay” activists at the time wrote a letter to Franklyn Kameny and the Mattachine society in order to urge them not to become militant again for tactical reasons:

I personally feel that it would be destructive both to the gay rights movement and to psychiatry for this issue to be publicly debated and voted on at this time. I think that the general public views official psychiatry as having decided that homosexuality per se is not a mental illness, and the risks of losing what the press would describe as a debate regarding homosexuality should forestall anyone from carrying this debate beyond the Task Force to the Assembly…or the APA general membership.

After more compromising about terminology the activists and Spitzer agreed the term ““ego-dystonic homosexuality” and defined it thusly:

A desire to acquire or increase heterosexual arousal so that heterosexual relations can be initiated or maintained and a sustained pattern of overt homosexual arousal that the individual explicitly complains is unwanted as a source of distress.

Although Spitzer was able to acquire support for this new terminology and definition from homosexualists many remained adamantly opposed to it. They argued correctly that if there is no corresponding mental disorder for those distressed about their heterosexual inclinations then homosexuality was still implicitly disordered as a corollary –as it is today (2012). One psychiatrist explicitly refused to include the corollary stating that, “he rejected the proposal for heterodysphilia, noting that the only heterosexuals he had met who were distressed by their sexual orientations were schizophrenics attempting to deny all sexuality.” Spitzer and those who voted for this curious new definition of a disorder just ignored the obvious logical corollary. The homosexualists believed it was a way Spitzer could preserve the priority of heterosexuality as preferable. Spitzer was committed to giving men with unwanted same-sex attraction who sought treatment help. He further believed that despite this new definitions obvious corollary that it could nevertheless pass off as a compromise and help to avoid a full replacement of homosexuality in the DSM-III. Thus in 1977, four years after homosexuality had been removed per se, the majority of psychiatrists within the APA still believed homosexuality is a mental disorder. In 1980 when DSM-III was published same-sex attraction was still classifiable under “ego-dystonic homosexuality” and anyone who sought help was encouraged to undergo treatment.

1986

Almost immediately after the 1977-78 conflict which resulted in a truce surrounding “ego-dystonic homosexuality” in the DSM-III, homosexualists began to push the envelope again. Activists wanted every reference to the word “homosexuality” within the DSM gone. In the words of Ronaled Bayer

The institutional stage for such a confrontation over the status of homosexuality in the nosology of psychiatry was set in May 1983 with the appointment of the Work Group to Revise DSM-III, chaired by Robert Spitzer…The mandate for the Work Group was to revise the criteria for disorders already on the manual and to add new clinical syndromes based on data accumulated since the publication of DSM-III. More than twenty-five advisory committees were established to assist the Work Group, including one on sexual dysfunctions.

Although the Work Group got started in 1983 the issue of whether or not to retain the category of “ego-dystonic homosexuality” did not emerge as an issue until 1985, when the chair of the Committee on Lesbian and Gay Concerns of the American Psychological Association, Alan K. Malyon wrote a letter to Robert Spitzer advocating for the removal of ego-dystonic homosexuality from the DSM-III. Maylon correctly viewed the category as a lasting allegiance to the view that homosexuality is a mental disorder. After Maylon’s letter others followed suit, most arguing that the APA’s categorization still contributed to societal stigmatization against homosexuality. Most notably, homosexualist psychiatrist Robert Cabaj, president of the Association of Gay, Lesbian Psychiatrists was very specific in outlining the ways in which the refusal to delete ego-dystonic homosexuality would contribute to societal stigmatization.

Needless to say with the AIDS crisis and the growing attempts by the military and insurance companies to screen out gay people, the diagnosis has very frightening potential for abuse.

…to be continued…

Homosexual Health Statistics

2012-01-04T23:58:00.000-08:00

This is a really old, unedited article that I wrote that I am now reworking and incorporating into my book. Disregard typos, etc. and take the information for what it is worth.

SCIENCE IS IMMUNE TO POLITICAL IDEOLOGY. POLITICAL IDEOLOGY IS IMMUNE TO SCIENCE.

Sperm is an immuno-suppressant, so when sperm is deposited into the vagina, an immuno-suppressant environment is created. This environment, in which the immune system is suppressed, allows sperm to enter into the woman’s body without being attacked by her immune system.

When sperm is deposited into the rectum (a place where the skin is thin and easily torn) the sperm will likewise suppress the immune system in the rectum. Sperm, therefore, support, and encourage the spread of disease in the rectum. It is as if for an instance while the sperm suppress the immune system the diseases are given a free V.I.P. pass into the body.

Furthermore, condemns don't change the fact that the skin in the rectum is thin and easily torn. When open soars come into contact with fecal matter the result is nothing less than a parade of infections and/or diseases. The pervasive nature inherent in the act of anal intercourse causes the cracking and fissuring of tissues. The cracked skin becomes an open soar then comes into contact with fecal matter, ulcers, boils, abscesses and other infections can then occur in the skin of the surrounding tissue.

Some of the trauma induced problems caused by anal sex include, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, objects lodged in the rectum, recto sigmoid tears, allergic proctitus, penile edema, chemical sinusitis and inhaled nitrate burns. These pestilences not only drastically reduce the lifespan of the average homosexual but they sharply erode their quality of life as well.26

In a book entitled “Gay Sex, author Troy Perry explains how one frequent homosexual practice called fisting can actually cause death, “the big danger lies in the possibility that your rectal wall will be torn. In the event of a tear you must get prompt medical attention. Without it fecal matter will leak into the rest of your body, resulting in peritonitis and painful death.” (Leather folk, ed. By Mark Thompson; Boston: Alyson, 1991, pg 249)

The fact that the skin in the rectum is so fragile coupled with the fact that sperm seriously suppress the immune system clearly supports the conclusion that anal sex, condemn or not, with a male or female, is always going to be a dangerously efficient way of transmitting any sexually transmitted infection, parasite, and, or disease.

AN AGGROGATED ANALYSIS OF HOMOSEXUAL HEALTH

‘Health is not valued until sickness comes’

-Dr Thomas Fuller-

The consequences associated with homosexual behavior are profound; in 1996 the American Psychiatric Association found that 3 out of every 10 men who begin engaging in homosexual behavior at 20 will be dead mostly due to sexually transmitted diseases by their 30th birthday.

According to the Centers for Disease Control; the risk of being infected with HIV-AIDS is 1000 times greater for a homosexual man than it is for a heterosexual man. Homosexuals only make up between 1 and 3 percent of the U.S. population but, a shockingly disproportionate 67% of all men and 54% of all people living with HIV-AIDS in the United States are homosexual males. Something is seriously wrong when 1 to 3 percent of our population carry 54% of all the HIV infections. Young homosexual males, between the ages of 15 and 19 are at an equally extreme risk for HIV, but, how are these young boys contracting these diseases?

According to an article which appeared on page 41 of the March 24^th 1992 edition of the homosexual magazine, The Advocate, they are contracting the diseases from older gay men. The article states, “And our community, the gay and lesbian community--and I particularly fault gay men here--has done nothing to try and help out youth. Gay men view these boys as recreational toys to be used. I have heard many stories of HIV positive men having sex with boys. They don’t think it matters.” (The Advocate, 3-24-92 Pg.41) One of these boys is David Kamens, who tells his own story of being expoited and disease infected.

“David Kamens’s story is tragic--not because he was diagnosed with AIDS at 16 but because it didn’t have to happen. ‘I think I always felt different,’ says Kamens…’The majority of people under 20 living with HIV in this country are gay,’ says Kamens. ‘But there is almost a total lack of support for gay and lesbian kids, and that is helping to spread AIDS among them, not stop it.” (The Advocate, 3-24-92 Pg.42)

He began going to gay bars at 14 and having unprotected casual sex with older men. At 16, he got sick and was diagnosed with AIDS. For the last four years AZT, ddC, ddI, and a variety of other drugs have been keeping him alive. Recently he has gotten well enough to begin dancing again.” But why did Kamens engage in this dangerous behavior with adult gay men? “A lot of the time I was having sex, what I really wanted was love, to be cared for, to belong. And I don’t see, from what other kids tell me, that much has changed.” (The Advocate, 3-24-92 Pg.42) (AIDS is now spreading in the hetero community more, stuff from 96 may be out of date)

HPV or the Human Papilloma Virus is a collection of more than seventy types of viruses that can cause warts or papillomas. More than 20 types of HPV are incurable. This virus which produces anal warts often leads to anal cancer. In fact, at the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that ‘most instances of anal cancer are caused by a cancer causing strain of HPV and acquired through receptive anal intercourse’.

Like a nearly universal plague, HPV infects over 90% of HIV-positive homosexual men and 65% of HIV-negative homosexual men*. Men who have sex with men are drowning in pathogens; my purpose here is to throw them a life line by presenting the Truth of things, whether or not they grab that life line is up to them.

Some say that homosexual behavior is normal, healthy and acceptable; however, the facts conflict and adamantly disagree. According to the Centers for Disease Control and the American Journal of Public Health, the risk of developing anal cancer soars for men who engage in homosexual behavior by an astounding 4000 percent and then the risk explodes by 8000 percent for those who are HIV positive. Pro-homosexual activists must not be aware of the perilous consequences associated with homosexual behavior; if they knew, why would they wish to embolden men to engage in such unsafe behavior.

We demonstrate respect for our friends and family when we ask them to, ‘drive safely’; when we express to them that we care about their well-being. That is how to demonstrate respect. Laissez-faire acceptance of behaviors that are statistically, more dangerous than base jumping off of short buildings does not show respect at all, it reveals neglect; laissez-faire acceptance shows that a person could care less.

Gonorrhea is an inflammatory disease usually found in the genital tract,* but, recently, it has been found at record levels in both the rectum and in the throat. Gonorrhea can be easily treated with antibiotics however, according to the Centers for Disease Control 50 percent of those infected with Gonorrhea never show any signs or symptoms. Therein lies the problem, if left untreated Gonorrhea can have severe permanent consequences, including permanent damage to the rectum, damage to the urethra and infertility.

According to the Centers for Disease Control 77 percent of men who engage in homosexual behavior either have, or have had Gonorrhea. If you’re thinking about accepting a friend or family member’s homosexual behavior, I would urge you to speak with them about these dangers before it is too late.

Recently Gonorrhea has also been found at record levels in the throat, this is known as pharyngeal gonorrhea. Pharyngeal gonorrhea is acquired through oral sex with an infected partner.

The Canadian Medical Association recently found that homosexuals are 3.7 times more likely to acquire Pharyngeal (throat) Gonorrhea than heterosexuals. This warning was published in the Journal of Clinical Pathology as well, this journal put it another way, 15.2 percent of homosexuals in England are infected with Pharyngeal (throat) gonorrhea; compared with just 4.1 percent of all other men.

In 1989, those looming figures, Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen were dabbling with deception again when they published yet another blueprint for propaganda entitled, ‘After the Ball’. In this updated homosexual manifesto they illustrated how aware they were of what they called the “unseemly” sides of homosexual behavior when they wrote, “the types of sexual activities and their consequences will have to be suppressed in order to gain acceptance.”* homo agenda- Statements like that, which attempt to hide the serious consequences of homosexual behavior from the public show that evil really does exist in this world. The Forward of Aldous Huxley’s, Brave New World happens to describe the very tactic Kirk and Madsen call on all homosexualists to use, Huxley writes:

“The greatest forms of propaganda have been accomplished, not by doing something, but by refraining from doing. Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain subjects, by lowering what Mr. Churchill calls an ‘Iron Curtain’ between the masses and such facts or arguments as the local political bosses regard as undesirable, totalitarian propagandists have influenced opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most eloquent denunciations, the most compelling of logical rebuttals.” Kirk and Madsen have indeed instructed homosexualists to lower what Mr. Churchill called the Iron Curtain in between the consequences associated with homosexual behavior and the masses. Metaphorically speaking, it is as if Kirk and Madsen have kept quiet and watched patiently as person after person sleepwalks into the mine fields, or, it as if they are leading the sheep to their slaughter, they are luring the moths into the flame. What’s worse, radical homosexualists have continually attempted to silence any homosexual who wishes to warn others of these perilous consequences.

For example, Award winning homosexual writer Randy Shilts explained how angrily the homosexual community reacted in “And the Band Played On” when he and others told male homosexuals that their promiscuous, unhealthy lifestyle was to blame for the AIDS epidemic in America. “How when something is so horrible you don’t want to believe it, you want to put it out of your mind and insist that it isn’t true, and how you hate the person who says it is (true).” (And the Band Played On, by Randy Shilts; New York: Penguin Books, 1988 p.182)

Medical literature also shows that men who engage in homosexual behavior are at an especially high risk for contracting syphilis. Syphilis like gonorrhea may not expose itself via symptoms until it is too late. Syphilis is a venereal disease that, if left untreated can spread throughout the body over time, causing heart abnormalities, mental disorders, blindness and even death. According to the Centers for Disease Control transmission of the disease occurs during vaginal, anal and oral intercourse.*

In 1991 the Archives of Internal Medicine reported a study which showed that, "Homosexually active men are significantly more likely to report syphilis than heterosexual men."16²⁵ And according to a study conducted by the British Co-operative Clinical Group and reported by the Archives of Internal Medicine, men who practice homosexual behavior are 10 times more likely to acquire syphilis than are men who engage in heterosexual conduct.* Additionally there is a 2 to 5 fold increase of acquiring an HIV infection when Syphilis is present. Ignore a fact, and that fact will be your master.

Hepatitis A is a liver disease caused by the hepatitis A virus (HAV). Hepatitis A usually causes temporary HYPERLINK "http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw124783" \l "#" liver inflammation. According to the International Journal of Epidemiology and the Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report published by the CDC; hepatitis outbreaks have been a continuous and serious problem for men who engage in homosexual behavior worldwide.

Hepatitis B is a disease caused by a virus that attacks the liver, this virus causes inflammation and leads to liver cancer, liver failure and death; there is a vaccine for hepatitis B however it is not without strong possible side effects of its own. Carmen Vasquez, coordinator of lesbian and gay health services in the San Francisco Department of Health states: “We also found a big increase in Hepatitis B,” “Over 26% of the boys had it.” (The Advocate, 3-24-92, pg. 41) According to the American Journal of Public Health Hepatitis B is 5 times more prevalent among men who engage in homosexual behavior than it is among all other men.

Ideologues like Kirk and Madsen would probably tell you to be more accepting of the consequential behaviors which lead men to these statistics; they would tell you not to impose your personal values on others, they would demand tolerance. They would tell you to stand back and do nothing… as another generation obliviously passes away, or as another saying goes: all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing’.

Homosexual sodomy is so dangerous that it now has a category of illnesses named after it. Enter ‘Gay Bowel Syndrome’, which according to the Journal of the American Medical Association includes proctitus, proctocolitus, and enteritis- all sexually transmitted gastrointestinal syndromes.

Many of the bacterial and protozoan pathogens that cause Gay Bowel Syndrome are found in feces and transmitted into the digestive system orally. According to the Sexually Transmitted Disease Information Center of the Journal of the American Medical Association, enteritis occurs among those who practice oral-anal (mouth to rectum) sexual intercourse, while proctitus and proctocolitus are acquired through anal intercourse. They are all conditions in which the rectum and colon become inflamed; these pathogens cause rectal pain, rectal spasms and bloody discharge.

Men who engage in homosexual behavior have also historically and statistically been more vulnerable than heterosexual men are to other sexually transmitted diseases like

Herpes simplex- HYPERLINK "http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw270613" \l "#" Genital herpes is a viral infection caused by the HYPERLINK "http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw270613" \l "#" herpes simplex virus (HSV). It is a HYPERLINK "http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw270613" \l "#" sexually transmitted disease that may cause skin blisters and sores in the genital area, but often causes no visible symptoms. It is possible to get genital herpes through sexual contact with an infected person even if he or she has no symptoms.

HYPERLINK "http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw270613" http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw270613

Genital warts- are skin growths in the groin, genital, or anal areas. They are considered a sexually transmitted disease because they are caused by a virus that can be spread by sexual contact. HYPERLINK "http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw105401" http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw105401

Pubic lice- These lice are wingless insects with six legs and a square body. They look like sea crabs, which is why they are often referred to as "the crabs." The lice cling to pubic hair and feed on blood. The female of the species lays about 50 eggs, called nits, and attaches them to the base of a hair strand. The average life-span is 25 to 30 days.

HYPERLINK "http://health.yahoo.com/centers/sexual_health/00019305" http://health.yahoo.com/centers/sexual_health/00019305

Scabies- Scabies is a very itchy skin condition caused by tiny HYPERLINK "http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw171811" \l "#" mites that burrow into the outer layers of the skin. The most common form of scabies is called papular scabies. See an illustration of HYPERLINK "http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw171811" \l "#" scabies. Scabies causes severe itching that is usually worse at night.http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/hw171811

Depending on the city, 39-59% men who practice homosexuality are also infected with nightmarish intestinal parasites which are usually only found in third world countries.25 Men who engage in homosexual behavior are more vulnerable to these intestinal parasites-

Shigella species- causes diarrhea, fever, nausea, and cramps,

Campylobacter jejuni- also causes diarrhea, fever, nausea, and cramps,

Flagella Lamblia- a flagellate protozoan which is also disease characterized by diarrhea,

The Cytomegalovirus- which can cause serious symptoms, including fever, pneumonitis rash, retinitis, and mononucleosis.

Notes-to be continued....

Worms-

Flukes-

Amoebae-

Furthermore, violence among gay men is twice as high as violence in the heterosexual population.⁶⁸

other Mental Issues

The AIDS Epidemic

2011-12-05T01:00:00.000-08:00

While homosexualists were busy insisting that psychiatry portray their lifestyle as healthy, natural and normal a deadly virus was passing through communities of homosexual men all across the nation. Little more than a decade would pass before tens of thousands of these men would be dead or dying of a mysterious new disease.

It began in the winter of 1981, when Dr. Michael Gottlieb, a physician specializing in immunology at UCLA began to notice strange infections striking previously healthy young men. In a 90 day period Dr. Gottlieb treated four patients for a very rare lung infection called Pneumocystic Carinii Pneumonia (PCP). Prior to this PCP had been observed almost exclusively in frail cancer patients and transplant recipients, both groups characterized by weakened immune systems highly vulnerable to opportunistic infections. All four of Dr. Gottlieb’s PCP patients were young homosexual men, three of them with profoundly promiscuous sexual histories.

Dr. Gottlieb immediately notified the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and in June of 1981 the CDC issued its first report on the strange new ailment. Around this time the CDC began to hear from doctors in New York City and San Francisco. PCP had begun to appear in young men in these cities. In addition to PCP, Dr.’s found that their young patients were infected with various other pathogens, including:

Herpes simplex: a venereal disease, in these cases infecting the mouth, anus, and genitals, and running for months at a time

Kaposi’s Sarcoma: (KS) a rare form of skin cancer previously observed only in elderly men

Candida albicans: a fungus that painfully attacks the mouth and throat, causing cheesy white deposits, making it difficult to eat or speak

Toxoplasmosis gondii: an exotic bug seen more often in animals that attacks the central nervous system, causing memory loss and disorientation

Cryptosporidium: a protozoan causing unrelenting watery diarrhea

“Gay” Bowell Syndrome: (giardiases) the collective name given to a variety of intestinal parasites commonly found in digestive tracts of promiscuous homosexuals

Each of the men who suffered from the mysterious illness also experienced extreme weight loss, persistent fever, diarrhea, night sweats, dry cough, mental deterioration, and coma. The common thread linking all of the men was the fact that they each had a nearly total wipe out of their helper T-cells, a class of white blood cells that play a critical role in orchestrating the body’s immune defenses. Most of these men died within 18 months of diagnosis.

By the end of the summer in 1981 nearly a hundred cases of this deadly new disease had been reported in homosexual males in New York and California. The mysterious illness began to be referred to as GRID, “gay-related immune disorder” since all of the men diagnosed were male homosexuals. Most were extremely promiscuous, reporting hundreds, in some cases more than a thousand lifetime sex partners and long histories of other venereal diseases.

Some medical experts believed that homosexual men would naturally curb risky sexual behavior due to the clear and growing danger GRID posed. They couldn’t have been more wrong. Homosexuals indeed mobilized to attack GRID, but their focus was not on the disease itself, instead their focus was to ensure that the disease would not be perceived by either the medical profession or public as in any way directly related to their sexualway of life. What should have been the homosexualist’s primary concern, protection from illness, became a third priority. Their second priority became keeping the image of “gays” from being attached to physical and mental sickness. Their first priority became keeping their hyper-sexual lifestyle moving in the direction of being perceived as a healthy, natural, and normal alternative:

We have an agenda to create a society in which homosexuality is regarded as healthy, natural, and normal. To me that is the most important agenda item.

Thus, the first move by homosexualists was to eliminate the name of the condition. Since under the right conditions the virus was transmittable to anyone, pressure was swiftly applied to rename “gay-related immune disorder” (GRID), to Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). The fact that medical literature did and still does speak of homosexuality as the major risk factor for AIDS quickly became an unspeakable truth.

Homosexualists mobilized their new influence within the American Psychiatric Association to their advantage to this end. In an article entitled, Psychological Factors Generate HIV Resurgence in Young Gay Men, E.L. Goldman claims that, “We’ve ‘homosexualized’ AIDS and ‘AIDS-ified’ homosexuality,” –as though “We’ve” done it, and the connection is not a self-evident feature of the condition itself.

During this time the CDC began to see cases of AIDS striking outside the male homosexual population. Three new groups emerged as “at risk” for contracting AIDS- hemophiliacs, intravenous drug users, and recent Haitian immigrants, prompting some to dub AIDS the “4-H” disease (homosexuals, heroin addicts, Haitians, and hemophiliacs).

The outbreak among hemophiliacs strongly suggested that AIDS could be transmitted through blood. Hemophiliacs are exposed to the blood of hundreds of donors each year through transfusions of blood and blood products. This new development implied that the nation’s blood supply might be contaminated with the causative agent of AIDS. Blood banks began to discourage donations by individuals from the four identified risk groups. It is within this context that certain threats of blood terrorism emerged and struck Americans with horror.

Robert Schwab, for example, president of the “Texas Human Rights Foundation” who was himself dying of AIDS, was quoted as follows in the Dallas Gay News on May 20, 1983:

There has come the idea that if research money is not forthcoming at a certain level by a certain date…all gay males should give blood…If it takes threatening and perhaps giving blood to get us the money…whatever action is required to get national attention is valid. If that includes blood terrorism, so be it.

Dr. John Dwyer, the former Chief of Immunology at Yale-New Haven Hospital has treated more than 400 AIDS patients. He stated at the time that,

Every now and then there are people who say, “I know I am going to die and I’m going to take as many people with me as I can.”

In 1985, after a rash of people received HIV infections via blood transfusions the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) instituted a rule that homosexual men may no longer be blood donors.

Similarly, during this time a homosexual prostitute diagnosed with AIDS in Houston, Texas stated publicly that he would go back to plying his trade as soon as he was released from the hospital. Police and public health officials were a loss as to how to prevent him from disseminating the disease. According to legal regulations, it was necessary to observe him in a high risk act with a customer before he could be restrained. Around this time Texas public health officials sent letters to AIDS victims warning them to refrain from sexual activity or face felony charges under an existing disease prevention statute.

The September 23, 1985 issue of Time reported a similar situation in Alameda County, California. A male homosexual came down with AIDS. He was treated several times at the county public health clinic for gonorrhea. He self-reported having sexual relations with three to five partners a week without informing them of his condition. Dr. Robert Benjamin of the county Bureau of Communicable Diseases called him, “a sociopath.” “There are people like him everywhere,” Benjamin said.

A study presented July 13, 2000, at the XIII International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, confirmed Dr. Benjamin’s claim. Researchers disclosed that significant numbers of homosexual men with HIV “continue to engage in unprotected sex with people who have no idea they could be contracting HIV…” The researchers continued, “16 percent of gay men included in a nationwide sample of 1,397 HIV-positive people receiving medical care reported having at least one episode of unprotected sex with an unaware partner in the last six months.” Localized surveys were even more disconcerting. A study of HIV positive bisexual men in Los Angeles “found that 54.5 percent failed to disclose their [positive] infection status to sex partners. Thirty-one percent reported having unprotected sex.”

Reports like these have poured in all over America for years, all the while groups of radical homo-fascists have emerged across America, such as the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT-UP) and the even more radical Queer Nation. While these groups were emerging to fight the “right” to engage in inhibited, compulsive sexual activity despite their serostatus, the medical community was releasing heartbreaking estimates that as many as, “2 to 3 million people may have been infected” with what at the time was referred to as pre-AIDS, or ARC, a phase of the disease now encompassed by the acronym “HIV.”

Scientists estimated that 73% of ARC carriers were male homosexuals, 17% were intravenous drug users, 3% blood transfusion recipients, 1% heterosexuals, and 6% no identifiable risk. It should be noted that 8 to 10% of AIDS victims are intravenous drug users and homosexual. Since nearly all transfusion related AIDS cases originated with “gay” blood (drug users are forbidden from donating) homosexuals accounted for just fewer than 90% of all AIDS cases during this time. They only account for 1% to 3% of the total U.S. population.

The lifestyle of homosexual male’s if of particular interest here because it was and continues to serve as the chief reason for the spread of AIDS in America. In October of 1982 Harper’s Magazine published an interview of one Dan Bradley, a man who had recently resigned as President of the government funded Legal Service Corporation. Bradley was a person of interest because he had been the highest ranking federal official to publicly declare his homosexuality. After “coming out of the closet” Bradley began a new career as a spokesman for the Gay Rights National Lobby. The forty-something year old influential Washington D.C. attorney’s life-story as a closeted homosexual provided America with the vivid glimpse of the “gay” lifestyle that had resulted in the AIDS epidemic, which has only grown larger since this time. The article was entitled, “Closets of Power.”

The story of Dan Bradley’s sexual experiences is a tale of incredible squalor and depravity. Bradley was a high-class homosexual. He was no pimp or street hustler, but an educated, upper-class professional who moved about in the highest circles of power and influence in the nation’s capital.

The Harper’s article describes Bradley’s first homosexual experience, a ten-second affair in the men’s restroom of a Philadelphia hotel in 1968. He was in Philadelphia for a conference when he was propositioned by a young street hustler in blue jeans and a T-shirt to engage in oral sex for the modest fee of five dollars. Bradley accepted the offer.

In 1969 Bradley landed a job setting up a new Legal Services program in the Virgin Islands. While wondering one day on the white sand beaches of San Juan, Puerto Rico he came across a section of beach where several hundred men were packed closely together, said Bradley, “They all had their slinky little bathing suits and their effeminate mannerisms. Bradley ended up in bed with a sunbather who introduced himself vaguely as Tom.

By 1970 Bradley had been promoted to director of Legal Services for the southern states, based in Atlanta. Sitting in a gay bar one night, Bradley found himself face-to-face with one of his fraternity brothers from Mercer University. The frat brother boasted that he knew all the gay bars from Key West to Provincetown. He later introduced Bradley to a group of ten closeted gay professionals who got together every weekend. One would cook dinner for the rest, after which they would go cruising for sex at one or more gay bars. Bradley became part of the group, but eventually returned to his solitary ways.

Soon Bradley made an exciting discovery: the baths. While in Miami to speak at the local bar association, Bradley worked up the courage to visit one of the gay baths he had read so much about. It didn’t take him long to realize that the place was designed to facilitate anonymous sex. As Bradley tells it, “I must have had sex with ten different guys that first night. I was like a kid in a candy store.” The bath house franchise that operated the baths in Miami owned outlets in 37 American cities. Bradley managed to visit most of them, he says.

While visiting New York City for a bar association conference, Bradley went to see the musical Hair. Bradley became infatuated with one of the actors and managed to arrange a rendezvous in Washington. They had a three day spree together, during which time Bradley completed his “gay-education.” Bradley had a hundred questions about the “Hanky Code” printed in his gay bar guide. The color and location of a man’s handkerchief signals his sexual preferences to other men in a “cruiser bar.” For instance, a dark blue hankie on the left indicates a desire to give anal sex; on the right to “receive” it. Maroon on the right wants to receive an enema; yellow on the left wants to urinate in someone’s face.

Bradley’s next promotion brought him back to Washington D.C. as the special assistant to the national Legal Services program. He immersed himself in his work, with only an occasional trip to visit Philadelphia’s “Spartan Baths.” During this time he also began seeing his fifth psychiatrist (the closeted ex-lover of psychiatrist number four) after an unexplainable fit of hysterical crying at his Washington D.C. office.

By 1979 Bradley climbed to the top of the Legal Services Corp. and spent his first few months as President lobbying a $321 million appropriation bill through Congress. He spent his nights cruising the gay bars and attending all-gay cocktail parties in Georgetown. Bradley came to know at least a score of homosexual Congressmen, in addition to numerous gay White House aids, lobbyists, military men, and other government employees. Some of the cocktail parties turned out to be orgies, including one where Bradley awoke afterwards in bed with a lawyer from the Federal Department of Justice.

In May of 1981 Bradley began an affair with a 25-year-old construction worker whose father was a Secret Service agent on White House detail. Bradley and his new lover lived together as a couple. Within a few months, Bradley’s passion for the young man had cooled: “I began to realize that we had nothing in common except love, and we couldn’t stay in bed and be in love 24 hours a day.”

Dan Bradley quite his legal career early to become a popular speaker on the “gay” lecture circuit until he died of AIDS in 1988. He was 47 years old. His funeral service was held on a Sunday at 2 P.M. at the Smith, Steele Meadows Funeral Home in Manchester, GA.

As stated, the significance of Dan Bradley’s sordid story lies in his upper-class status as a highly-educated professional. But is it really fair to say that Bradley’s lifestyle is typical of the upper crust of the “gay community” as well as the lower? Or is Bradley a mere aberration, a schizoid product of life “in the closet.” The unvarnished truth is that Dan Bradley is no more depraved and promiscuous than the average “gay.” In fact, Bradley’s sexual behavior is somewhat restrained compared to many of his “gay” brothers and sisters.

A study of male and female homosexuality just before this time, in 1978, conducted by two of the homosexualist community’s favorite psychiatrists of human sexuality, A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, found that 43% of white male homosexuals had sex with five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners. Additionally, a study conducted by M. Saghir and E. Robins in 1973 entitled Male and Female Homosexuality found that only 2.7 percent of older homosexuals had only one sexual partner in their lifetime.

Similarly, a study of 2,583 older homosexuals conducted twenty years later (1997) by Paul Van de Ven et al. published in the pro-homosexual Journal of Sex Research found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners ever was 101-500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. Coincidentally and shockingly, another 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having more than 1,000 lifetime sexual partners. Homosexual’s remained incredibly promiscuous despite the threat of AIDS. This promiscuity fueled HIV-AIDS as well as other epidemics, resulting in hundreds of thousands of infections and deaths.

STD’s Almost Universal among “Gay” Men

STD’s are almost universal in the homosexual community. According to the homosexual newspaper Washington Blade,

A San Francisco study of Gay and bisexual men revealed that HPV infection was almost universal among HIV-positive men, and that 60 percent of HIV-negative men carried HPV.

At the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that,

Most incidents of anal cancer are caused by a cancer-causing strain of HPV through receptive anal intercourse. HPV infects over 90 percent of HIV-positive gay men and 65 percent of HIV negative gay men, according to a number of recent studies.

Dr. Joel Palefsky, a leading expert in the field of anal cancer, reports that while the incidence of anal cancer in the United States is only 0.9/100,000, that number sours to 35/100,000 for homosexuals. That rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive. Dr. Grulich calls “the rising rates of anal cancer the next great health threat to homosexual men.”

to be continued...

Ann Coulter Beats Andrew Breitbart in "Gay" Butt Kissing Contest!

2011-08-24T23:26:00.000-07:00

In an August 10 article appearing on the front page of OneNewsNow.com the world learned that Ann Coulter –the “Queen of Conservatism”– was one-upping Andrew Breitbart and Grover Norquist in their “gay” butt-kissing contest by accepting a new position as Honorary Chair of the pro-sodomy organization GOProud. Said Coulter about her new position:

I am honored to serve in this capacity on GOProud’s Advisory Council, and look forward to being the Queen of Fabulous.

If GOProud advisory board member and Gay-Stream Media (GSM) mogul Andrew Breitbart were any happier about this turn-of-events he’d be “gay”!

Shortly after appointing their new Honorary Chair, GOProud declared Ann Coulter a “Gay Icon.” No folks, you’re not reading an Onion article.

Ann Coulter has traded her Conservative crown in for a “gay” tiara. Now this formerly-closeted social-liberal is in the public bathroom stall with the “gays” and her credibility with Conservatives is going down the toilette faster than Larry Craig can knock three-times –or DID activist Andrew Breitbart can find out that nobody cares that he’s changing his political affiliation, again! Well, he isn't as bad as Mr. Swindle yet -but he's gettin there!

Due to the controversy generated by Coulter’s move some young activists are asking themselves if “gays” can be a part of the Republican Party?

The answer to the question of course is no. No, Ann, they can’t. What part of “Party of No” don’t YOU understand?

I am not arbitrarily banning self-identified “gays” or pro-“gay” activists from membership in the Conservative movement. Nor am I a "nasty bigot," of course. I am simply explicating a tenet of Conservatism. Just ask Mr. Conservative himself.

Ronald Reagan on the relationship between the government and homosexuality:

We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.

Ronald Reagan on “gays” and HIV/AIDS:

Maybe the Lord brought down this plague [because] illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments.

Ronald Reagan’s hand-picked Supreme Court appointees Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist rightly upheld anti-sodomy statutes in Bowers v Hardwick.

Conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr. felt the same way. When left-wing activist Gore Vidal called him a crypto-Nazi, he replied stridently:

Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your goddamn face, and you will stay plastered.

Buckley later apologized to Vidal for his stridency but not before making his position on the unnatural vice clear:

…the man who in his essays proclaims the normalcy of his affliction [i.e., homosexuality], and in his art the desirability of it, is not to be confused with the man who bears his sorrow quietly. The addict is to be pitied and even respected, not the pusher.

GOProud, the pro-sodomy organization which Ann Coulter now honorarily chairs, is an organizational manifestation of what Mr. Buckley referred to as “the pusher.”

GOProud’s mission statement on its website proclaims, “GOProud represents gay conservatives and their allies. GOProud is committed to a traditional conservative agenda that emphiasizes limited government, individual liberty, free markets and a confident foreign policy at the federal level.”

However, in a moment of candor last August, GoProud co-founder Christopher Barron tweeted about the organization’s true mission:

We are a gay organization, we only work on gay issues, we have never claimed otherwise. My God people.

The aforementioned tweet was posted at 4:04 p.m. on Aug. 4, 2010 by Christopher Barron -the organizations founder.

GOProud’s advisory board member Andrew Breitbart seems to agree with Reagan and Buckley. He implicitly acknowledged that sodomy is not a Conservative tenet 25 minutes into an interview on C-SPAN last October when he stated that he is not Conservative or even libertarian, but “libertine on issues of consensual behavior among adults.”

Conservatism has grown in recent years, not only due to national frustration about the economy and Obama’s socialist health-care plan, but also due to the hard work of a lot of Conservative organizations and activists. This is a good thing, and the entire movement might be more united if it weren’t for the controversy and divisiveness brought about almost single handedly by GOProud.

Although the Conservatism which animates the Republican Party has no rigid ideological dogmata, it isn’t in essence populism either. Conservatism ascendant, I suppose we now need an objective standard by which to determine when a group is legitimate. I propose the following simple measure:

One must not insert an issue contrary to conservatism’s core tenets into one’s core organizational structure or core personal political identity, if one expects to be considered “Conservative.”

Conservative intellectual Floyd Brown summarizes those core tenets thusly:

The conservative movement as envisioned by Frank Meyer is a coalition between economic conservatives, social conservatives and defense and foreign policy conservatives. GOProud’s participation…undermines the coalition envisioned by Meyer, the philosopher at National Review that developed the framework on which the modern American conservative movement was built.

Ann Coulter, renounce your affiliation with GOProud, stop contributing to the "born gay" hoax, and stop using individuals with Same-Sex Attraction Disorder (SSAD) as fodder for the multi-cult (aka cultural-marxists), and third-wave feminists, or prepare to be divorced from Conservatism, and Christianity for that matter. Oh by the way, Francios A. Houle says "Hi!" He says you're welcome back in Ottawa again. Congrats! I guess I'm the one banned now. This is a zero-sum game. If you keep on the course you're on, you lose.

By Ryan Sorba

(all plays on Ann Coulter jokes include a hyper-link to their original source and context)

David Swindle

2011-05-11T17:21:00.000-07:00

By Ryan Sorba

Note: This is Part III of a three-part debate on whether homosexuality is compatible with conservatism. Part I can be read here and Part II here.

In my first two rounds of debate at NewsReal with editor David Swindle on the subject of “gays” and conservatism, he called me a “totalitarian,” a “neo-communist,” a “radical Islamist,” and more.

Welcome to David Horowitz’s NewsReal!

David’s cuss-out session continued undisturbed in intensity throughout the debate. He slandered conservatives who refuse to agree that the “gay” agenda is a conservative one as “stupid,” “bigots,” “liars,” “cheaters,” and “theocrats.”

Before David’s meltdown was over he referred to the natural law upon which the United States is built as “malarkey,” declared that he was “banning” me from NewsReal and urged others to do the same.

David’s inclination to censure political opponents rather than debate them remind me of the time Francois A. Houle censured Ann Coulter. Ann explains:

Francois A. Houle, the Provost of the University of Ottawa wrote me in advance of my visit to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.

I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn't use, but I take it I'm not supposed to say, "F--- you, Francois."

Upon reading Francois' letter, I suddenly realized that I had just been the victim of a hate crime! And it was committed by Francois A. Houle –French, for Frank A. Hole.

One need not feel badly for Ann or me. David and A. Houle are the real victims. Both men are cowards. It must be awful to live in such terror of the truth that a man feels his only way out is to slam the door on open debate –to choose to live in darkness.

So much for David Horowitz’s, “Students for Academic Freedom!”

One might think David would exercise more restraint before “banning” people from NewsReal. After all Horowitz has been banned from speaking at St. Louis University by Scott Smith, the Dean of Student Life, twice! In the 1990’s his anti-reparation ads were banned from newspapers across America.

What would compel David to reduce himself to the status of St. Louis University’s Scott Smith –an American “A. Houle?”

David’s ostensible reasons for banning me are based in his own accusations, not reality. David claims I, “lied three times,” “cheated in a card game" and, “took a dump on the table in front of him after lunch” –the last accusation arises from his own anally-fixated mind. None of them are true.

Let’s take a closer look at each of his claims.

First, I have never played cards with David or gone to lunch with him. Sound like a ridiculous way to respond? David’s case that I lied is based on the same level of inanity.

He claims I lied about the dollar amount the federal government spends to treat HIV/AIDS infected men who have sex with men.

I indicated that two-thirds of persons infected HIV/AIDS in the United States are men who have sex with men and that total federal spending on HIV/AIDS treatment is $20.5 billion.

David specifies that the $20.5 billion includes housing allowances, research, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security Disability, a Federal Employee’s Health Benefit Plan, and prevention. He highlights that $14.1 billion is allocated for “care/treatment” specifically.

Talk about missing the forest for a tree! Is playing silly semantics games the best David can do?

David purposely refused to respond to the point of the paragraph, which is simply that men who lead the promiscuous and irresponsible homosexual lifestyle actually do affect others economically, because our tax dollars go to pay for the various effects of their STDs.

David couldn’t refute the point, so he attempted to take his reader’s eye off the ball by accusing me of “lying” for using the word “treatment” broadly. How pathetic.

The mere fact that he attempts this equivocation is a sure sign he has nothing of actual significance to attack in my argument.

David’s second allegation is more offensive. He claims I “lied” about conservative icon Ronald Reagan’s position on the so-called “gay” movement. I never lied. In fact, he did.

David cited the fact that Ronald Reagan was opposed to the Briggs Initiative as evidence Reagan believed the homosexual lifestyle is compatible with conservatism.

Reagan actually opposed teaching children about the dangerous homosexual lifestyle in schools, and therefore supported the general spirit of the Briggs Initiative:

I don’t approve of teaching a so-called ‘gay’ lifestyle in our schools…

Reagan opposed the Briggs Initiative because he considered it redundant. Reagan believed the legal machinery was already in place to deal with adults who expose school children to sexual perversion:

…there is already adequate legal machinery to deal with such problems if and when they arise.

David claimed the Briggs Initiative was not about “teaching homosexuality in schools.” If it wasn’t then why did Ronald Reagan specify his opposition to the Briggs Initiative within the context of redundancy? Of course the spirit of the Briggs Initiative was about exposing children to the dangerous homosexual lifestyle. The verbiage of the initiative makes that clear in black and white script letters:

For these reasons, the State finds a compelling interest in refusing to employ and in terminating the employment of a school teacher, a teacher’s aid, a school administrator or a counselor…who engages in public homosexual activity and/or public homosexual conduct directed at, or likely to come to the attention of, school children or other school employees. [Emphasis mine]

David took half of Ronald Reagan’s letter in opposition to the Briggs Initiative and presented it to his readers it as if it were the whole thing, conveniently censuring those aspects of Reagan with which he personally disagrees –that is lie #1.

David claims Reagan believed homosexuality was compatible with conservatism. Against David stands Ronald Reagan on the role of government in relation
to homosexuality:

We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.

Ronald Reagan on “gays” and HIV/AIDS:

Maybe the Lord brought down this plague [because] illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments.

Ronald Reagan’s hand-picked Supreme Court appointees Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist upheld anti-sodomy statutes in Bowers v Hardwick.

David claims Reagan would allow practitioners of the unnatural vice to openly represent conservatism, but due to Reagan’s Supreme Court appointees they weren’t permitted to openly represent themselves.

David further claims that conservatism ought to ban God and Religious belief from influencing legal proscription:

As demonstrated by my definition of conservatism, the movement is not grounded in a common religious or moral understanding of personal behavior…That’s why it’s perfectly rational to have…Pagan conservatives.

Ronald Reagan believed the exact opposite of David:

Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.

Publicly David claims that the “gay” socio-political construct and the cultural Marxist agenda which gives it context are compatible with conservatism. Privately however, he declares his views on social issues unchanged since his days as a leftist:

My views on so-called ‘social issues’ remain largely unchanged from my college leftist days. I still see nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. I wish gay marriage was legal. I think abortions within the first trimester should be legal. Pornography among consenting adults should not be regulated by the government. And all drugs should be decriminalized.

Claiming to be a conservative and then stating that your views remain largely unchanged from your college leftist days is lie # 2, David.

David isn’t only a leftist on social issues. Apparently he is a libertarian too.

As a social libertarian I loathe the idea of government trying to impose the right way to live morally.

That is lie # 3.

David lies as easily as he breathes. He implies that he also represents conservatism on social issues:

So where does this leave conservatives on the question of gay marriage? The same place where gays are…There are gays who support gay marriage, civil unions, and the status quo of no government recognition whatsoever. Therefore, why should there be a “conservative” position on the issue?

After forbidding the conservative movement in general from taking a position on marriage, David presents a position the movement should take up! His position is that conservatives should not take a position, and that is, in fact, a position in itself. He goes on to declare that this “debate is not about gay marriage...” after bringing the issue up himself.

The contradictions of the medieval church or seventeenth century French letters don’t match David’s’ level of hypocrisy.

David also declares himself a libertine:

And for someone as agnostic, libertine, and absurdly open-minded as myself that’s practically impossible.

Your entire political position is impossible, David. That is lie number 4!

This “left-wing, conservative, libertarian, libertine” who contradicts himself more times than the Marquis de Sade is so open minded that his brains have fallen out.

Andrew Breitbart called Ted Kennedy a “duplicitous bastard” for less. I wonder what he might call David? Perhaps a “quadra-plicitous bastard” if it wasn’t so clunky?” No matter, I hereby dub David, “Mr. Swindle” -a fitting name for a liar.

Mr. Swindle accuses me of calling Andrew Breitbart “gay.” Well, I had good reason to believe Andrew Breitbart was going “full gay.” Apparently, so did Philadelphia magazine. In fact, Andrew Breitbart had to trot out his “correction Alpaca” to make clear to the world that he is not a homosexual. What does it matter Breitbart? Are you a "homophobe?" Democratic Party officials have also mistaken Andrew Breitbart for a homosexual.

Why all the fuss about Andrew Breitbart?

For starters Andrew Breitbart joined the Executive Board of an openly homosexual organization. He takes photos like this, which suggest he seeks to French kiss another man, and this, standing behind I sign which reads “Proud Gay…” Andrew Breitbart also organized a “Big Gay Eighties Dance Party” to make a mockery of CPAC. How can Mr. Swindle criticize me for making such an honest mistake?

Further, Andrew Breitbart, Greg Gutfeld, and Tammy Bruce have been accusing opponents of homosexual behavior of engaging in it themselves for months. How can Breitbart act as though he is offended when someone makes an honest mistake about him, especially after he called my Facebook photo sitting with my surfboard a “Blue Boy Test Shot?”

Mr. Swindle accuses me of taking a dump on the table in front of him for making a very honest mistake about Andrew Breitbart on my personal Facebook page. That analogy would better suit Mr. Swindle’s wife’s pornography.

In the end Mr. Swindle lost the debate. His cowardly attempt to win-by-censure backfired leading many of his own readers to declare yours-truly the winner.

Atlas_Collins made his position clear:

David lost the debate when he ‘banned’ Sorba.

BDouglasAF1980 had a message for Mr. Swindle:

Admit you are a libertarian and be happy with it.

Calvin Frieberger reacted thusly to Mr. Swindle's position on GOProud:

You’re going to ignore GOProud's well-established record of anti-conservative antagonism and expect conservatives to tolerate an organization run by one of conservatism's worst possible enemies?

NewsReal contributor Lisa Graas praised my stance on the issue:

I applaud Ryan Sorba for taking his time at CPAC to stand for natural law and submit himself to ridicule by those who purport to be “conservative.”

Not only did Mr. Swindle stick his fingers in his ears and sing “LaLaLaLaLa” when he “banned” me, as Atlas_Collins wrote, but he was also accused of deleting comments critical to his position during almost every round –and he has the nerve to accuse me of cheating in a card game?

In this debate Mr. Swindle falsely accused me of “lying three times.” He cited these three lies specifically as grounds for “banning me from NewsReal.” I have addressed and corrected Mr. Swindle's false accusations for the public record here. It should now be clear to readers that I did not “lie three times.”

Now I would like to know if Mr. Swindle is willing to play by his own rules.

Mr. Swindle made the argument that anyone who lies three times should be banned from NewsReal Blog. In this article I showed that he lied 4 times himself.

Will Mr. Swindle be consistent and ban himself from NewsReal, or will he commit lie # 5 by staying on board as editor? Will he ignore his own inconsistency and further discredit his own objectivity as an editor? Will he prove his pretenses to ban political opponents as ad hoc and whimsical?

Perhaps David can remain at NewsReal Blog without hypocrisy if he offers me an apology for his false and quite literally vile accusations, and then retracts his previous article of lies, but I doubt he is man enough to do the "Right" thing. You know what they say, “Once a cheater always a cheater.”

Good luck to you in your endeavors, “Mr. Swindle,” you are going to need it. Rest assured, you’ve made an enemy outta me. Ya you. You’ve made an enemy outta me.

By Ryan Sorba

Should “Gays” Be a Part of the Conservative Movement Part III: Why David Swindle Should Resign from NewsReal

2011-05-09T01:58:00.000-07:00

By Ryan Sorba

Note: This is Part III of a three-part debate on whether homosexuality is compatible with conservatism. Part I can be read here and Part II here.

Francois A. Houle, the Provost of the University of Ottawa wrote me in advance of my visit to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.

I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn't use, but I take it I'm not supposed to say, "F--- you, Francois."

Upon reading Francois' letter, I suddenly realized that I had just been the victim of a hate crime! And it was committed by Francois A. Houle –French, for Frank A. Hole.

First, I have never played cards with David or gone to lunch with him. Sound like a ridiculous way to respond? David’s case that I lied is based on the same level of inanity.

David’s second allegation is more offensive. He claims I “lied” about conservative icon Ronald Reagan’s position on the so-called “gay” movement. I never lied. In fact, he did.

I don’t approve of teaching a so-called ‘gay’ lifestyle in our schools…

Reagan opposed the Briggs Initiative because he considered it redundant. Reagan believed the legal machinery was already in place to deal with adults who expose school children to sexual perversion:

…there is already adequate legal machinery to deal with such problems if and when they arise.

For these reasons, the State finds a compelling interest in refusing to employ and in terminating the employment of a school teacher, a teacher’s aid, a school administrator or a counselor…who engages in public homosexual activity and/or public homosexual conduct directed at, or likely to come to the attention of, school children or other school employees. [Emphasis mine]

David claims Reagan believed homosexuality was compatible with conservatism. Against David stands Ronald Reagan on the role of government in relation
to homosexuality:

We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.

Ronald Reagan on “gays” and HIV/AIDS:

Maybe the Lord brought down this plague [because] illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments.

As demonstrated by my definition of conservatism, the movement is not grounded in a common religious or moral understanding of personal behavior…That’s why it’s perfectly rational to have…Pagan conservatives.

Ronald Reagan believed the exact opposite of David:

Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.

My views on so-called ‘social issues’ remain largely unchanged from my college leftist days. I still see nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. I wish gay marriage was legal. I think abortions within the first trimester should be legal. Pornography among consenting adults should not be regulated by the government. And all drugs should be decriminalized.

As a social libertarian I loathe the idea of government trying to impose the right way to live morally.

That is lie # 3.

David lies as easily as he breathes. He implies that he also represents conservatism on social issues:

So where does this leave conservatives on the question of gay marriage? The same place where gays are…There are gays who support gay marriage, civil unions, and the status quo of no government recognition whatsoever. Therefore, why should there be a “conservative” position on the issue?

The contradictions of the medieval church or seventeenth century French letters don’t match David’s’ level of hypocrisy.

David also declares himself a libertine:

And for someone as agnostic, libertine, and absurdly open-minded as myself that’s practically impossible.

Your entire political position is impossible, David. That is lie number 4!

This “left-wing, conservative, libertarian, libertine” who contradicts himself more times than the Marquis de Sade is so open minded that his brains have fallen out.

Why all the fuss about Andrew Breitbart?

In the end Mr. Swindle lost the debate. His cowardly attempt to win-by-censure backfired leading many of his own readers to declare yours-truly the winner.

Atlas_Collins made his position clear:

David lost the debate when he ‘banned’ Sorba.

BDouglasAF1980 had a message for Mr. Swindle:

Admit you are a libertarian and be happy with it.

Calvin Frieberger reacted thusly to Mr. Swindle's position on GOProud:

You’re going to ignore GOProud's well-established record of anti-conservative antagonism and expect conservatives to tolerate an organization run by one of conservatism's worst possible enemies?

NewsReal contributor Lisa Graas praised my stance on the issue:

I applaud Ryan Sorba for taking his time at CPAC to stand for natural law and submit himself to ridicule by those who purport to be “conservative.”

Now I would like to know if Mr. Swindle is willing to play by his own rules.

Mr. Swindle made the argument that anyone who lies three times should be banned from NewsReal Blog. In this article I showed that he lied 4 times himself.

Good luck to you in your endeavors, “Mr. Swindle,” you are going to need it. Rest assured, you’ve made an enemy outta me. Ya you. You’ve made an enemy outta me.

By Ryan Sorba

David Swindle

2011-05-08T21:51:00.000-07:00

By Ryan Sorba

Note: This is Part III of a three-part debate on whether homosexuality is compatible with conservatism. Part I can be read here and Part II here.

Francois A. Houle, the Provost of the University of Ottawa wrote me in advance of my visit to recommend that I familiarize myself with Canada's criminal laws regarding hate speech.

I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn't use, but I take it I'm not supposed to say, "F--- you, Francois."

Upon reading Francois' letter, I suddenly realized that I had just been the victim of a hate crime! And it was committed by Francois A. Houle –French, for Frank A. Hole.

First, I have never played cards with David or gone to lunch with him. Sound like a ridiculous way to respond? David’s case that I lied is based on the same level of inanity.

David’s second allegation is more offensive. He claims I “lied” about conservative icon Ronald Reagan’s position on the so-called “gay” movement. I never lied. In fact, he did.

I don’t approve of teaching a so-called ‘gay’ lifestyle in our schools…

Reagan opposed the Briggs Initiative because he considered it redundant. Reagan believed the legal machinery was already in place to deal with adults who expose school children to sexual perversion:

…there is already adequate legal machinery to deal with such problems if and when they arise.

For these reasons, the State finds a compelling interest in refusing to employ and in terminating the employment of a school teacher, a teacher’s aid, a school administrator or a counselor…who engages in public homosexual activity and/or public homosexual conduct directed at, or likely to come to the attention of, school children or other school employees. [Emphasis mine]

David claims Reagan believed homosexuality was compatible with conservatism. Against David stands Ronald Reagan on the role of government in relation
to homosexuality:

We will resist the efforts of some to obtain government endorsement of homosexuality.

Ronald Reagan on “gays” and HIV/AIDS:

Maybe the Lord brought down this plague [because] illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments.

As demonstrated by my definition of conservatism, the movement is not grounded in a common religious or moral understanding of personal behavior…That’s why it’s perfectly rational to have…Pagan conservatives.

Ronald Reagan believed the exact opposite of David:

Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.

My views on so-called ‘social issues’ remain largely unchanged from my college leftist days. I still see nothing morally wrong with homosexuality. I wish gay marriage was legal. I think abortions within the first trimester should be legal. Pornography among consenting adults should not be regulated by the government. And all drugs should be decriminalized.

As a social libertarian I loathe the idea of government trying to impose the right way to live morally.

That is lie # 3.

David lies as easily as he breathes. He implies that he also represents conservatism on social issues:

So where does this leave conservatives on the question of gay marriage? The same place where gays are…There are gays who support gay marriage, civil unions, and the status quo of no government recognition whatsoever. Therefore, why should there be a “conservative” position on the issue?

The contradictions of the medieval church or seventeenth century French letters don’t match David’s’ level of hypocrisy.

David also declares himself a libertine:

And for someone as agnostic, libertine, and absurdly open-minded as myself that’s practically impossible.

Your entire political position is impossible, David. That is lie number 4!

This “left-wing, conservative, libertarian, libertine” who contradicts himself more times than the Marquis de Sade is so open minded that his brains have fallen out.

Why all the fuss about Andrew Breitbart?

In the end Mr. Swindle lost the debate. His cowardly attempt to win-by-censure backfired leading many of his own readers to declare yours-truly the winner.

Atlas_Collins made his position clear:

David lost the debate when he ‘banned’ Sorba.

BDouglasAF1980 had a message for Mr. Swindle:

Admit you are a libertarian and be happy with it.

Calvin Frieberger reacted thusly to Mr. Swindle's position on GOProud:

You’re going to ignore GOProud's well-established record of anti-conservative antagonism and expect conservatives to tolerate an organization run by one of conservatism's worst possible enemies?

NewsReal contributor Lisa Graas praised my stance on the issue:

I applaud Ryan Sorba for taking his time at CPAC to stand for natural law and submit himself to ridicule by those who purport to be “conservative.”

Now I would like to know if Mr. Swindle is willing to play by his own rules.

Mr. Swindle made the argument that anyone who lies three times should be banned from NewsReal Blog. In this article I showed that he lied 4 times himself.

Good luck to you in your endeavors, “Mr. Swindle,” you are going to need it. Rest assured, you’ve made an enemy outta me. Ya you. You’ve made an enemy outta me.

By Ryan Sorba

April Bey's Pornographic "Art"

2011-05-08T21:46:00.000-07:00

Landrieu Dance: Conservative Icon James O'Keefe Dances Off Left-Wing Critics

2011-04-19T21:21:00.001-07:00

Today conservative icon James O'Keefe released his latest project -Landrieu Dance, a music video dedicated to exposing the corruption of Louisianna Senator Mary Landrieu.

In the video O'Keefe confronts Landrieu's baseless accusations and then dances them off, one by one.

O'Keefe starts by confronting Landrieu's accusation that he attempted to "tap her phone line" -a serious felony charge.

On what evidence did Mary Landrieu base her claims? Well, based on the fact that James had his iPhone in his pocket, of course.

Seriously.

Louisianna State Senator Mary Landrieu called the FBI and claimed that James O'Keefe was trying to tap her phone lines with his iPhone.

Nevermind that obvious absurdity. Left-wing Jouno-Lists like Dave Wiegel, who was fired from the Washington Post after his three month tenure there for writing that Matt Drudge should set himself on fire," among other things, still insinuates in his dishonest write-ups on the anti-Christian website Slate that O'Keefe was actually intending to tap the Senators phone lines.

Anyone half familiar with O'Keefe and his work understands that he never actually intends to do the things he discusses while he is conducting his investigations.

O'Keefe didn't actually want to donate money to Planned Parenthood to "kill black babies!" He wanted to know if Planned Parenthood would take money for such a cause. It turned out they would! It turned out that they already had a so-called "Justice Fund" in place to do so!

O'Keefe didn't actually want to kidnap 14 year old girls from El Salvadore to make them sex slaves! He wanted to know if President Obama's alma mater A.C.O.R.N. would be up for it -and they were!

Similarly, O'Keefe didn't want to tap Senator Mary Landrieu's phone lines. He went to her office dressed as a telephone repair man because he wanted to know if she was purposely blocking calls made by her constituents about Obama's proposed socialist health care plan.

Obviously, Mary Landrieu isn't going to ask Dave Wiegel over at Slate to publicize the fact that she is ignoring her constituents, but she might mention it to a telephone repair man who was called to the scene by constituents after they grew concerned because they couldn't get through to her office for days on end.

If James were to have found that the phone lines were diconnected he could have further questioned her in an attempt to get to the bottom of things. If the lines were intact he could have questioned her about the status of the lines on previous days. She very well may have admitted to a telephone repair man that she had disconnected the lines because the phone calls about Obama's unpopular socialist health care bill, or, about the Congressional bribe she took to vote for Obama-Care, were keeping her and her team from getting their government work done.

In the end O'Keefe danced off Landrieu's accusations. He smashed the claims that his tapes are heavily edited to portray the subjects of his various investigations dishonestly. In doing so James proved that he is bold enough to seek truth despite intimidating accusations and that he is strong enough to continue to effectively smash the corruption that has become so systemic in our society.

Finally James smashes the demonizing accusations that leftists have habituated themselves into hurling at anyone who threatens to expose their corruption. Unfortunately, most recently the left has co-opted the term "racist" for this cause, transforming the word into the very enemy it was meant to combat: bullying. Thus, leftists psychologically jam their followers by accusing anyone who accuses them of corruption of being a "racist."

Anti-Christian MSNBC talk-show host Rachel Maddow is notorious for using this method of bullying and intimidation against anyone she sees as a threat. She lies to her viewers as easily as she breathes, calling anyone who exposes left-wing corruption of being "racist." Nevermind that O'Keefe's Right-hand man is black.

Sorry Rach! Didn't anyone ever tell you that it isn't polite to point. Ya bully.

Reagan 2.0: Rising on the Right

2011-04-18T00:37:00.000-07:00

A new generation of Conservatives is rising...

Coming soon...

Perez Hilton Displays Strong Anti-Christian Bias, Not "Born Gay"

2011-04-14T18:11:00.000-07:00

By Ryan Sorba

Reacting to a recent Advocate.com article titled “Conservatives Declare War on the Word ‘Gay’” self-proclaimed “gay” internet sensation Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr., better known by his fake name Perez Hilton, launched into vitriolic attacks, calling Christian's “HOrrific.”

He went on to accuse all who adhere to the Judeo-Christian sexual ethic of hiding a “dispecable [sic] “homaphobia [sic],” simply for acknowledging the fact that ex-"gays" exist and that studies show change is possible for those who truly seek it.

Lavandeira’s cuss-out session, (or perhaps his sister Barbara Lavandeira’s cuss out session?) continued undisturbed in intensity. He went on to tag his post about Christians who refuse to agree that the “gay” agenda is a moral one as “bull sh--,” “bigots,” “offensive,” and “deplorable.”

Welcome to Holly-weird!

None of this language comes as a surprise. Mario and Barbara Lavandeira built their online empire as cyber-bullies, tearing people down like former Miss California, USA, Carrie Prejean, Hilary Duff, Chris Brown, Vanessa Hudgens, and the list goes on.

In 2010 Mario was accused of shooting and posting a panty-less photo of Miley Cyrus, who was only seventeen years old at the time, to his Twitter account, which included more than two million followers.

Now “Perez Hilton” has the nerve to declare Christians who stand for sexual decency “dipecable” [sic] for refusing to agree with the notion that people are “born gay.”

Why should Christians believe that people are “born gay,” Mario? Self-avowed “gays” don’t even believe that they were “born that way.”

Sorry Lady Gaga!

Homosexual activists openly admit—in numerous magazines, newspaper articles, books, and even national television shows—that people can and do change their so-called “sexual orientation.”

Activists who hold the view that human sexuality is fluid and flexible, (some publicly, some privately) are the same activists held up as heroes by the so-called “gay” community.

Take pro-sodomy activist Lillian Faderman for example. In the September 5, 1995 edition of the Advocate she stated the following:

We continue to demand rights, ignoring the fact that human sexuality is fluid and flexible, acting as though we are all stuck in our category forever. The narrow categories of identity politics are obviously deceptive.

The architects of the pro-sodomy movement Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen urge activists to abandon the truth for practical purposes:

It is time to learn from Madison Avenue and to roll out the big guns. We are talking about propaganda. For all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay –even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.

Self-described “lesbian” Jennie Ruby agrees in a Lambda Book Report article:

I don’t think lesbians are born. I think they are made. The gay rights movement has (for many good, practical reasons) adopted largely an identity politics.

John DeCecco, from San Francisco State University, the editor of the Journal of Homosexuality and Paedika: The Journal of Pedophilia agrees:

The whole born gay and immutable characteristic idea is just gay and lesbian politics and aimed at achieving gay rights.

Dr. Vera Whisman is a lecturer for the Queer Studies Department at Ithaca College in New York. In her book, Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity she writes the following:

My conclusions question some of the fundamental basis upon which the gay and lesbian rights movement has been built. If we cannot make political claims based on an essential and shared nature, are we not left once again as individual deviants? Without an essentialist [born gay] foundation, do we have a viable politics?

Other well-known leaders of the “gay” political movement have acknowledged and/or observed the fluidity of sexuality in their own lives, as the following list indicates:

Camille Paglia

Tammy Bruce

Greg Louganis

Ellen Degeneres

Anne Heche

Chastity Bono

Joanne Loulan

Sarah Schulman

Rita Mae Brown

Rebecca Walker

Joan Nestle

John Preston

Dr. Martin Duberman

Dr. Charles Silverstein

Donna Minkowitz

Dr. Pat Cain

Martina Navratilova

Janis Ian

Melissa Etheridge

Wendy Caster

Kate Kendall

Dr. Dean Hamer

Dr. Karla Jay

Pat Califia

Susie Bright

The list goes on and on. Do Mario Lavandeira (Perez Hilton) and Stefani Jonanne Angelina Germanotta (Lady Gaga) really think the American public is naïve enough to believe their “born gay” lies?

Public “born gay” propaganda is a hoax. The things activists say about themselves publicly (and the negative things they say about their opponents) are carefully calculated lies.

Even when Jewish or Christian opponents of “born gay” rhetoric are saying what pro-“gay” activists know to be true, the activists deliberately lie about and demonize their opponents –and their message.

Pro-sodomy activists will even tell vicious lies about inciting violence to try to censor their opponent’s views in various forms of media.

This desire to censor the truth about the fluidity of same-sex attraction from the public is one of the most offensive characteristics of the practically neo-pagan pro-sodomy political movement –which habitually deceives, psychologically manipulates and even physically intimidates the media, public officials, the religious and medical communities, and anyone else they see as a threat to their lies.

One of the reasons activists want to censure opponents on the “born gay” issue is because the public would not support the “gay rights” agenda if the public knew that persons who have developed same-sex attraction are capable of change.

Several prominent “born gay” hoax activists have admitted to knowledge of this fact about the American public.

“Born gay” hoaxter Simon LeVay, who analyzed the hypothalamus in an effort to convince the world people are “born gay” revealed his secret objectives in an interview with The Advocate, June 1, 1993:

The Advocate: Do you really think that grounding homosexuality in biology can help win political equality?

LeVay: All the civil rights legislation passed in the 60s is based on the knowledge that there is a genetic and immutable difference between blacks and whites. Of course, blacks are still discriminated against, but the legal advances they’ve made are based on those genetic differences. And I think that is a major stumbling block for our gaining the same protection as other groups.

There is a survey in the New York Times that broke down people on the basis of whether they thought gays and lesbians were born that way or whether it was a lifestyle choice. Across the board, those who thought gays and lesbians were born that way were more liberal and gay friendly.

The founder of the “Lesbian Avengers,” Sarah Schulman admits that lesbianism is a choice. She took note of the same study in her book My American History:

A recent poll in the New York Times showed that more people would be willing to support gay rights if they believed that gay people genetically could not help their orientation.

Pro-sodomy activists know that they are extremely vulnerable on this “born gay” point, which is one important reason why they are so desperate to have their opponents views censored by the media, and when possible, censored by the government.

In the Netherlands, activists have already succeeded in getting such a censorship law passed by the government. A Roman Catholic Bishop has faced prosecution there for making what “born gay” activists consider a negative statement about their behavior in a Roman Catholic seminary. The “Gay Times” reports:

Anti-gay Dutch Catholic Bishop may be prosecuted.

The bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese of Groningen in the northern Netherlands is under investigation for breaking a Dutch law, reports Rex Wockner.

In a lecture at Rolduc seminary, Bishop Wim Eijk told students that homosexuals suffered from ‘neurotic development disorder’ and said lesbians and gay men are incapable of making the commitment required for marriage.

The bishop’s controversial statements come at a time when the Dutch parliament is considering whether to introduce laws to allow lesbians and gay men to marry.

According to reports, laws banning discrimination against lesbians and gay men take precedence over freedom of religion and speech in the Netherlands.

Pro-“gay” activists are pushing to pass similar fascist laws all over the world. In fact, that’s what the left-wing socio-political construct that is the “gay” identity is all about –subjecting all people who disagree with the dangerous homosexual lifestyle to censorship and prosecution.

Now the health and happiness—even the lives—of many, and the common good of society depend upon the exposition and opposition of these lies and their destructive results.

By Ryan Sorba

Anti-Christian Cyber Bully: The man who was the subject of this article apologized, as I requested, so I have removed his personal information

2011-04-13T13:05:00.000-07:00

Recently ---- ----------, an anti-Christian, neo-pagan pro-sodomy activist sent the following message to yours truley on facebook:

DON'T TALK ABOUT SHIT YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT..DAMN, WOULD I LOVE TO CHALLENGE YOU ..YOU WOULD END UP CRYING LIKE THE LITTLE PUSSY BITCH YOU ARE.. LATER BITCH

---- ----------'s comments highlight starkly the true nature of the radical pro-sodomy mind-set that all too often goes unnoticed by the main-stream media.

There is no excuse for ----------'s harrassment. Cyber bullies like these have no place in a civilized dialogue and should be roundly condemned.

I am more than happy to debate anybody, at anytime. I will not tolerate homosexual cyber-bullies however. This post will remain up until ---- ---------- can act like a civilized human being and apologize for his rude and disgusting message.

Julie Farby: Cyber Bully

2011-02-15T12:22:00.000-08:00

"Idiots, imbeciles, bigots and tea-baggers." World meet Julie Farby. Julie Farby meet world.

Julie Farby is a pro-sodomy activist from the greater Chicago area who needs to get her mouth washed out with soap.

Julie Farby gets her kicks calling Christians "idiots," "imbeciles," and "bigots" and harrassing any Conservative with whom she disagrees as a "tea-bagger" on the Chicago Examiner's free internet blog forum.

Yup. You got it. Julie Farby is a cyberbully.

Instead of making intelligible arguments this "journ-o-list" wakes up each morning and blows her "knows" full of hatred and invective all over the internet and guys like me have to get online and clean it up.

Feel free to perform an internet search for "Julie Farby" to learn more. Hopefully this article with help to expose Julie, her regular online cuss-out sessions, meltdowns, and diatribes.

Changing History

2011-02-14T00:48:00.000-08:00

There has not been a pro-family or socially conservative article up on CPAC's website in 6 long years.

Today, due to our work, there is an article front and center, with the most "likes" on the site.

Congrats to all for your good work. We really changed history this year.

To read the article click here.

2011-02-10T22:43:00.000-08:00

Febuary 2011

Dear YCC Member,

Redeeming the Rainbow, no strings attached!

Dr.

Lively click here

An Open Letter to CPAC Attendees and Presenters

2011-02-07T23:54:00.000-08:00

This is a time of both promise and conflict for conservatives. As the country recoils from the leftist initiatives of the Obama Administration and the Democratic Congress, we find more and more people prepared to hear and respond to our message of smaller government, lower taxes, respect for family, marriage, and life, and a strong national defense.

And yet, at the same time, a movement has begun within our ranks to marginalize part of the message—to try to leave social conservatives out of the coming conservative revival. This is a mistake. Social issues are a fundamental part of the fabric of conservatism, and our issues are vital to the health of the country as a whole. When the organizers of CPAC joined the effort to marginalize social issues, the American Principles Project responded by boycotting the conference.

However, APP is committed to a full, healthy, vibrant conservatism that embraces all three legs of the conservative “stool” so often referenced by Ronald Reagan—social, economic, and defense. We ardently hope to see the rebirth of a united conservative movement that fully embraces all of these issues.

And so, we ask for your help.

We challenge you, no matter how you participate in CPAC—be it as an attendee, a participant, or a speaker—to join in the effort to ensure that social issues remain an important part of the movement. We challenge you to speak out in defense of traditional marriage, the right to life, and religious liberty. And we ask you to persuade others to see the importance of this issue and join the movement by signing up at GetConservative.com (where you will also be able to read APP’s blog rating the major CPAC speeches).

After all, if we cannot defend these vital principles within our own party, how can we hope to preserve them within our country?

Thank you,

Andy Blom
Executive Director, American Principles Project

Frank Cannon
President, American Principles Project

Boston Globe, New York Times, BBC, NPR owe Scott Lively an apology

2011-02-03T23:54:00.000-08:00

By Bryan Fischer

In Uganda, a leading homosexual activist, David Kato, was murdered last Wednesday, beaten with a hammer in his home and dying on his way to the hospital. Scott Lively, author of a well-researched and heavily documented book, The Pink Swastika, has been blamed for his death.

Even while admitting that the murder was "still being investigated," the Boston Globe was quick to lay the blame at Lively's doorstep, who, along with other pro-family experts, visited Uganda in the spring of 2009 to raise awareness of the many social and health pathologies associated with homosexual behavior.

The New York Times, the BBC and NPR all interviewed Lively in recent weeks, trying to blame him for what they believe is a rising tide of homicidal anti-gay fervor in Uganda.

Last Friday, the Globe quoted the leader of one of Uganda's leading homosexual activist groups: "David's death is a result of the hatred planted in Uganda by U.S. evangelicals in 2009. The Ugandan government and the so-called U.S. evangelicals must take responsibility for David's blood."

And it turns out that the Globe, the New York Times, the BBC and NPR are not alone in fingering Lively as an accomplice. Google "David Kato murder, Scott Lively" this morning, and you will get 17,200 hits. Almost all of this scapegoating was done, mind you, before police had any idea who had swung the hammer.

Well, it turns out that Lively had absolutely nothing, nada, zip, zilch to do with any part of this gruesome killing.

According to Reuters, a man has now confessed to the killing, and police are saying a "personal disagreement" let to Kato's untimely death. Meaning, of course, the whole thing had nothing to do with Lively or any other pro-family leader in America.

In fact, the police spokesman said quite pointedly that the murder "wasn't a robbery and it wasn't because Kato was an activist." So the whole hate crime meme is out the window, gone, history, in the archives.

The confessed murderer, one Nsubuga Enock, is a "well-known thief," according to police, and had been in prison until January 24. He had been staying with Kato since getting out.

Enock was arrested at his girlfriend's house, and so it appears that he swings both ways. Kato's driver has also been arrested in connection with the murder, and early reports indicated that both money and clothing were missing. And since Enock was in prison for theft, the dots aren't too hard to connect here.

Now the Daily Monitor is reporting that Enock has told police that he killed Kato because Kato had "coerced him into sodomy." Kato had promised to give him a car, a house and money in exchange for sexual favors, but when Kato didn't keep his end of the bargain and continued to attempt to force himself on Enock sexually, he bought a hammer and beat him to death with it.

Read More...

The following was written by Ryan Sorba:

Below is a photo of left-wing activists Rob Anderson, the Boston Globe reporter guilty of blood libel for blaming homosexual violence on Christian Pastor Scott Lively. Rob Anderson ought to be fired from the Boston Globe for making such serious accusations based on zero evidence. The accusations can be seen here.

"Progressive" Rallyists Call for Lynching of Clarence Thomas

2011-02-03T17:30:00.000-08:00

Last weekend at an anti-Charles Koch Rally led by Code Pink in Palm Springs, California two YCC members, Christian Hartsock and Alvaro Day, used kid-genius James O'Keefe strategies to uncover "progressives" calling for the "lynching of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas." Incredible.

This is the height of hyposcrisy considering that these are the very liberals who have been calling TEA Partiers "racists."

The video will appear on FOX News' Glenn Beck tonight. Check local listings for showtimes.

MURDER IN UGANDA by Pastor Scott Lively J.D., Ph.d, Th.D.

2011-02-02T11:21:00.000-08:00

Evidence from murder points to personal matters, say the police, and the suspect, Kato’s (“gay?”) housemate, remains at large.

Uganda is being murdered. The nation once called “The Pearl of Africa” by Winston Churchill, a lush and beautiful country as fertile as the Nile Delta.

It is the nation that retained its self-rule through centuries of African colonialism, the society that survived even the atrocities of the cannibal cultist Idi Amin, the culture that has been thriving in Christian revival for over a dozen years.

This great and honorable nation, alone in Africa to have all but conquered the scourge of AIDS through abstinence - and whose First Lady led a holy gathering of thousands of believers on the eve of the millennium, dedicating her homeland “to Jesus Christ for a thousand years” - this Uganda, a shining light in the Dark Continent, is being murdered.

The murderers are the lavender Marxists, the now-global network of sexual revolutionaries bent on remaking the entire world in their own perverted image, whose juggernaut has toppled even once mighty Britain, crushing under their lavender boots after eight centuries the symbol of its Christian power: the Magna Charta, whose first principle had proclaimed “The English church must be free!”

These revolutionists of Sodom, who march triumphantly through all the major cities of the western world to flaunt their defeat of moral law, and who hold both Hollywood and the heart of America’s president in their iron grip: These very same zealots have fixed their malevolent gaze on Christian Uganda.

Uganda is the only country in the world with a national holiday commemorating its rejection of sexual perversion. Every June 3 it honors the 22 young men and boys who were tortured and roasted alive in 1886 by homosexual King Mwanga, because they refused to submit to sodomy. Is it any wonder, then, that Uganda has reacted violently against the army of agitators, led by George Soros, who now seek to re-homosexualize Ugandan culture?

It is as if the militant ranks of “Code Pink” were transported back to 1890s America to agitate for “sexual freedom.” Our great grandparents would not have countenanced this. There would have been violence, as there has now been in Uganda.

That is, of course, the strategy:

Agents provocateur goad unsophisticated natives into over-reacting, while the “gay” media lie in wait to catch the images and spin the propaganda that is even now poisoning the gullible against the Ugandans.

Ugandan homosexual activist David Kato was recently beaten to death with a hammer -a horrific crime. These very media have rushed eagerly to judge this a hate crime and to blame those, like me, who have spoken against homosexuality in Uganda. It is the central (but patently false) narrative of the left that all criticism of homosexuality leads inevitably to violence and murder.

Despite propagandistic tactics evidence from the murder points to "personal matters," say the police, and the suspect, Kato’s (“gay?”) housemate, remains at large.

There is indeed evil in Uganda today, but it is not the reaction of Christian and Moslem citizens to the rape of their culture. It is the pink-gloved hand of western powers that are cutting the throat of Africa’s most God-fearing country, and one of the world‘s most promising Christian democracies.

By Scott Lively
President, Defend the Family International
http://www.defendthefamily.com/

Ryan Sorba at Truth Academy

2011-02-01T20:02:00.000-08:00

Ryan Sorba on CNN

2011-02-01T19:58:00.001-08:00

Ryan Sorba on CNN, Right on the Edge

2011-02-01T19:57:00.000-08:00

Ryan Sorba appears in CNN's Right on the Edge -a documentary about young conservatives taking on the mainstream media.

Ryan Sorba on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

2011-02-01T19:54:00.000-08:00

Pro-family activist Ryan Sorba appears on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.

Ryan Sorba on Countdown with Keith Olberman

2011-02-01T19:53:00.000-08:00

Ryan Sorba on COUNTDOWN with Keith Olberman, MSNBC

Ryan Sorba on CNN, Right on the Edge

2011-02-01T19:52:00.002-08:00

Ryan Sorba appears on Right on the Edge - a CNN Documentary about Young Conservatives Taking on the Mainstream Media

Ryan Sorba Appears on Glenn Beck for Helping to Take Down ACORN

2011-02-01T19:52:00.001-08:00

Ryan Sorba appears on Glenn Beck for participating in the famous 2009 ACORN investigation.

RINO Watch List: Jesse Hathaway

2011-02-01T19:34:00.000-08:00

Jesse Hathaway is a victim of "the progressive re-education camps of Ohio University and the People’s Republik of Athens." Since he completed his degree, probably in "Queer Theory," this brainwashed former O-H-I-O student has become a bonofied left-wing pro-sodomy activist, who for some reason thinks he's a conservative.

In an article entitled "Teh Ghey" Jesse outs himself on David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog as the moral equivalent of a true-blue dues paying Radical Faerie. In a few decades he'll be found under the big Alex Knepper tent, no doubt.

In case you're interested, aside from long walks on beautiful Myrtle Beach, SC this homosexualist also enjoys "getting curious and poking his nose where it doesn't belong." He enjoys long winded fallacies too. He especially loves the following appeal-to-ridicule, in response to hearing that seven conservative groups have exercised their God-given libereties to pull out of the David Keene, Grover Norquist and Lisa De Pasquale event that many are now referring to as FudgePAC 2011, (here's why) formerly referred to as the Conservative Political Action Conference:

"...some leading social conservatives were afraid that they would catch the virulent and deadly virus called “Teh Ghey,” if they were seen in public with conservative people who were sexually attracted to members of the same sex."

This quote needs no response, as it is absolutely hilarious. Mr. Hathaway is also fond of thought terminating cliche's:

"I’m a bit fuzzy on why it matters what a person does in the privacy of his or her bedroom, as long as it doesn’t affect me, and is legal."

I could go on and on with the fallacies, but hey I'll dive in here, onto this rhetorical question (he wishes) since it looks nice and soft to me. Secret vices have a way of not staying secret, Mr. Hathaway, especially when they result in big public consequences that provide perfectly intelligible reasons for legal proscription, or, short of that, non-legally coercive public efforts to discourage them.

Public Consequence Number 1: $20,500,000,000 per year in government spending on HIV.

Is that expensive enough for you to declare sodomy a public issue Mr. Hathaway? If not then what would be? A trillion dollars? The federal budget request for fiscal year 2011 includes a total of $20.5 billion for domestic HIV and AIDS, a 5% increase from the FY 2010 funding, which totaled $19.4 billion.

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association approximately three out of four American AIDS patients have been males who have chosen to participate in the homosexual lifestyle and every single incedent could have been prevented. Talk about one man's personal irresponsibility effecting others. I don't think there is a better example! I haven't even gotten into the devestation they cause their own mothers and family members when they have to come clean and announce that they have contracted a mortal disease like HIV. The heartbreak must be unreal and drawn out over years. I don't even want to think about it, it's so sad.

Domestic federal funding for AIDS programs falls into four basic categories: care and treatment, financial and housing assistance, prevention, and research. Of these four budgets, care spending is by far the largest - just over half of the FY 2010 budget request is for care and treatment programs. The majority of AIDS care funding goes out through the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs for people who do not have adequate private health insurance.

Now, that is just for HIV. Imagine the public costs associated with treating the psychological and other physical diseases associated with the homosexual lifestyle. The health consequences associated with sodomy are rediculous. Here are a few more stats from the Journal of the American Medical Association for you to peruse good sir. Compared to other men, males who engage in same-sex conduct are:

727 percent more likely to have suffered bipolar disorders at some point in their lives, and 502 percent more likely in the last twelve months.

718 percent more likely to have suffered obsessive-compulsive disorder in the last twelve months, and 620 percent more likely at some point in their lives.

632 percent more likely to have suffered agoraphobia (fear of leaving home or being in public) in the last twelve months, and 454 percent more likely at some point in their lives.

421 percent more likely to have suffered panic disorder, and 229 percent more likely to have suffered social phobia at some point in their lives.

375 percent more likely to have suffered simple phobia in the last twelve months, and 361 percent more likely at some point in their lives.

311 percent more likely to have suffered mood disorders at some point in their lives, and 293 percent more likely in the last twelve months.

261 percent more likely to have suffered anxiety disorders in the last twelve months, and 267 percent more likely over the course of their lifetimes.

270 percent more likely to have suffered two or more psychiatric disorders during their lifetime.

235 percent more likely to have suffered major depression at some point in their lives.

Compared to other women, females who engage in same-sex conduct are:

405 percent more likely to have suffered a substance use disorder.

241 percent more likely to have suffered mood disorders during their lifetimes.

209 percent more likely to have suffered two or more mental disorders during their lifetimes.

etc. etc. etc.

The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal sex include: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lablia, herpes simplex virus, HIV, HPV, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, syphilis, Gay Bowel Syndrome and other sexually transmitted gastrointestinal syndromes.
Lesbians are also at increased risk for certain diseases, including HIV, cancer, hepatitis C, and bacteria vaginosis, predominantly because they are “significantly more likely to report past sexual contact with a homosexual or bisexual man and sexual contact with an IDU (intravenous drug user). The average "lesbian" has more male sex partners in her lifetime than does the average straight woman.

With the prevalence of disease—both physical and mental—among those who engage in sodomy, it should come as no surprise that the supposedly inconsequential private vice called sodomy carries with it a long laundry list of very real public consequences, that effect you, me, and our wallets too.

There you have it Jesse. I hope that answers your question about some of the public consequences of private vice. Be sure to tune in tomorrow when I take another liberal posing as a conservative to task.

The Born Gay Hoax

2011-01-11T15:21:00.003-08:00

The Born Gay Hoax: Coming Soon...

Ryan Sorba in Library

2010-12-14T01:01:00.000-08:00

Ryan Sorba on CNN

2010-10-15T00:26:00.001-07:00

Profiles of Young Conservatives Taking on the Mainstream Media:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/29/profiles.right.edge/index.html?hpt=C2

Learn More! Quick links for Ryan Sorba

2010-10-01T21:55:00.000-07:00

Read a first draft of my book, The "Born Gay" Hoax: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/TheBornGayHoax.pdf

Blockbuster Speech on The "Born Gay" Hoax: http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/index.html

Cliff Kinkaid on the homosexual infiltration of the conservative movement:http://www.aim.org/aim-column/the-gay-infiltration-of-the-conservative-movement/

A summary of my activism: http://theconservativerevolution.com/tag/ryan-sorba/

World Net Daily carries my first professional article: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=161549

WND on the Smith College lesbian riot: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=63208

Ryan Sorba slams David Keene and CPAC for inviting GOProud: Washington Post Covers CNN documentary on Ryan Sorba: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right-now/2010/05/anti-gay_activist_ryan_sorba_a.html

Ryan Sorba: Top TEA Party Activist: http://www.freedomworks.org/state/california/press-releases?page=1

Ryan Sorba fights for private accounts for social security:http://www.secureourfuture.org/blog_archives.php?tag=sorba

Donate to Help!!!

2010-09-30T23:09:00.000-07:00

Dear Reader,

The fight to defend marriage and religious liberty are two of the most important causes that there are. These institutions sustain not only a vibrant, free and humane society but healthy and happy individual lives as well.

Unfortunately radical pro-sodomy activists seek to undermine marriage and religious liberty (which promote virtue) because marriage and religious liberty undermine their sexually libertine agenda (which promotes vice).

The pro-sodomy movement has made incredible advances in recent years. One of the chief reasons for this is that they have been propagandizing the rising generation with chicanery and lies.

The time has come, for the lies to end.

I have been working on a book for several years now, entitled The "Born Gay" Hoax. The book is designed to answer every question posed by the radical homosexual agenda and to point out their lies and self-contradictions. The book is a tool to help educate. More specifically, it is a tool to help the answers reach the "tipping point." There is an older version of the book free for you to view online here:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/TheBornGayHoax.pdf

In their efforts to destabilize marriage and create "hate-speech" laws to criminalize freedom of religion, speech and opinion -pro-sodomy activists have crossed the line. It is now necessary for everyday Americans to confront the claims of the neo-pagan sexual libertine activists as well as their political movement head on, philosophically, legally, financially, and politically.

Below, you will find a list of projects that will be highly effective in the effort to win this battle for religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of opinion and for the rising generation, via marriage, which is first and foremost about children. These projects cost money, however. If you want to win this battle for truth for the rising generation, as well as society as a whole, please donate just below, and please email me at rsorba@youngconservativesofcalifornia.com and let me know how you would like to get involved.

Godspeed,

Ryan Sorba

------------------------------

Projects:

Project 1

Operation Win the Public Debate on Marriage

The best method by which to win the public debate on marriage is my forthcoming book, The "Born Gay" Hoax, which is nearly complete. The book will educate the public and give me and others on my team a platform by which we can promote the ideas contained within. It will be ready for a full edit within months. A full professional edit however can run is between $5,000 and $10,000. Any contribution toward this end would be very helpful!

Project 2: National Field Program

Politics is

The Essence of Marriage

2010-09-30T15:31:00.000-07:00

Rational-Charitable Marriage versus Hedonistic Prideful-Marriage

Nearly all the philosophers, generally speaking, have included "rational" in their definition of man. Man understands. In case anyone denies it, let us remember that a rational case must be given for the denial to make sense in the first place.

Human nature is, in summation, a rational substance in relationship. Thus, insofar as a man acts in accord with his reason he acts naturally, in a way that is suitable to his own nature and being. Insofar as a man allows his irrational passions to cloud his rational thought processes and the actions which flow properly from them, he thinks and acts in an unnatural way, contrary to his nature.

For human beings natural acts are rational acts –they are valuable insofar as they connect a man’s intellect to Reality.

Now, in the case of human sexuality the primary rational end of the reproductive organs is reproduction, and it is because of this primary reproductive end that the organs are labeled "reproductive" in the first place.

There is a second rational end of reproductive organs as well, which flows from the first. It is spousal unity, in the interest of the continued existence of the family. Humans are endowed with reason and capable of using it excellently or poorly. Rational excellence however implies education, and all education takes time. It takes longer to teach children to reason well than it does to teach birds to fly. The father therefore ought to remain united with the mother the entire time required to ensure the proper education of the children begotten as a result of their union. Human reproduction therefore includes not only physical parenthood, but intellectual parenthood. Ideally one is not only a biological parent, but a teacher as well.

Thus, just as older birds teach younger birds to fly, so too must older humans teach younger humans to reason –theoretical reason and practical reason, knowledge and virtue.

Thus, biological reproduction and the unity of spouses in the interest of the education of the rising generation constitute the two intelligible ends of the reproductive organs: and together reproduction and education comprise the essence of marriage and the natural family.

Now, there are subordinate third, fourth and fifth ends of marriage as well. These ends include:

3. Mutual Help
4. Satisfying Physical Desires
5. Fostering Reciprocal Love.

These are secondary ingredients in a marriage. None of these ends however constitute the essence of marriage, in and of themselves, or in any combination. Here is why.

"Mutual Help"

A. "Mutual help can be achieved by living with anyone, like a roommate for example, but a roommate is not a spouse! So mutual help cannot be considered the essence of marriage.
B. We do not consider a married couple divorced simply because one or both spouses suffer an accident that renders them handicapped and therefore incapable of helping each other. However, if mutual help were the essence of marriage, we would be forced into the absurd claim that paralyzed spouses were no longer married!

"Satisfying Ones Physical Desires"

A. Satisfying ones physical desires can be achieved in any number of ways, from masturbation to a one night stand. These behaviors are immoral, but they may "abate one’s concupiscence." However we do not consider two persons who were involved in a one night stand "married" do we? No! So satisfying one’s physical desires can not constitute the essence of marriage either.

B. Further, some married couples are rendered incapable of satisfying each others physical desires due to handicap, but we do not consider them therefore divorced, do we? But if satisfying ones physical desires were the essence of marriage, we would be forced into this absurd conclusion!

"Fostering Reciprocal Love"

Fostering Reciprocal Charitable Love and/or Erotic Love"

A. Fostering reciprocal charitable love, can be accomplished by philanthropic organizations, churches or societies of friends. So charitable love cannot be the essence of marriage!
B. Even when one or both partners act selfishly toward each other for a long period of time we do not consider their marriage no longer valid. There are many cases in which couples go through long dark periods of selfishness and then come out into the bright day of charity. This may not be ideal, but selfishness does not constitute divorce in and of itself.
C. What about erotic love? Eros is romantic attraction. Many couples fall in and out of romantic attraction for long or short periods of time. Falling out of romantic attraction however does not imply that a couple is no longer married, so Eros cannot be the essence of marriage. Many couples report falling in and out of Eros over and over and then building stronger more permanent emotional connection over time. The point is that emotions are fluid, they change every day, but if Eros were the essence of marriage, couples would be entering and exiting marriages every time their feelings changed! Eros therefore cannot be the essence of marriage.
D. In addition, romantic attraction can be felt by multiple persons for multiple persons at the same time. Does this mean that a group of people can be married? I don’t think so. Some claim an erotic attraction to their own parents or children, as in cases of incest. Recently one twenty-something made national news when he and his grandmother declared that they were romantically attracted to one another and in a relationship. If Eros were the "essence of marriage" though, it would force us into the absurd conclusion that marriage is anything anyone wants it to be, at any time. This is ridiculous on its face. If this were true then incest, polygamy, polyandry, communal marriages, etc. would all have to be considered valid if "Eros" were the essence of marriage.
E. Not only is Eros not the essence of marriage, but same-sex couples cannot share a Good Eros, or in other words a rational Eros.
F. There are two forms of love. The first is a lower and imperfect form love called "The love of desire," "concupiscence" or sensitive love –involving predominantly the senses –it is primarily directed toward objects, places, animals and so on. The second form of love is called volitional love. In its highest state this form of love requires that the person come out of him or her self, and love another, not his or her own enjoyment and interest in the other, but for the good of the other first. So, in other words, romantic attraction must be governed by the good in order for it to be a good romantic attraction. If Eros however, becomes the ultimate principle upon which one chooses to act, Eros becomes a god. Eros, having become a god, becomes a demon. Suicide pairs, pacts, murders, a father leaves his wife and young children for another women all in the name of "Eros." Many atrocities have been committed in the name of love. Thus, Eros must be governed by the good, for it to be a good Eros, and the good is that which is in accord with the nature of the subject, whether object, plant, animal or man. It is perfective and fulfilling of all things and therefore that which all things seek and the story of how a thing works according to its nature. The following phrases are synonymous with the good, the first principle of practical reason. "Act in accord with nature," "act rationally" "act in accord with a well-formed conscious." Indeed, properly defined, "act in a loving way serves as well." Understanding the Good requires charity. One must negate self-interest and put the other first in order to see him or her as he or she is. Same-sex couples fail to do this however. Altruistic failure is implicit in the nature of any same-sex relationship. The reason for this is that the human body is self-evidently procreative by its physical design. If the homosexual put the other first he or she would observe this and refuse to enter into the relationship. Further, for this type of relationship to even be possible for the homosexual he or she would have to conceptualize him or herself as an abstract consciousness, inhabiting an impersonal body –the ghost in the machine view. Implicit in this view is the notion that one is not ones own body, and that the body is just an impersonal earth suit. This is obviously false, however. We are our bodies. Our bodies are a very important part of who we are. If we are not our bodies then where are we? In order to for the homosexual to enter into a charitable relationship he or she would have to recognize both his own body as well as the body of his partner for what they are, procreative by their very design. Thus, charity would dictate that they never enter into the relationship in the first place. It is the violence of carnal desire that animates same-sex relationships, not volitional love.

Although "mutual help," "satisfying one’s physical desires" and "fostering reciprocal love" are non-substantial secondary ends of marriage and proper to it, the primary essence of the institution lies in the combination of the two primary rational ends, the second of which flows from the first: reproduction and continued unity in the interest of education .

It is true that reproduction alone does not constitute a marriage. A male may impregnate a female and then leave her. This is not the essence of marriage. It is only when the male and female reproduce and commit to remain together to educate their rational offspring that a marriage is born.

These are the only ends that are unique to marriage and comprise its eesence as a concept. These two ends together, therefore constitute the essence of marriage, along with the secondary ends of mutual help, satisfying desires and fostering reciprocal love.

K. Homosexuals are incapable of real love. Love is an attraction to a good perceived in a thing. Man’s will is ordered toward the good, just as his eye is ordered toward light and his intellect is ordered toward Truth by way of reason. True love then, like truth and goodness, is immaterial, although it resonates physically with emotions and sentiments. Love has degrees and is subject to distortion...to be continued...

-----------------------------------------------
Answers to Common Rebuttals:

Now I would like to take some time to answer a common rebuttal to the essence of marriage put forth by homosexualists, infertility. Some deny that reproduction and unity, marriage, can be the only rational ends of the reproductive organ in act citing a merely apparent contradiction; cases in which a married couple discovers that one or both partners are infertile due to privation or are simply beyond the age of conception.

This objection however fails, for the following reason.Privations such as infertility, blindness, a missing arm, leg, etc. are accidental properties, not substantial. Accidental properties, such as privations, do not change the formal aspect of the subject. Just because a man is blind does not change the fact that he is a man, nor does it change the fact that the primary intelligible end of the eye is color and light. A man is still a man even if he is missing an arm, and indeed, a man is still a man even if he loses his ability to reason due to mental trauma. The whole is self-evidently greater than the sum of its parts and even when one or more parts fail to function properly, the whole remains what it is. The existence of privation does not change the form or intelligible end of the whole, it simply blocks the whole from succesfully realizing its full potential.We understand this and as a result we seek to cure blindness and other ailments when and wherever we can. This agreement is implicit in the whole field of medicine. When a part fails to function properly we attempt to correct it rather than change our conceptualization of what it is altogether. Thus, accidents such as infertility, blindness or even the loss of reason are not substantial and therefore do not change the intelligible end of the subjects which possess them, but rather they are simply deficiencies in actuality.

Reproductive-type acts therefore, within the bounds of a permanant committed relationship, whether or not they are reproductive in effect, retain a rational, and not merely emotional, nature, and thus they are conjugal acts/marital acts/human acts/free acts and they are the product of a unified human agent and a single unified reproductive principle made up of a two in one flesh substace, (father plays form and mother matter) and they remain marital, even when they fail to result in actual reproduction, due to privation beyond the control of the couple involved.

-------------------------

A Challenge for Detractors:

Those who object to the rational and thus natural definition of marriage tend to make the case that marriage is about, "shared values, mutual respect and romantic attraction." To these objectors I would ask if they would allow say, a ten year old and a ninety year old who, "share the same values, mutual respect and romantic attraction" to marry? Would they allow a thousand men who, "share values and romantic attraction to marry?" etc.

There does not seem to be anything in their principle that one could use to intelligibly deny these types of relationships from being conceptualized as "marriage."I would also ask these objectors if their definition would open the institution so wide that it would become virtually unintelligible as a concept. Just think, if a term is so broad that it can mean anything at all, does it not actually mean nothing at all?I would also ask the objector if he or she would agree that Eros, or romantic attraction must be governed by the good, in order for it to be a good type of romantic attraction. Just think, all sorts of evil acts have been committed in history in the name of Eros, romantic attraction, suicide pairs, pacts, murders, a man leaves his children and wife for another woman, all in the name of Eros.

The detractor ought to take this into account: the good is that which is in accord with the nature of the subject, whether object, plant, animal or man. It is perfective and fulfilling of all things and therefore that which all things seek and the story of how a thing works according to its nature.
The good must govern the passions by way of the will, the rational appetite. In the words of the Artist in the Ambulance, "We were told it long ago by Plato. As the king governs by his executive, so Reason in man must rule the mere appetites by means of the 'spirited element.' The head rules the belly through the chest--the seat, as Alanus tells us, of Magnanimity, of emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments. The Chest-Magnanimity-Sentiment--these are the indespensible liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal."

Ryan Sorba

2010-08-16T16:36:00.002-07:00

Ryan Sorba

2010-08-16T16:35:00.002-07:00

Ryan Sorba

2010-08-16T16:35:00.001-07:00

Ryan Sorba

2010-08-16T16:34:00.001-07:00

Ryan Sorba

2010-04-12T23:45:00.000-07:00

The Nature of Marriage, by Ryan Sorba

Nearly all the philosophers, generally speaking, have included “rational” in their definition of man. Man understands. In case anyone denies it, let us remember that a rational case must be given for the denial to make sense in the first place.

Human nature is, in summation, a rational substance in relationship. Insofar as a man acts in accord with his reason, properly defined, he acts naturally, ethically, in a way that is suitable to his own form and nature. Insofar as a man allows his irrational passions to cloud his theoretical and practical rational thought processes and the actions which flow properly from them, he thinks and acts in an unnatural way, contrary to his own form and being. For human beings natural acts are rational acts.

In the case of human sexuality the primary rational or intelligible end of the reproductive organ in act is reproduction, and it is because of this primary reproductive end that the organ is conceptualized, judged, defined and labeled “reproductive” in the first place.

There is a second intelligible end as well, which flows from the first. In the case of human beings, the being produced as a result of a reproductive act is a being endowed with reason and capable of using it excellently or poorly. Now rational excellence implies instruction and instruction takes time. It takes longer to teach men to reason well than it does to teach birds to fly. Reproduction therefore includes, in addition to the biological process of physical generation, intellectual generation, and intellectual generation includes in addition to a theoretical (or speculative) education, a practical education, the inculcation virtue, in other words the reproduction and instillation of humanity, which allows the rational agent to excercise reason in act.

Just as old birds teach young birds to fly, so too must old humans teach young humans to reason. Since reproduction includes intellectual reproduction, education, which takes time, the father ought to remain united with the mother the entire time required to ensure the proper education of the being or multiple beings begotten as a result of their union. Thus, the unity of spouses in the interest of the successful and indeed excellent education of their offspring constitutes the second intelligible end of the reproductive act. To reproduce physically but not metaphysically is to reproduce in vain.

It is thusly, out of the two intelligible aspects of the reproductive process, physical and metaphysical, that the natural institution we call marriage is constituted, and indeed, we can expect natural marriage to arise spontaneously wherever reason in man prevails. Further, marriage which is more than a mere tie, it is a friendship, indeed, it the greatest of all friendships. Now the greater the friendship the more lasting and durable it is too, and the greatest of all friendships ought to be the most lasting and durable of all.

An Answer to a Common Rebuttal:

Now, some deny that reproduction and unity, marriage, can be the only rational ends of the reproductive organ in act citing a merely apparent contradiction; cases in which a married couple discovers that one or both partners are infertile due to privation or are simply beyond the age of conception. This objection however fails for the following reason.

Privations such as infertility, blindness, a missing arm, leg, etc. are accidental properties, not substantial. Accidental properties, such as privations, do not change the formal aspect of the subject. Just because a man is blind does not change the fact that he is a man, nor does it change the fact that the primary intelligible end of the eye is color and light. A man is still a man even if he is missing an arm, and indeed, a man is still a man even if he loses his ability to reason due to mental trauma. The whole is self-evidently greater than the sum of its parts and even when one or more parts fail to function properly, the whole remains what it is. The existence of privation does not change the form or intelligible end of the whole, it simply blocks the whole from succesfully realizing its full potential.

We understand this and as a result we seek to cure blindness and other ailments when and wherever we can. This agreement is implicit in the whole field of medicine. When a part fails to function properly we attempt to correct it rather than change our conceptualization of what it is altogether. Thus, accidents such as infertility, blindness or even the loss of reason are not substantial and therefore do not change the intelligible end of the subjects which possess them, but rather they are simply deficiencies in actuality.

Reproductive-type acts therefore, within the bounds of a permanant committed relationship, whether or not they are reproductive in effect, retain a rational, and not merely emotional, nature, and thus they are conjugal acts/marital acts/human acts/free acts and they are the product of a unified human agent and a single unified reproductive principle made up of a two in one flesh substace, (father plays form and mother matter) and they remain marital, even when they fail to result in actual reproduction, due to privation beyond the control of the couple involved.

A Challenge:

Those who object to the rational and thus natural definition of marriage tend to make the case that marriage is about, "shared values, mutual respect and romantic attraction." To these objectors I would ask if they would allow say, a ten year old and a ninety year old who, "share the same values, mutual respect and romantic attraction" to marry? Would they allow a thousand men who, "share values and romantic attraction to marry?" etc. There does not seem to be anything in their principle that one could use to intelligibly deny these types of relationships from being conceptualized as "marriage."

I would also ask these objectors if their definition would open the institution so wide that it would become virtually unintelligible as a concept. Just think, if a term is so broad that it can mean anything at all, does it not actually mean nothing at all?I would also ask the objector if he or she would agree that Eros, or romantic attraction must be governed by the good, in order for it to be a good type of romantic attraction. Just think, all sorts of evil acts have been committed in history in the name of Eros, romantic attraction, suicide pairs, pacts, murders, a man leaves his children and wife for another woman, all in the name of Eros. The objector ought to take this into account: the good is that which is in accord with the nature of the subject, whether object, plant, animal or man. It is perfective and fulfilling of all things and therefore that which all things seek and the story of how a thing works according to its nature.

The good must govern the passions by way of the will, the rational appetite. In the words of the Artist in the Ambulance, "We were told it long ago by Plato. As the king governs by his executive, so Reason in man must rule the mere appetites by means of the 'spirited element.' The head rules the belly through the chest--the seat, as Alanus tells us, of Magnanimity, of emotions organized by trained habit into stable sentiments. The Chest-Magnanimity-Sentiment--these are the indespensible liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man. It may even be said that it is by this middle element that man is man: for by his intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite mere animal."

Dinesh D'Souza Prevails: Richard Dawkins is Delusional

2008-07-29T08:42:00.001-07:00

Dinesh D'Souza recently presented the philosophical case for God on the Riz Khan show. Richard Dawkin's appeared on the show as well, but told producers that he would not debate D'Souza face to face.

It appears as though the world's so-called "leading athiest" is afraid to spar in public. Of course, if it looks like a chicken and acts like a chicken...chances are...Dawkin's is a chicken. Balk, balk, balk. The clip was broadcast to more than 20 million viewers worldwide. You can watch the clips or read more about the situation on Townhall.com:

http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/07/28/countering_richard_dawkins_on_al-jazeera

The Future of Human Nature

2008-05-04T21:53:00.000-07:00

Bodies stuffed with prosthesis to boost performance, the intelligence of angels available on hard drives, these are fantastical images. There is a fusion, between the organically grown and technologically made on the one hand, and the separation of the human mind from live subjectivity on the other.

Whether these speculations are the product of a feverish imagination or serious predictions, I refer to them only as examples of an instrumentalization of human nature initiating a change in our self-understanding as a species.

The manipulation of the human genome, which is being aggressively decoded, and the hope entertained by certain scientists of soon being able to take evolution into their own hands, after all, uproot the distinction between the subjective and the objective, the naturally grown and technologically made, man and machine. What is at stake is the future of the human species as we know it, and our ability to conceive of ourselves as the authors of our own life stories.

The ruthless intrusion into the makeup of the human genome of the embryo will blur the intuitive distinction between the grown and the made, ones “self” and the engineers “program”—with repercussions reaching as far as the self-reference of the person to his or her own bodily existence. The vanishing point of self-hood lies somewhere in the extent to which an adolescent’s body, for example, is revealed to him as eugenically manipulated, as something which is also “made.” Here the first-person perspective of “being-oneself” collides with the third-person external perspective of “being-an-observer-to-one’s-own-life.”

“Did I do that?” the adolescent asks himself, “or was that the hand of my genetic engineer, reaching through my genome, who really chose to do that for me?”

Genetically fixed demands are irreversible and cannot be responded to. Will the adolescent ever feel like the undivided author of his own life story again, or but a co-author, or worse, less? And who will be held responsible for his actions? The programming intentions of parents or of the state might have existential consequences for the pre-programmed adolescent. The change would take place in the mind.

This does not seem like an enhancement to me, but rather the exercise of power of those living today over those coming after. The other side of genetic power today, is the future bondage of the living dead. How might this new and a-symmetrical power of the past over the future be shattered?

Intelligent Design: Dembski > Darwin

2007-01-28T17:05:00.000-08:00

With all our technology, our understanding, our progress, our super-computers and lifetimes of work, we cannot even come close to creating anything anywhere near as complex as an earthworm.
Yet these super complex organisms, with more complex parts than any super-computer, supposedly came together by chance, without anything intelligent guiding their way.
When that giant, Charles Darwin roamed the earth so long ago, most “scientists” held the view that the universe was infinite and eternal. However, in the middle of the twentieth century, the universe, according to science, got much cozier.
As evidence mounted for the Big Bang hypothesis, the specter of a beginning of the universe, and thus, a finite universe, the limits of time and space ruled out the possibility for infinite chance events.
Without infinite chance events, the highly improbable events associated with the theory of evolution stretch the boundaries of probability, and the imagination, past the breaking point. In light of a finite universe, in light of the impending collapse of naturalism, how should science come to view life?
Enter, Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the philosophical, theological, scientific, and mathematical theory that all biological organisms are far too well ordered, or, too complex to have been created by any simple unintelligent chance event or series of chance events.
The Intelligent Design hypothesis is premised on what is called specified complexity. Specified complexity uses reason, science and math to detect design in highly improbable, complex, independent patterns.
For example, we detect design at the cellular basis for life because cells are so complex and molecules are so independent. “Cells are machines of stunning complexity. A single cell is like an entire assembly line of molecules, operating in perfect harmony.”
Another indicator that the “universe might have some sort of design was the gradual discovery, starting in the 1950’s of dozens of ‘fine-tuned’ parameters in physics and cosmology, that were seemingly arbitrary values; yet, if those values were varied by even the tiniest amount, the universe simply wouldn’t ‘work’ in anything like the way it actually does.
The Big Bang would have been immediately followed by a big crunch or atoms and molecules could not have formed, or galaxies, stars, planets could not have formed; or carbon and other heavier atoms -all necessary for life- could not have formed. There is a long list of such parameters that have been identified, and the probability of getting the “right” values for all these by blind chance so as to enable life on our planet is so astronomically high that is raises some obvious and weighty questions about whether the cosmos bears the mark of design.
Interestingly, in response to this scientific case for cosmic design most working cosmologists have accepted an ad hoc escape valve called the ‘multi-verse.’ The idea is that there must be an infinite number of universes, each with a random set of physical laws, constants, constraints, etc. Supposedly, we just happen to have “won the universe lottery!” We’re sitting in a single one of these infinite universes that just happens to have all the right conditions that makes life possible. Now, doesn’t it take a lot of “faith” to believe in this multi-verse hypothesis?”
Even is trillions of years went by, I don’t believe that any super-computer, or a pencil for that matter, could come into existence without an intelligent designer. Do you?
Intelligent Design is a far more plausible explanation for the universe and life, if one observes nature, if one practices the scientific method.

Ryan Sorba

-All text in quotes was taken from either page 396 or 397, of Senator Rick Santorum’s book “It Takes a Family.”

Cicero's Podium

2006-09-27T21:09:00.000-07:00

On June 12th 2006, I gave a one hour talk, exposing the dark secrets of the homosexual political movement. The speech is entitled The Born "Gay" Hoax.

Just click on the link below if you have windows media player to watch! http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4207851797866730699

Radio Appearance

2006-09-16T21:59:00.000-07:00

(Listen)

Read This to Find Out the Secret Way to Overturn Roe v. Wade!!!

2006-09-16T21:16:00.000-07:00

Because of Roe v. Wade more than 45 million unborn children have died through abortion.In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court declared it could not resolve ''the dificult question of when life begins''-and on the basis of this unresolved question, declared a new ''right to abortion'' based on a ''right to privacy''.

The 14th ammendment to the constitution states: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its juristiction the equal protection of the law''.

In Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court admitted: if...personhood (for the unborn) is established, the apellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then gauranteed specifically by the 14th Ammendment.........

Science is clear that human life begins at conception when a new human being is formed. Post- conception, the zygote is a distinct, unified, self-integrating human organism. All genetic material needed to drive the unborn’s development is there! That means that from this point on there is an individual human, and she or he will remain so! It is an immature human, as is an infant, but a human being nonetheless!

A Life at Conception Act, by declaring that unborn children are persons legally entitled to constitutional protection, would overturn Roe v. Wade.We urge you to contact your Senators and/or Congressman to make sure that the Senate and/or House of Representative schedules hearings and a vote on a Life at Conception Act and to do everything possible to bring it to a full vote in the U.S. Senate and House in this session of Congress.-Ryan Sorba (paraphrased and really altered quote by The National Right to Life Alliance)