If ever there was a subject which is almost universally surrounded in falsehoods, deception and misinformation, it is the topic of homosexuality. So powerful is the homosexual juggernaut that very few media outlets are left which will dare to challenge anything it claims.
Not only is the lamestream media pretty much useless here, but the activists have done a great job of taking over the schools, the judiciary, the political sphere, and even the corporate arena. There is almost nothing that takes more courage today, and features more risks, than daring to publicly resist the radical homosexual agenda.
My new book which will soon be out documents hundreds of cases of the gaystapo in action – and it sure ain’t pretty. No wonder hardly anyone is willing to speak up and challenge this activist movement. But fortunately there are a few brave voices yet which have not bowed to the activists’ agenda, and are willing to speak truth, even if very costly to do so.
Let me cite a few of these recent voices. And sometimes they come from rather unexpected quarters. One very interesting piece recently appeared by a homosexual historian. In it he argues that nobody is ‘born that way,’ and offers a lengthy case to make his point. David Benkof says in conclusion:
Of course, none of this means people don’t have sexual orientations today, it just means sexual orientations are specific to our culture, and thus not basic human nature. In tech-speak, that means being gay is in the software of some people’s lives, but it’s in nobody’s hardware.
The compelling evidence nobody’s born gay doesn’t necessarily have to shred the LGBT agenda. Legitimate reasons for more liberal attitudes and policies regarding gays and lesbians still exist, such as freedom of association, the right to privacy, and respect for other people’s experiences. But those who demand social or political change because gays are born that way just don’t know much about history.
And also quite revealing is the recent announcement by the Royal College of Psychiatrists that people are not actually born homosexual. Instead, “sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors”. Indeed, they even went on to say, “[it] is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent in a person’s life.”
And a lesbian academic has also come out recently saying some very non-PC things about all this. Sex researcher Dr. Lisa Diamond has looked carefully at some of the research on this, and takes a much more nuanced approach than many of the activists and most of the MSM. Her concluding words are these:
1. fluidity in identity, attraction and behavior is NOT specific to women but a general feature of human sexuality, one which is also confirmed by historical and cross-cultural literature;
2. the various sexual categories currently in use (LGBTQI, etc.) are useful heuristics (mental shortcuts, rules of thumb, educated guesses or stereotypes), but though “they have meaning in our culture, … we have to be careful in presuming that they represent natural phenomena” (38:55);
and 3. it is “tricky” to use these categories for advocating rights based on the concept of immutability “now that we know it is not true … As a community, the queers have to stop saying: ‘Please help us, we were born this way and we can’t change’ as an argument for legal standing.”
Finally, major study has found what many of have already known: relationship issues are among the main cause of homosexual suicide. As one story begins:
While many assume that family rejection is the leading cause of depression among LBGTI individuals, a new study has found that in fact the problem appears to stem predominantly from the higher incidence of relationship problems among homosexuals. Dr. Delaney Skerrett led a team of researchers from the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention (AISRAP) in studying suicides in Queensland. He found that a leading cause of suicide among “lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex” (LGBTI) people is stress from their romantic partners.
“We tend to assume that the psychological distress LGBTI people are often going through is due to family rejection. But it seems that’s not so much the case. The conflict seems to be largely related to relationship problems, with partners,” Dr. Skerrett said. In fact, he said, “The numbers are telling us there’s a general acceptance at the family level,” something he said is “great” and “really heartening!”
Instead, the study, which was published on April 2 in Asia Pacific Psychiatry, found that “LGBT individuals experienced relationship problems more often” than heterosexuals, “with relationship conflict also being more frequent than in non?LGBT cases.” That confirms previous studies finding that homosexuals also face higher rates of intimate partner violence than heterosexuals.
Dissent will be punished
So there we have four different voices taking a rather differing line to the orthodox homosexual mantra. But as I said, those who dare to speak out will often be harshly dealt with. Consider just one more recent example of this. One expert who dared to warn about the dangerous nature of homosexual activity has lost his job as a result:
He’s a pioneer in the realm of clinical infectious diseases in the Caribbean. And now he’s under fire for testifying that homosexual intercourse is dangerous to those who practice it—and to public health in general. Professor Brendan Bain, a practicing Christian who serves to treat AIDS patients, was the director of the regional coordinating unit of the Caribbean HIV/AIDS Regional Training Network (CHART) at the University of the West Indies in Jamaica, until his anti-gay sex comments caught up with him.
Bain was fired in the wake of fallout related to his testimony on behalf of a group of churches working to keep Belize’s sodomy law in place in 2012. It took two years, but now he’s paying the price for his beliefs. Bain’s testimony was based on his research, which shows the relative risk of contracting HIV is significantly higher among men who have sex with other men (MSM) in Belize than in the general population. His research concludes the same truth in several other countries for which data is available, including countries that have repealed the law that criminalizes anal sex and countries where the law still applies.
Yep, speaking the truth can be very costly today, especially when you dare to speak truth about the homosexual lifestyle and agenda. But it is good to see a few brave voices being raised. We need much more of this of course. But it is a good start, and I will continue to publicise it.
The homosexualists and sexual anarchists may be ‘having a ball’ now but just as the seventies ‘good to be gay’ time turned into the AIDS nightmare of the eighties and nineties new horrors will inevitably appear in the not too distant future.
Thanks Bill. These are very helpful quotes; all the more because “they come from rather unexpected quarters”.
Looking forward to your new book!!
Very helpful references, thanks Bill.
Your readers might be surprised by long-standing statements from the following organisations. The American Psychiatric Association said we cannot draw a ‘born that way’ conclusion: “There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality”. Even the avowedly pro-gay American Psychological Association cannot reach a ‘born that way’ conclusion: “No findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”
But what use is clinical truth up against Lady Gaga et al? So public policy proceeds based on false science, using the ‘innate & immutable’ fallacy to argue that we have an obligation to let homosexual people ‘marry’.
It’s good to know that in the end all will be put right, but even on the way to the end the efforts of Bill and other truthful media people can at least help to slow the downhill skid of society. Keep speaking out, Bill.
I know you will!
Sheesh! Some good quotes there Bill.
Strange thing is, really, some sense, or honesty actually—of a sort—is being spoken, instead of the usual ‘born that way’ spin that confuses or deceives, the big western numbers across a whole global community!
This is good news – they can’t hide the truth forever.
Keep it up Bill, you have my full support.
If sexuality were as fixed as we are lead to believe then why was it that homosexuality – mostly man-boy relations – were so rife in ancient Greece and Rome?
The statement “sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors” is intriguing. Biological factors are constant. Now if something is a function of X + Y and X is constant, you can eliminate X, leaving only Y!
Your articles have been a real inspiration for me to do something about these issues. Even if it means offending people, including my Christian friends, when I pass on your articles!
Thanks Sue – bless you.
All “hate speech” laws never once mention truth, which is exactly what hate speech is about, the suppression of truth since it might hurt people’s feelings.
Cannot wait for your new book, Bill. Meanwhile, for those who like logic, uncorrupted reasoning and common sense I would strongly recommend “Making Gay OK” by Robert R. Reilly
John Bennett, biological factors may be constant for an individual, but they vary from person to person. Hence the claim that “sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors” is perfectly rational (whether correct or not).
Inappropriate and misleading language
At the moment we have the right to choose (inoffensively) the words we use (and for that matter those we choose not to) – it is vitally important that we use this freedom of choice wisely.
I am sometimes gay (not homosexual) and I reserve the right to not use the word gay to describe anyone or any matter relating to homosexuality and would encourage others for the sake of clarity to do likewise. The word homosexual is clear enough to convey what is being meant without unnecessarily causing offense to those who are heterosexuals as a consequence of misinterpretation. I also civilly object to being described as ‘straight’. It has connotations of inflexibility, intolerance and when placed alongside the term gay as its opposite then it can also be interpreted as sad.
A relationship between persons of the same sex is exactly that – a same-sex relationship. It is also accurate to describe some of those same-sex relationships as legalised. In such circumstances, no reference to the term ‘marriage’ is necessary. Carelessness in how we use vocabulary has resulted in us surrendering vital aspects of our language; it has not been hijacked. The correct use of language in this matter is not unimportant. If we continue to be ‘language lazy’ and careless then we will find it so much harder to resist the suppressing of the terms mother and father, husband and wife and so on from a wide range of instances such as official forms, school books etc. However, I would warn those who would adopt the practice of vocabulary accuracy, (which should be only be done with a spirit of love and tolerance), will at some stage attract hostility, but rather than that being a deterrent it should be an encouragement. Those who value the traditional use of the terms marriage, gay and straight need to be encouraged to use those terms only in the context of their original meaning.
I would also encourage those who are accused of being homophobic to calmly challenge any such broad and ambiguous charge by requesting specific details when so accused, and when the cloak of ambiguity has been removed then such accusations are more charitably and non patronisingly dealt with in an edifying and illuminative manner (that’s not to say that such edification and illumination will be welcome) by those who are genuinely well intentioned and informed.
Though some organisations and individuals may even vigorously oppose the current attack on marriage, their continued insistence in language surrender e.g. gay, straight, and gay ‘marriage’ instead of (legalised) same sex relationships; the term ‘guys’ to describe a group of both men and women, has been a significant factor in contributing to the circumstances we now find ourselves in.
The campaign for the legalisation of same-sex relationships is not an equality or inclusiveness issue. It is also not a matter of political correctness. Neither is it primarily about the redefinition of marriage, it is about the redefinition of morality with the ultimate aim of the eradication of Christianity. Legalised same-sex relationships and the redefinition of marriage will be used to stealthily compel society (particularly through the education system) to embrace rather than tolerate practices and circumstances which people should have the right and freedom to civilly disagree with.
In conclusion I would advise you that I believe that every human person is a unique and irreplaceable gift created by our loving God, and therefore must be treated with love, respect and dignity, which of course applies to those who would disagree with me.
My new book which will soon be out documents hundreds of cases of the gaystapo in action – and it sure ain’t pretty. No wonder hardly anyone is willing to speak up and challenge this activist movement. But fortunately there are a few brave voices yet which have not bowed to the activists’ agenda, and are willing to speak truth, even if very costly to do so.
The homosexualists and sexual anarchists may be ‘having a ball’ now but just as the seventies ‘good to be gay’ time turned into the AIDS nightmare of the eighties and nineties new horrors will inevitably appear in the not too distant future.
Thanks Bill. These are very helpful quotes; all the more because “they come from rather unexpected quarters”.
Looking forward to your new book!!
Very helpful references, thanks Bill.
Your readers might be surprised by long-standing statements from the following organisations. The American Psychiatric Association said we cannot draw a ‘born that way’ conclusion: “There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality”. Even the avowedly pro-gay American Psychological Association cannot reach a ‘born that way’ conclusion: “No findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.”
But what use is clinical truth up against Lady Gaga et al? So public policy proceeds based on false science, using the ‘innate & immutable’ fallacy to argue that we have an obligation to let homosexual people ‘marry’.
It’s good to know that in the end all will be put right, but even on the way to the end the efforts of Bill and other truthful media people can at least help to slow the downhill skid of society. Keep speaking out, Bill.
I know you will!
Sheesh! Some good quotes there Bill.
Strange thing is, really, some sense, or honesty actually—of a sort—is being spoken, instead of the usual ‘born that way’ spin that confuses or deceives, the big western numbers across a whole global community!
This is good news – they can’t hide the truth forever.
Keep it up Bill, you have my full support.
If sexuality were as fixed as we are lead to believe then why was it that homosexuality – mostly man-boy relations – were so rife in ancient Greece and Rome?
The statement “sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors” is intriguing. Biological factors are constant. Now if something is a function of X + Y and X is constant, you can eliminate X, leaving only Y!
Your articles have been a real inspiration for me to do something about these issues. Even if it means offending people, including my Christian friends, when I pass on your articles!
Thanks Sue – bless you.
All “hate speech” laws never once mention truth, which is exactly what hate speech is about, the suppression of truth since it might hurt people’s feelings.
Cannot wait for your new book, Bill. Meanwhile, for those who like logic, uncorrupted reasoning and common sense I would strongly recommend “Making Gay OK” by Robert R. Reilly
John Bennett, biological factors may be constant for an individual, but they vary from person to person. Hence the claim that “sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors” is perfectly rational (whether correct or not).
Inappropriate and misleading language
At the moment we have the right to choose (inoffensively) the words we use (and for that matter those we choose not to) – it is vitally important that we use this freedom of choice wisely.
I am sometimes gay (not homosexual) and I reserve the right to not use the word gay to describe anyone or any matter relating to homosexuality and would encourage others for the sake of clarity to do likewise. The word homosexual is clear enough to convey what is being meant without unnecessarily causing offense to those who are heterosexuals as a consequence of misinterpretation. I also civilly object to being described as ‘straight’. It has connotations of inflexibility, intolerance and when placed alongside the term gay as its opposite then it can also be interpreted as sad.
A relationship between persons of the same sex is exactly that – a same-sex relationship. It is also accurate to describe some of those same-sex relationships as legalised. In such circumstances, no reference to the term ‘marriage’ is necessary. Carelessness in how we use vocabulary has resulted in us surrendering vital aspects of our language; it has not been hijacked. The correct use of language in this matter is not unimportant. If we continue to be ‘language lazy’ and careless then we will find it so much harder to resist the suppressing of the terms mother and father, husband and wife and so on from a wide range of instances such as official forms, school books etc. However, I would warn those who would adopt the practice of vocabulary accuracy, (which should be only be done with a spirit of love and tolerance), will at some stage attract hostility, but rather than that being a deterrent it should be an encouragement. Those who value the traditional use of the terms marriage, gay and straight need to be encouraged to use those terms only in the context of their original meaning.
I would also encourage those who are accused of being homophobic to calmly challenge any such broad and ambiguous charge by requesting specific details when so accused, and when the cloak of ambiguity has been removed then such accusations are more charitably and non patronisingly dealt with in an edifying and illuminative manner (that’s not to say that such edification and illumination will be welcome) by those who are genuinely well intentioned and informed.
Though some organisations and individuals may even vigorously oppose the current attack on marriage, their continued insistence in language surrender e.g. gay, straight, and gay ‘marriage’ instead of (legalised) same sex relationships; the term ‘guys’ to describe a group of both men and women, has been a significant factor in contributing to the circumstances we now find ourselves in.
The campaign for the legalisation of same-sex relationships is not an equality or inclusiveness issue. It is also not a matter of political correctness. Neither is it primarily about the redefinition of marriage, it is about the redefinition of morality with the ultimate aim of the eradication of Christianity. Legalised same-sex relationships and the redefinition of marriage will be used to stealthily compel society (particularly through the education system) to embrace rather than tolerate practices and circumstances which people should have the right and freedom to civilly disagree with.
In conclusion I would advise you that I believe that every human person is a unique and irreplaceable gift created by our loving God, and therefore must be treated with love, respect and dignity, which of course applies to those who would disagree with me.