The following article was originally composed for the blog entitled, “FREEDOM OF FAITH” in April of 2012.  Since the Supreme Court is considering gay marriage, I thought it would be appropriate to print an updated version.  It has since been updated to read as follows:

 

THE RUSE

 

The purpose of Freedom of Faith is to encourage the free expression of faith issues.  That includes doctrines, world views, and also mores.  Lately, the free expression of mores has been challenged by media and government.  It seems that when a faith community inserts comments on social mores, the attacks explode in an effort to silence the voices of faith.  Nowhere is that more evident than when human sexuality is the issue.   So, I’m going to use this opportunity to address one issue that has been hotly debated for several decades in both the secular and religious worlds.

 

At the beginning of the 1970’s, I was serving as a counselor at a state university in Illinois.  My clients were primarily faculty, but I spent considerable time with students.  I also traveled to many Midwestern universities one week per month working with groups of faculty and students.  The counselors on our campus had a close relationship and met regularly to share information and encourage one another.  We represented various faith groups and organizations on campus, and yet there was a strong bond of dedication to the task of making campus life a healthy educational experience for all during a chaotic period .

 

At that time we were called together for a workshop led by a group from Chicago.  Such meetings were not unusual, so it was well attended.  We learned that the group consisted of leaders of the gay movement who wanted to express their take on attitudes toward them.  The topics of the workshop consisted of:

-          Perceptions they wanted to change about  gay people

-          The strategy to bring about such change

-          How to deal with opposition

-          How we could be involved in their strategy

-          Why religious prohibitions of the gay lifestyle were not valid

 

Here are some details they presented about each of the topics:

 

PERCEPTIONS TO BE CHANGED

First, they wanted the public to think that the practice of homosexuality was much more common than the public thought.  They put out the statistic that 10%+ of Americans were practicing homosexuals.  They were promoting the idea that homosexual activity was very common.  That led to…

Second, homosexual acts are just as normal as heterosexual acts.  One’s “orientation” was no more normal than another’s, just different.   That led to…

Third, the origins of homosexuality are genetic or hormonal.  In other words, gay people are born that way.  Therefore, homosexuality becomes a civil rights issue just like race or ethnicity.  That led to…

Fourth, homosexuals can never change their sensual appetites.  They are what they are for life.  No amount of counseling or treatment can make any difference.  (This issue obviously had our attention as counselors).  That led to…

Fifth, the historic religious prohibitions against homosexual behavior were really prohibitions against a lack of hospitality, not homosexual activity.  They brought in a priest from Chicago who had recently written a book presenting such a view. 

 

STRATEGY TO BRING ABOUT THESE CHANGES IN PUBLIC PERCEPTION

Their campaign was going to start on the campuses of America.  That is why they came to our university.  They would promote their agenda to the faculty, who would in turn teach it to the students who would take it with them when they graduated.  Because those grads would be the leaders of the next generation, the new perceptions would be transferred rapidly.  They also would work diligently to put sympathetic people in key faculty and administrative positions.  The idea was to gradually percolate down  to high school and then grade school.

 

The next target was to be the media and entertainment.  They knew the ever increasing influence of media and entertainment on youth.

 

Next would be a tough campaign to change the medical community’s perception.  They knew this would be more about political science than medical science.  One of their toughest battles would be to change the idea of what is “normal”.  The other would be to deal with the view of most experts about the origin of homosexual tendencies.  This would be critical to their success.

 

Of course, they needed to target government, politics, and the military.  Using the “civil rights” tactic, they were going to promote sensitivity training to weed out the strongholds of opposition.  At the same time, they targeted the business world with the same strategy.

 

One area they knew was going to be a problem was the various faith communities.  Their strategy was to convince the clergy that the prohibitions against homosexuality in the holy writings were not really about homosexuality at all and they wanted the clergy and church leaders to convince the laity. 

 

DEALING WITH OPPOSITION

Persistence was the key.  They were going to keep hammering home their perceptions until enough people bought into them to make them common.  We could tell by their presentation that those who opposed them would be minimized by derision, pejoratives, and political pressure.  This was strange to us because these were the days of free speech where opposition was handled by the exchange of ideas.

 

HOW WE WERE TO BE INVOLVED

They knew many of us had roots in various faith communities.  They were recruiting us to inject their message into those communities using, among other things, the book written by the priest who was with them.  We were to be their representatives to convince people of faith that the various holy writings didn’t really prohibit homosexuality. 

 

Knowing we were counseling many faculty and students, they wanted us to get behind the changes in perception they were promoting and pass them along to those we were working with each day.

 

WHY THE RELIGIOUS PROHIBITIONS AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY ARE NOT VALID

The main point made by the priest was that God was not upset at Sodom and Gomorrah for the homosexuality displayed, but because the people didn’t treat the visitors well.  Then he went on to dispute the way the word for homosexuality has been translated and interpreted.  His point is that God was offended by the lack of hospitality of the people, not their sexual activity.

 

FOLLOWUP TO THE WORKSHOP

Our group of counselors met and discussed the workshop afterwards.  It led to many discussions between us for months to come.  As I recall, the main conclusion was that we did not believe the public would be gullible enough to accept the ideas presented in their campaign.  What the gay leadership did not understand was that most of us at the workshop had as much training in the holy writings as the priest did.  We knew his contentions were unreasonable and could not be proven.  So, we dismissed the rest of the presentation as having little chance of success.

Obviously, we were mistaken.  The gay leadership has pulled off one of the most successful campaigns in history.  They have been almost completely successful in changing the American perception of homosexuality.  The education system has become a willing ally.  Media and entertainment are submerged in their mindset.  Medical literature has danced to their music until recently.  (I’ll discuss that later).  Their sensitivity classes are taught in the world of government, military, politics, and business.  Opposition is not tolerated. 

 

The only significant defeats have come from faith communities.  The “inhospitality” argument has only been partially successful.  Some mainline churches have bought in, but most orthodox bodies have not.  So, some time ago, the strategy was changed.  The revised approach has been to isolate the opposition by claiming that it’s not important what the holy writings say.  We’ve moved beyond those outdated prohibitions since we are so much more enlightened.  That strategy has been far more effective.

 

WHERE ARE WE NOW?

The gay leadership has successfully convinced a significant numbers of Americans that:

-          10%+ of our population is gay and therefore being gay is common

-          Homosexuality is just as normal and natural as heterosexuality

-          The origins of homosexuality are hormonal and/or genetic (we are born that way).  Therefore, it is a civil rights issue

-          One’s propensity cannot be changed

-          Prohibitions by any faith community  are not relevant

 

WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

One of the results of the gay leadership workshop was that I decided to check their facts.  Fortunately, I had access to the entire library of a large state university to do my research.  I have continued to engage in the quest for truth about the perceptions we as a society have absorbed until the present. I have been motivated by the fact that I have encountered those involved in the gay lifestyle throughout my career.  In order to be helpful, I needed to know the truth.  Here are the results of my research:

 

THE REAL NUMBERS

The 10%+ figure came from Kinsey’s survey published years before.   Upon investigation, we find the whole study was badly skewed.  The study included 1500 sex offenders, 600 male and female prostitutes, prisoners, and residents of homosexual enclaves.  He also was upfront about his bias.

 

The University of Chicago National Opinion Research Center has studied the numbers for 30 years.  Their results have held fairly steady from the 1980’s to 2010.  They say that 2% are gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

 

The 2010 Census Demographic  Profile says 2.5% of the population is homosexual or bisexual.

 

The Alan Guttmacher 1991 study said 1.1% of men were exclusively gay.  2.3% admitted to having a same sex experience.

 

My research included many more studies, but the bottom line is that only about 1/5 of the number of people the gay campaign claims to be involved in the homosexual lifestyle is actually involved.  I’ll leave it to you to decide if 2% is “common”.

 

 

 

NORMAL

The claim is that homosexual activity is as “normal” as heterosexual activity.  The Psychological textbooks of the 1960’s and 1970’s were very clear.  It was considered “abnormal behavior”.  That has changed.  But, a course in Anatomy 101 would cast serious doubt on how normal it is.  The same course would put it close to bestiality as far as “normal” is concerned.  That is supported by the recent military rejection of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy which also rejected prohibitions against bestiality putting the two activities on the same plane, on the same page, and using the identical arguments.

 

ORIGINS OF HOMOSEXUALITY

The gay campaign wants us to believe the origins of homosexuality are hormonal or genetic.  I found that the textbooks of the 1960’s and 1970’s were inclined to consider the origins to be due to an acquired appetite.  Usually, the appetite was acquired under psychological, sociological, or physical duress.   What caught my attention was the great lengths the authors went to present case studies to support their conclusions.  It also caught my attention because my own counseling experience for many decades has verified those case studies and the conclusion that homosexuality is an acquired appetite.

 

But, the efforts of the gay campaign have been very influential.  In 1998, the American Psychological Association published a brochure entitled, “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality”.  The brochure contained the following statement, “There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

 

Then, in recent years, the same organization revised the brochure to read, “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation.  Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.  Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”

 

In other words, there is no scientific or medical evidence that people are “born that way”.  That position is supported by the experience of a medical student who reported that during his years in med school, his class asked several professors about the origins of homosexuality.  The consistent answer was that there is no medical or scientific evidence that it is hormonal or genetic.

 

This issue is huge when you consider that all the laws and regulations being passed by government are based on the myth that people who engage in homosexual acts are “born that way”.  It is consistently treated as a civil rights issue like race or ethnicity when in fact it is not.  It is a ruse foisted on society by a carefully calculated propaganda campaign.  “Ruse” is not my term.  Some gay leaders have called on their cohorts to abandon the “born that way” ruse because they no longer need it for success.  They use the term “ruse” to describe the argument.  But, as we have recently seen when an entertainment personality spoke out about her choice to engage in lesbian activities, the gay leaders go berserk at the suggestion that one has any choice in who they are or what they do.  Such talk about “choice” is common inside the shock jock radio and TV world, but this lady’s comments reached the mainline media and that is not allowed.  So, the iron boot came down hard on her and she had to step back on her comments.

 

 

 

NO CHANGE

 

Of course, if there is no choice, then there can be no change.  The propaganda machine insists that, since they are “born gay”, there can be no changing the fact.  The problem is that there are thousands of people who were once involved in the homosexual lifestyle who are now actively heterosexual and willing to testify to the fact.  The gay leaders insist that they are all lying.  Their adamant denial is understandable.  If the public knew about the overwhelming evidence of change, it would destroy their civil rights strategy and the public would realize they have been duped and the sensitivity courses they have had to attend and the laws that have been passed are based on false presuppositions.

 

RELIGIOUS PROHIBITIONS

 

I’ve already discussed how the religious prohibitions against homosexuality are being challenged.  This part of the gay campaign has been the least successful.  So, they have changed tactics and declared such prohibitions as irrelevant and anyone who brings up religious issues is immediately branded a “homophobe”, “hatemonger”, and “bigot”.  This was evident recently as Bernie Goldberg blasted anyone who had a problem with a national retail chain choosing a lesbian as their spokesperson as “a racial bigot”.  The new tactics obviously are working.  Even Bill O’Reilly of Fox News has spouted the 10%+ stat in 2012 even though the stat was debunked 40 years ago.

 

No one seems to want to investigate the obvious because they fear the smear.  But, I will go ahead and bring up the point.  Why is it that the holy writings of the ancient world religions are, as far as I have read, almost unanimous in their strong prohibition of homosexual activity?  Ancient civilizations must have seen the practical need for such prohibitions.  When the major world religions are united on an issue, there is a practical reason.  For example, almost all of the major world religions have some form of the Golden Rule.  They are not identical, but they have it in one form or another.  Why?  Because it is critical to survival.  The same is true of prohibitions.  They saw the need because of what they witnessed in the human race from the earliest of days.  Homosexual activity has been around since history began.  They had plenty of evidence upon which to build a stand.  The resulting stand was to prohibit it. 

 

CONCLUSIONS

 

The campaign of the gay leaders has been very successful.  Their success has led to an arrogance that is incredible.  This minute group of people has…

-          Redefined the basic human unit of civilization.  A small group of people in just a few years has been very successful in redefining marriage.  The definition has stood since the beginning of history.  Now the human race is being told that they have been wrong all this time and the definition needs to be altered.

-          Outlawed the opposing voices.  More and more countries are banning any negative statements about homosexuality.  After reading about rulings in Canada and Europe, we can see the future in the USA.  Even historical, medical, scientific, or moral statements of facts will soon not be tolerated.  The alumni of the Free Speech Movement are being told to be quiet or else…  Even the majority of the Pro Family commentators have decided not to continue the battle because they fear the smear.  Many are now parroting the propaganda they once criticized.  The iron boot wants to make it political suicide to be Pro Family.

-          Opened the door for the procession into society of a world of formerly taboo practices.  One conclusion of our group of counselors was that, if the homosexual campaign were to be successful, it would be like a tractor-trailer.  Homosexuality would be the tractor to burst through the gates of acceptance and it would bring with it pedophilia, bestiality, S & M, sex slavery, bigamy, etc.  We were correct.  For example, you have only to watch the world news to see the age of consent plummet .  It will continue to do so until there are no laws against pedophilia.  Eliminating age of consent has been vital to the gay campaign since its inception.  Read the 1972 Gay Rights Platform and you will find it calls for the “Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent”. 

 

Before the iron boot kicks in my door, I need to reveal my history.  I have worked with, aided, counseled, and helped those involved in homosexual activities my whole career.  I have walked with them through the most traumatic days of their lives for more than 40 years and continue to do so today.  No one has ever accused me of treating them in a prejudicial manner. 

 

My purpose for this article is to open the door to some interesting history that not many people have had the opportunity to witness and explain how we arrived at this point where a very small portion of the population has so much influence over what we see, read, think, say, and learn.  The amazing fact is that is has been based on a ruse of 5 myths.