The Young Conservatives of California

The Born “Gay” Hoax, and the Dangers of Same-Gender Sex

ryansorba — Mon, 07 May 2007 23:17:15 +0000

Link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4207851797866730699

The Born “Gay” Hoax: Germany

ryansorba — Mon, 07 May 2007 23:14:10 +0000

A little over one-hundred years ago, the first concept of an inborn “homosexual” condition began to circulate in Germany. The originator of this novel concept was Karl Heinrich Ulrichs (1825-1895). Ulrichs, the “grandfather of the world ‘gay’ rights movement,” was a lawyer, political activist, and known pedophile. In an effort to garner support to repeal Paragraph 175 of the German Penal Code which criminalized sodomy, Ulrichs began to spread a theory that defined individuals that engaged in same-gender sex as members of a “third-gender.”

Ulrichs proposed that individuals that engage in same-gender sex do so because of a psycho-spiritual mix-up, in which a man’s body comes to be inhabited by a woman’s soul, and vice versa for females. In 1862, Ulrichs invented the term “Uranian” to refer to members of this “third-gender,” a term which described both males and females. Ulrichs argued that since same-gender sexuality was an inborn condition, it should not be criminalized.

Although Ulrichs was unable to abolish the sodomy law, his efforts were influential nonetheless, as evidenced by the swell of political activism and public sympathy for “Uranians” during his time. It was amidst this changing political climate that a German-Hungarian writer named Karoly Maria Kertbeny coined the term “homosexual” in an open letter to the Prussian Minister of Justice in 1869 (Lauritsen and Thorstad: 6). Prior to this, men and women that engaged in same-gender sex were known as sodomites, pederasts, or “Knabenschaender” (literally, ‘boy ravishers’) (Steakly:13) –all terms referring to the act of sodomy.

Ulrichs and Kertbeny understood that public opposition to same-gender sex sprang from the people’s understanding of sodomy as an unnatural act. In order to counter the behavioral connotations inextricably linked with terms like “sodomite” and “boy ravisher,” Ulrichs and Kertbeny set out to coin new terms that would refer to the individual rather than their behavior. They were successful. In fact, their most influential accomplishments proved to be the coining of the terms “Uranian” and “homosexual.”

During this time, German men that had sex with men began to refer to themselves as ‘Uranians;’ and a militant slogan, ‘Uranians of the world unite!’ became popular internationally. (Rutlegge:41 pg.45 Pink Swastika) Although Ulrichs’s identity-based term would fail to stick in the long term, Kertbeny’s term, “homosexual,” proved to have more lasting appeal.

Social critic Mark Steyn has described how the coining of terms by political activists has played a central role in the movement to normalize same-gender sexual activity by subtly influencing public opinion via the lexicon. Historically, Steyn explains, moral concern for sexual activity between two persons of the same gender was identified as sodomy, an act. You can either think of sodomy as acceptable or unacceptable; either way, it is an act that someone chooses. Then, Steyn explains that in late-nineteenth century, the act was re-described as a condition of certain persons, and it was termed “homosexuality.” Next, a few decades ago, “homosexuality” was upgraded again, now referring to a person’s very identity, so that we now identify people as being “gay,” or “straight,” or somewhere “in-between.” Now it describes who a person is. Steyn explains:

“Each formulation raises the stakes: One can object to and even criminalize an act; one is obligated to be sympathetic toward a condition; but once it’s a full fledged 24/7 identity, like being Hispanic or Inuit, anything less than wholehearted acceptance gets you marked down as a bigot.” (Mark Steyn, “There’s No Stopping Them Now,”
Chicago Sun-Times, July 13^,2003, p.35)

Ulrichs’s political strategy established itself as a working model in late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century Germany. However, oncoming political turmoil would leave his movement on hiatus. Ulrichs’s political strategy was destined to lie explicitly dormant for close to a century; yet its influence survived implicitly in the language. The “third-gender” theory had established a new concept for the masses. This concept carried with it an entirely new blueprint for society’s future.

The Born “Gay” Hoax: America

ryansorba — Mon, 07 May 2007 23:10:08 +0000

In 1985, the political descendents of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs resurrected the born “gay” hoax. Prior to this time, with rare exception, those that engaged in same-gender sexual conduct had always been considered to have an unnatural behavioral vice, initiated or followed by psychological dysfunction. Prior to 1985, mainstream same-gender sex activists in America even defended the idea that “homosexuality” was a behavior. For example, Lillian Faderman, who is a professor of English at California State University Fresno, an author, and same-gender sex activist, has written that “the lesbians of the 1970s valorized homosexuality by claiming that any woman could become a lesbian–and that it was a fine choice.” (The Advocate, Feb 6th 1996. Pg.72)

In 1985, however, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen tore a page from the playbook of Ulrichs, when they penned and published a low-profile document entitled “The Gay Agenda” in a same-gender sex magazine called Christopher Street. Kirk and Madsen, it must be noted, were world-renowned sexual psychologists, public relations specialists, and same-gender sex political activists. In short, “The Gay Agenda” explained the strategic importance of shifting the central issue in the debate over same-gender sex away from same-gender sex and psychology, and toward a third-gender Ulrichsian sexual identity. Thus, they would force opponents into a position where they would be seen as attacking the civil rights of so-called “gay” citizens, rather than opposing a specific antisocial behavior. (Lively) “The Gay Agenda” also outlined the strategy that would eventually be used to convince both the government and the people that some individuals are born “gay.” But, there was no initial enthusiasm for this born “gay” hoax among same-gender sex activists. In fact, many activists considered the proposed strategy deceitful and degrading, but these initial reservations would not hold for long.

In 1986, same-gender sex activists lost Bowers v. Hardwick, the United States Supreme Court case which upheld the right of individual states to criminalize sodomy. After years of widespread public activism throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the same-gender sex movement hit a wall in Bowers. But, the activists did not throw in the towel. The loss left same-gender sex activists from all sides of the political spectrum desperate and galvanized, with one last narrow opportunity to decriminalize sodomy in America.

In order to decriminalize and eventually legitimize sodomy, the activists would now have to adopt the Ulrichsian strategy outlined in Kirk and Madsen’s “Gay Agenda.” They would pursue Minority Status under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act recognizes Minority Status only for those groups who:

1) Have suffered a long history of discrimination

2) Are powerless to help themselves as a community

3) Are “born that way.

If they could make a compelling case that they were born “gay,” they would become eligible for Minority Status, as a “Suspect Class” under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If Minority status were granted, it would force the courts to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick, thus, legalizing sodomy.

The legalization of sodomy, by way of “Minority Status,” is the secret to understanding why same-gender sex activists began once again to promote the Ulrichsian claim, that people are born “gay.”

The born “gay” hoax’s time had come. Subsequently, in 1988, a “war conference” of 175 leading same-gender sex activists representing organizations from every part of the United States convened in Warrenton, Virginia. The purpose of the conference, according to Kirk and Madsen, was to establish an official agenda for the new “gay” movement.* (http://banap.net/article.php3?id_article=37) At this “War Conference” the same-gender sex activists adopted the identity politic strategy outlined in the “Gay Agenda,” which was an argument and outline for a born “gay” public relations campaign. In this deliberately deceitful agenda for America, Kirk and Madsen stated that they intended to “get tough” on straights! They continued on to say, “it is time to learn from Madison Avenue, and to roll out the big guns. . . . We are talking about propaganda.”

Kirk and Madsen explained the central tenant of their deceptive strategy: “The public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. (We argue that, 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.)” (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How
America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay;s in the 90s, p.184) They could not have been clearer about their plan to deceive the American people to further their own political agenda.

Same-gender sex activists are remarkably candid about their Machiavellian aims. Below, I have provided several quotations and examples of same-gender sex activists openly admitting that born “gay” rhetoric was a complete fabrication, contrived and carried out for specific political ends, namely, the overturning of Bowers, and the normalization of same-gender sex.

Dr. Lillian Faderman- who has won the Monette/Horwitz Award from the homosexual activist group Lambda Literary Foundation states: “And 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,” she later states, “The narrow categories of identity politics are obviously deceptive.” (The Advocate, 9-5-95, p.43)

It is obvious that Dr. Faderman sees a political threat from the truth, from the fluidity of sexuality. “I must confess that I am both elated and terrified by the possibilities of ‘a bisexual moment.’ I’m elated because I truly believe that bisexuality is the natural human condition. But I’m much less happy when I think of the possibility of huge numbers of homosexuals (two-thirds of women who identify as lesbian for example) running off to explore the heterosexual side of their bisexual potential and, as a result, decimating our political ranks.” Later in the article Dr. Faderman writes, “The concept of gay and lesbian identity may be nothing but a social construct, but it has been crucial, enabling us to become a political movement and demand the rights that are do to us as a minority. What becomes of our political movement if we openly acknowledge that sexuality is flexible and fluid, that gay and lesbian does not signify ‘a people’ but rather a ‘sometime behavior’?” (The Advocate, 9-5-95, p.43)

Dr. John DeCecco is a homosexual psychologist, the Director of the Center for Research and Education in Sexuality at San Francisco State University and the Editor of the Journal of Homosexuality. Dr. De Cecco calls himself gay but insists that such attractions are a changeable “preference” not an orientation. He explains in his book entitled, If You Seduce A Straight Person You Can Make Them Gay, that, the whole born gay/immutable characteristic idea is just “gay and lesbian politics” and is aimed at achieving “gay” rights. (If You Seduce A Straight Person You Can Make Them Gay, John De Cecco, pg. 17-18)

Dr. Vera Whisman writes in her book, Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity, “The political dangers of a choice discourse go beyond the simple (if controversial) notion that some people genuinely choose their homosexuality. Indeed, 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?” (Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity, By Dr. Vera Whisman; New York: Routlege, 1996 p.132)

Lesbian writer Jennie Ruby admits, “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” (Off Our Backs, Oct. 1996, p.22)

Jan Clausen, lesbian author of the book Apples and Oranges writes, “What’s got to stop is the rigging of history to make the either/or look permanent and universal. I understand why this argument may sound erotic to outsiders for whom the public assertion of a coherent, unchanging lesbian or gay identity has proved an indispensable tactic in the battle against homophobic persecution.”

Later in Clausen’s book Apples and Oranges she quotes the popular lesbian poet Audre Lorde, who admits the lies associated with the born “gay” hoax as well, when she writes, “I do not believe our wants have made all our lies holy.” TRACK DOWN THE DIRECT QUOTE FROM AUDRE LORDE.

Lesbians Lyne Harne and Elaine Miller explain their feelings regarding the born “gay” hoax: “There’s nothing natural in lesbianism, ‘it’s a positive choice,’ and a political one.” (Lambda Book Report, Oct. 1996, p.11, commenting on All the Rage: Reasserting Radical Lesbian Feminism) Yet another admission appeared in the homosexual magazine Girlfriends; it states, “No wonder lesbians are so nervous. What makes the lesbian movement strong is the formation of a collective identity, unified behind sexual orientation as a category. If bisexuality undoes that, it kicks the lesbian movement where it really hurts: in the heart and soul of identity politics.” (Girlfriends, May/June, 1996, p. 40)

The National Center for Lesbian Rights is one of the homosexual activist organizations that pressure the American Psychiatric Association to reject sexual reparative therapy. The NCLR claims that the “gay” identity is innate and unchangeable. JoAnne Loulan was one of the lesbian psychotherapists who served on the board of directors for this organization. Loulan made hypocritical headlines on the February 18, 1997 edition of the homosexual magazine The Advocate because she reportedly changed her own sexual orientation when she fell in love with a man! Further, Kate Kendall, the Director of the NCLR, who had repeatedly and boisterously proclaimed, in the spirit of Ulrichs, that the so-called “gay” person was endowed with a “sexual orientation” that was fixed, innate, and unchangeable, and publicly commanded the American Psychiatric Association to halt all forms of homoerotic and homosexual reparative therapies for all people looking to get help, actually wrote an article for Frontiers Magazine, arguing that sexual orientation is fluid, not fixed. (Frontiers, 4-19-96, pg. 31)

Kate Kendall and Joanne Loulan had the boldness to stand before the American Psychiatric Association with straight faces and proclaim that reparative therapy was the dangerous equivalent of pouring bleach on a dark person’s skin to make them lighter. Then, one of these self-proclaimed “gays” went out and changed her own sexual affiliation, by “falling in love” with a man; and the other took the time to write an article for an insiders’ magazine arguing that sexuality is changeable!

Unfortunately, many of us have been tricked into believing and spreading the lie that same-gender sexuality is genetic, biological, or otherwise natural. Due to belief, some of us have even advocated for so-called “gay” rights.

Those that have been tricked by the born “gay” hoax have little for which to be ashamed. There is no shame in believing a lie until you learn the truth. The truth is that beginning in 1985, the born “gay” hoax was sold to the American public by a new kind of same-gender sex activist, the homosexualist. The term homosexualist can be used to describe any same-gender sex activist that uses the born “gay” tactic, purposely or ignorantly, to argue for the normalization of same-gender sex.

The carefully calculated lies of homosexualists are blatant, and have been admitted in “gay” publications. It is obvious however, that born “gay” propagandists from Kirk and Madsen on, keep the fact of choice secret from the straight community for political reasons. Homosexualists however, as evidenced by their own articles, talk about the born “gay” hoax and the realities of sexual choice regularly amongst themselves.

The Studies: Debunked

ryansorba — Mon, 07 May 2007 22:32:28 +0000

By 1986 the born “gay” hoax had been born, and was growing fast. The resulting public relations campaign fooled millions of people around the world into accepting unnatural and inherently dangerous sexual behaviors as natural. In the wake of Ulrichs’s latter-day apostles, Kirk and Madsen and their influence on the culture, many came to believe that they themselves were born “gay.” Same-gender sex activists capitalized on multiple pseudo-scientific studies to mislead the public. The following analyses, will debunk every study of this sort, beginning with the three most cited.

The Hypothalamus Study

First we will examine the “Hypothalamus Study,” conducted in 1991 by Dr. Simon LeVay, who worked at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, California. The study analyzed size differences in the anterior hypothalamus of the brains of cadavers. LeVay publicized the study, in an attempt to convince the public that men that develop sexual desires for other men do so because of the size of the hypothalamus in the brain.

LeVay, it should be noted, had strong personal and political reasons to pursue research in this area. LeVay engaged in same-gender sex himself, and lost his partner to AIDS. Further, according to a Newsweek cover story in 1992, he stated: “. . . if I didn’t find anything, I would give up a scientific career altogether” (Gelman et al., 1992). LeVay also seemed to understand the impact that his study would have on society. “It’s important to educate society. I think this issue does affect religious and legal attitudes.” (WAS THIS QUOTE MADE IN REFERENCE TO HIS STUDY?) The Advocate, a homosexual magazine, asked LeVay if he thought “that grounding homosexuality in biology can help win political equality.” LeVay responded:

“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.”

LeVay’s manufactured hypothalamus study received widespread media attention and as a result catapulted the idea that some men are born “gay” into prominence. Although the misinformed still quote the study today as proof that men who have sex with men are born “gay,” it was actually discredited shortly after its release. The following are some of the study’s problems.

First, LeVay compared the brains of 19 men who had sex with men and died of AIDS (which is known to ravage the brain) with the brains of 13 men whose sexual habits he did not know. It is therefore impossible to draw any conclusion from his study. Second, although LeVay argued that a small INAH3 (hypothalamus) “caused” men to be “gay,” some of the men that, according to his guess work, had sex with men, had an INAH3 (hypothalamus) that was larger than the average size of the INAH3 of the “supposed” men who had sex with women. Furthermore, some of the men who had sex with women had an INAH3 that was smaller than those of the “supposed” men who had sex with men. So, some of his “gay” subjects should have been straight, and vice-versa. Third, the results of the Hypothalamus study are not repeatable. Fourth, Simon LeVay himself, admitted that the study was inconclusive in 2001, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.” (as quoted in Byrd, et al., 2001, emp. added).* Simon LeVay’s hypothalamus study confused the public. Hopefully the truth will finally set the record straight.

The “Gay” Gene Study

The next and probably most influential study reported a “gay” gene and was conducted in 1993, by another man that engaged in same gender sex, Dr. Dean Hamer and his team of geneticists at the National Cancer Institute. Hamer and his colleagues reported that a “gay” gene seemed to be maternally linked and could be found on the Xq28 stretch of the X chromosome.

Hamer, who has testified in opposition to Colorado’s Amendment 2, which sought to keep homosexual activists from winning minority class status, has played an enormous role in The “Gay” Agenda, the born “gay” hoax. Then Senator Robert C. Smith (R-New Hampshire) even accused the doctor of “actively pursu[ing] a gay agenda.” - Joyce Price, “Federal Cancer Lab Hunts for Gay Gene,” The Washington Times, 3 April 1994.

Immediately after the Hamer study was published a media explosion ensued, but like the Hypothalamus study before it, Hamer’s study was soon to be discredited as both biased and corrupt. In fact, the title of an article appearing in the same-gender sex magazine, New York Native, illustrates this fact well. The article is titled:

“‘Gay Gene’ Research Doesn’t Hold Under Scrutiny, Chicago Tribune’s John Crewdson Uncovers Possible Scientific Misconduct by NCI Researcher.” (New York Native, 7-10-95, p.25)

First, the article informs the reader of the following:

“In addition to the political and social firestorm Hamer’s research has ignited, he has also been criticized by numerous scientists for not performing what seems to be an obvious control experiment: examining the genes of heterosexual brothers. Those scientists, including two prominent geneticist/biologists at Harvard University [Richard Lewontin and Ruth Hubbard], were not government researchers.” (New York Native 7-10-95, p.28)

This omission is significant. If Hamer was refusing to use a control group in his experiment, he must have refused for reason. But, what could that reason have been? According to the New York Native article, another researcher that worked on the project had attacked Hamer’s honesty and integrity over this issue. The article states:

“Even worse for Hamer, the National Institute of Health’s Office of Research Integrity is now investigating his ‘gay gene’ research, according to Crewdson. The inquiry concerns allegations that Hamer was selective about which data he chose to report (i.e., that he ignored data that didn’t support his contention that homosexuality is genetically determined).

The data manipulation was reported to NIH’s integrity office by a junior researcher who performed research crucial to Hamer’s claimed discovery, according to Crewdson.” (New York Native 7-10-95, p.28, emphasis mine)

Aside from the fact that Hamer threw out cases which contradicted his pre-planned experimental outcome, if a study such as Hamer’s is scientifically valid, other researchers should get the same results with duplicate experiments. But this has not happened. The article continues:

“’It troubles some scientists that Hamer has not published his original data,’ according to Crewdson. Additionally, at least one lab that has tried hard to replicate his findings has been unsuccessful.”

“Only one independent laboratory has reported attempting such a replication, and it has found no evidence to support Hamer,” Crewdson reported. “We can’t reproduce Hamer’s data,” said George Ebers, a neurogeneticist from the University of Western Ontario, who has searched unsuccessfully for a Hamer-style genetic link to homosexuality in more than 50 pairs of gay Canadian brothers.

In fact, Ebers found the genetic markers cited by Hamer in “exactly half of his brother pairs,” according to Crewdson—precisely what the laws of chance would predict, if the ‘markers’ had no significance.” (New York Native, 7-10-95, p.25, 28)

Only four months after the New York Native article was printed, the November 1995 edition of Scientific American reported that Hamer actually was “being charged with research improprieties and was under investigation by the National Institute of Health’s Federal Office of Research Integrity.” According to allegations, Hamer deliberately and deceitfully excluded pairs of brothers whose genetic makeup contradicted his pre-planned experimental outcome. NIH never released the results of the inquiry, but Hamer was shortly thereafter transferred to another section. He had done the “gay” gene research under a grant to work on Kaposi’s Sarcoma, a skin cancer that inordinately afflicts homosexual men.

In April of 1999, George Rice, and George Ebers, who were both neurogeneticist’s from the University of Western Ontario discredited Hamer’s falsified “gay” gene results, when they finally published their review of Hamer’s study in Science magazine. The scientists stated that the results of Hamer’s study “did not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality” (Rice et al., 1999 and Wickelgren, 1999). They found that the gay brothers looked at by the Hamer group were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by chance. These results officially sounded the death-knell for Hamer’s outrageously effective, yet deliberately deceptive “gay” gene study. In addition, when another group of researchers (Sanders, et al.) tried to replicate Hamer’s study, they too failed to find a genetic connection to homosexuality. (Dean H. Hamer, George Rice, Neil Risch, and George Ebers,et al. “Genetics and Male Sexual Orientation” (Technical Comment), Science 285 (6 August 1999: 803a.)

Some once believed that a “gay” gene would be found hiding amidst other chromosomes that would be analyzed in the Human Genome Project. However, according to the National Center for Bio-Technology Information neither the map for the X, nor the Y chromosomes, contains any “gay” gene.

Hamer eventually admitted that his study did not support a genetic cause for homosexuality and that female homosexuality was, “culturally transmitted, not inherited” (The Washington Blade, 1-30-98, p.114) and that “There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. …I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay.” (From speech in Salt Lake City in Lili Wright, “Science of Desire Is Topic for ‘Gay Gene’ Finder,” Salt Lake Tribune, 28 April 1995) However, he continued to publicly claim that male homosexuality was about 50 percent genetic, 50 percent environmental. Where did Hamer get this 50 percent statistic from? Hamer’s claim that male homosexuality is about 50% genetic is based on the “gay” twin study, another discredited study. (The Washington Blade, 1-30-98, p.14)

The “Gay” Twins Study

This discredited study was conducted by Michael Bailey, a heterosexual, and Richard Pillard, a same-gender sex activist. In December of 1991, these two researchers published a study of twins, and they claimed to have demonstrated a genetic cause for being “gay.” One same-gender sex magazine, The Advocate, wrote, “They found that 52% of identical twin brothers of gay men were gay, as were 22% of fraternal twin brothers, and 11% of genetically unrelated brothers.” (The Advocate, 3-24-92, p.61) HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY?

There are several problems with this study. First, (assuming that the study was legitimate) in order to show that homosexuality is genetic (in identical twins) if one twin is “gay” the other should also be “gay” 100% of the time. This study, however, did not produce results that demonstrate this. Despite this fact, same-gender sex activists continue to report that this study is proof that people are born “gay.”

Second, genetics tells us that if one fraternal (non-identical) twin is “gay,” then other non-twin brothers should also be “gay” exactly as often as are the non-identical twin brothers, since non-identical twins and regular brothers are equally genetically different. In this study 22% of fraternal twins both claimed to be “gay.” Therefore, their non-twin brothers should also have claimed to be “gay” 22% of the time. If the non-twin percentage were lower, some environmental cause must have been at fault, not a hidden “gay” gene. But, this was not the case. Yet readers could not have known that this was not the case because Bailey and Pillard left the numbers for the genetically related non-twin brothers out of their original report. Why? If this data had supported their agenda would they not have included it as well?

According to The Advocate, the researcher’s withheld important information about the non-twin brothers in their study, the article states: “According to Bailey, the released data did not include another group in the study: 142 genetically related non-twin brothers of gay men, of whom only 13—or about 9% were also gay.” (The Advocate 3-24-92, p.61; Michael Bailey is not a homosexual)

Obviously, if this data had been released with the original study, it would have been immediately clear that there is no gay gene. The percentage of homosexuality in non-twin brothers is so low (9%) that had the study been properly conducted and reported, it would actually have demonstrated that homosexuality is NOT caused by a gay gene. If the study showed that 11% of non-related, step-brothers were both “gay,” then, if genetics were a factor, then more than 9% of genetically related brothers should be gay, but this study does not show this. This study shows the opposite, that unrelated step-brothers are both “gay” more often than genetically related brothers, thus, the study actually demonstrates that environment is the cause for same-gender sexual desires. But the researches left this out.

Third, this study did not have a proper sample. According to a leading gay publication, “Bailey and Pillard’s study has come under attack in scientific circles on similar grounds. Gay scholars have called their sample, culled though advertisements in gay and lesbian newspapers, unrepresentative and their data inconclusive.” (The Advocate, 3-24-92, p.61)

These “scientists” also used a curious, self-serving definition of “gay” for their sample. Bailey admits that he and “Pillard ‘lumped the bisexuals in with the gay men.’” (The Advocate, 3-24-92, p.62)

Therefore, many of the supposed “gays,” in this study, had significant attractions to women. As we will see later, this ironic fact is a norm for men that have sex with men. Calling those that claim to have developed “bisexual” desires “gay” in order to produce results favorable to “gay” propagandists may work well to deceive the public, but it does not prove that anyone is born with any psycho-spiritual Ulrichsian sexual mix-up. Further, it does not serve the interest of science or truth.

In conclusion, all studies that have claimed to have found an immutable cause for same-gender sexual desires and behaviors have crumbled under the scrutiny of peer review. Same-gender sexual desires are not genetic. There is no scientific evidence which shows that they are. None. Not a single person has been found with any innate “gay” gene, organ, hormone, chemical, or combination thereof.

In the light of Truth we can see why Kirk, Madsen, and the rest failed to overturn Bowers by way of minority status. Because they could not prove that anyone was born “gay.” They made it up. The “Gay” Agenda, which is referred to here as The Born “Gay” Hoax failed in that sense. However, individual emotions and opinions are not as solid, or girded for work, or complete and accurate as science. As years went by, the success of the faulty studies in the public relations arena would overpower Truth. The influence of the studies cast the spell of belief over many. Why shouldn’t they have? They have largely gone unchallenged publicly. These fraudulent studies eventually convinced millions, including one Texan judge, to topple Bowers.

In 2003 Bowers v. Hardwick was overturned by one judge in Lawrence v. Texas. Under the full faith and credit clause of the 14^th amendment of the U.S. constitution, Lawrence v. Texas took the power to criminalize sodomy away from every state in the union. Now, sodomy is legal in every state. The same-gender sex lobby knows they will never prove scientifically that anyone is born “gay” (they made it up) so today, they have largely abandoned their direct quest for traditional minority status. Ironically, after the legalization of sodomy, many same-gender sex activists slammed the brakes on the born “gay” hoax –The “Gay” Agenda. Today, the once unimpeachable propaganda has been set aside by its own creators. Elite activists are now turning their attention toward a new goal: recruitment and retention. As a result, a far more brutal force lurks just over the horizon of mainstream American consciousness: “Queer Theory.” “Queer Theory” holds that there is no such thing as gender or a fixed sexual inclination. The contemporary “Queer” holds that his or her identity is a fluid social construct. In other words, the “Queer” identity is actually the rejection of an intrinsic identity altogether. In order to understand that recruitment is possible by way of “Queer Theory,” we must identify some of the causes of same-gender sexual behaviors and desires. Further, we must become aware of how the late modern “gay” identity and its diametric opposite, the post-modern “Queer” anti-identity are socially constructed. Further, we must acknowledge that reversals are possible and how political activists might use public ignorance about the fluidity of sexuality to their advantage, to recruit unsuspecting youth.

The Rest of the Studies Other erroneous born “gay” studies have been conducted. These however, are less known. The results of these studies fail to show that homosexuality is somehow natural. The following refutations were written by Robert Knight, while working for the prestigious Concerned Women for America’s, Culture and Family Institute. I should thank him for allowing me to use his work here. It should be noted, however, that this section is intended to be a catalogue of refutations. Therefore, before beginning, I will take the time to refer readers that are not interested in reading about “every study ever conducted” to the next chapter. If however, you are curious, by all means, continue.

“UCLA’s Study on Genes and Mice Brains

In October 2003, the journal Molecular Brain Research published a study by UCLA researchers indicating that sexual identity is genetic.¹⁸ Reuters reported it this way: “Sexual identity is wired into the genes, which discounts the concept that homosexuality and transgender sexuality are a choice, California researchers reported.”¹⁹ A number of other media outlets picked up on this theme, creating the impression that this study was yet one more piece of evidence for a genetic theory of homosexuality. The trouble is, the study doesn’t say anything about homosexuality. All it does is support a widely accepted theory about hormones and gender. Here is Princeton Professor Dr. Jeffrey Satinover’s assessment: The research is a decent piece of basic science and confirms what geneticists have long known must be the case: That the hormonal milieu that causes sexual differentiation between males and females is itself determined by genes, in mice as in men. This comes as no surprise. But this research says absolutely nothing about homosexuality or transsexualism and any who claim it does are either ill-informed about genetics, or if not, are deliberately abusing their scientific knowledge and or credentials in the service of politics – in precisely the same way that Soviet-era geneticists such as Lysenko did – either in the naïve hope that distortion of the truth can produce a better society or out of fear for their career prospects. In either case they should be roundly rebuked for doing so.²⁰

Hormones

In 1998, Dennis McFadden and Edward G. Pasanen published a study that evaluated auditory systems. Specifically, the study considered differences in echo-like waveforms emitted from an inner ear structure of people with normal hearing. These waves are higher in women than in men, a factor often attributed to the level of a person’s exposure to androgen (a male hormone) in his or her early development as a fetus.⁴² In self-acknowledged lesbians, the waveforms ranged between those of men and those of heterosexual women. The researchers concluded that this suggests that female homosexuality could result from larger exposure to the male hormone androgen in the womb (homosexual men did not show the same variation).⁴³ The media eagerly jumped on this bandwagon. But even the researchers themselves did not draw definitive conclusions. In the published study, they pointed out that exposure to “intense sounds, certain drugs, and other manipulations” can lower the level of these auditory waveforms. “Thus, it may be that something in the lifestyles of homosexual and bisexual females leads them to be exposed to one or more agents that have reduced the [waveforms], either temporarily or permanently.”⁴⁴ Moreover, even if the hearing differences were caused by an increased exposure to androgen in the womb, scientists would still be far from proving that this exposure is a cause of homosexuality-especially since the difference was not apparent in the male homosexual sample.

Finger Length

In March 2000, the media publicized a finger length study that indicated that lesbians had longer fingers than other women, perhaps because of greater exposure in the womb to androgen. Typically, both sexes’ index finger is slightly shorter than the ring finger-a difference that is seen more clearly on the right hand. In females, the ring finger and index finger are almost the same size, but in men the index finger is more noticeably shorter. In this study, Berkeley’s Dr. Breedlove, who had in 1997 shown how sexual activity can change brain structure, found that homosexual women’s finger length had a tendency to follow the male pattern. But Breedlove cautioned about reading too much into the finding:

“There is no gene that forces a person to be straight or gay,” he told CNN. “… I believe there are many social and psychological, as well as biological, factors that make up sexual preference.”⁴⁵

Dr. Jeffrey Satinover commented as follows on the study:

A girl who develops before and into puberty with a “masculinized habitus” (the result of excess maternal intrauterine androgen stimulated by a genetic condition in the fetus)-a stocky physique, facial hair, powerful muscles, a square jaw and long fingers-may suffer so much teasing and rejection by family and peers that she comes to think of herself as “not feminine” and so will seek solace in the arms of women. Indeed, this an all-too-common pattern in the lives of “lesbians” and illustrates exactly how a strong genetic ” association”‘ can imply literally zero genetic causation whatsoever. It’s rather remarkable that the authors failed to remark on the support their study provided not for any genetic association with lesbianism, but rather for the genetic association to secondary sexual expression in homo sapiens that Vilain et al were only able to demonstrate in mus musculus. The attention paid to homosexuality in both cases, while ignoring straighforward sex, reflects the distinctly Orwellian effect that political correctness has on science: We now treat the differences between male and female as socially constructed and those between heterosexuality and homosexuality as innate and genetic.⁴⁶

Eye Blinking In October 2003, a team of English researchers announced that they had found “powerful new evidence that sexual orientation is ‘hard-wired’ in the human brain before birth.”⁴⁷ Dr. Qazi Rahman of the University of East London and Dr. Veena Kumari and Dr. Glenn Wilson of the Institute of Psychiatry said they found sex differences in the startle response – the eye blink in response to loud noises.⁴⁸ The authors found that women had a lesser “prepulse inhibition of the human startle response (PPI),”⁴⁹ that is, they blinked more readily than men, and that lesbians blinked less readily than other women. They used small samples, and, more significantly, found no difference between homosexual men and heterosexual men. Yet they gave the impression that their findings indicated that homosexuality is a pre-born condition. “Because the startle response is known to be involuntary rather than learned, this strongly indicates that sexual orientation is largely determined before birth,” said a press release from the University of East London.⁵⁰ Dr. Rahman said in the release, “These findings may well affect the way we as a society deal with sexuality and the issues surrounding sexual orientation.” But the researchers themselves introduce some cautionary notes in the study: Although prenatal factors may be possible precursors to the neurobehavioral profiles observed in lesbians and gay men, whether neural differences underlie sexual orientation per se, or are a consequence of homosexual or heterosexual behavior, is yet to be determined.⁵¹ They also write: “Neuroanatomical and neurophysiological variations between heterosexuals and homosexuals may be due either to biological factors or to the influence of learning.”⁵² The team concluded that: “Our results show, for the first time, that PPI relates to sexual orientation and that homosexual women show a robust cross-sex shift. Homosexual women showed a masculinized PPI that was no different from that of heterosexual men. … Homosexual men did not differ from heterosexual men.”⁵³ Dr. Halstead Harrison, an associate professor emeritus in the Atmospheric Science Department of the University of Washington, reviewed the study, noted the small sizes of the test groups (14 lesbians and 15 heterosexual women, and 15 each of homosexual and heterosexual men) and the statistical methods, and concluded: “Data presented by Rahman et al. do not confidently support their finding that homosexual women exhibit a male-type startled-blink reflex.”⁵⁴ Harrison further stated that “no significant differences were detected.” As far as the blink reflex being utterly innate or somewhat trainable, he responded to an interviewer, “Now, that’s an open question.”⁵⁵ Dr. Harrison also said he would have liked to have seen the complete data on the series of tests to see whether the subjects’ responses would change with repetition. This would indicate whether the PPI is entirely innate. In his conclusion, he said: “This Comment should not be construed as falsifying the hypothesis that homosexual and heterosexual women display different prepulse startle-inhibition reflexes. That conjecture may turn out to be so, but the present data do not confidently support it.”

Neuroendocrine Hypotheses

In 1999, Dr. Qazi Rahman compiled a brief review of several studies purporting to show a link between neuroanatomy and sexual orientation.⁵⁶ He wrote: “The emerging neuroanatomical account suggests that, in some key neural substrates, homosexual men show a trend toward female-typical neuroanatomy as compared to heterosexual men.”⁵⁷ Rahman also said, “Lesbians excel at some tasks which favor heterosexual males.” As in the eye-blinking study, Rahman struck a cautionary note: “But is neuroendocrine differentiation a cause or a consequence of behavior? … In addition, the differential development posited may not be causal but correlational.” Rahman noted that, “Differential reinforcements from inputs in the psychosocial milieu to these sex-atypical behaviors makes the ‘pre-homosexual child’ view the same sex as ‘exotic’ (i.e., different from one’s self), which later in puberty becomes the object of eroticization.”⁵⁸ As some developmental psychologists have observed, some children may be less inclined to exhibit classic gender role differences, and this may set them up for the type of reactions from peers (or even parents), such as rejection or teasing, that make them vulnerable to developing same-sex attraction.⁵⁹ One glaring problem with Rahman’s article is that he uncritically cites many of the studies that were thoroughly debunked by researchers such as Columbia’s Byne and Parsons. These include studies by LeVay, Hamer, Allen, Gorski, Bailey and others. Rahman wraps up his piece this way: To conclude, it is important to illustrate that neurobiological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals are by no means decisive. Nonetheless, the several independent findings of neuroanatomical differences in sex-atypical directions are not easily refutable. [Editor's note: Yes, they are. Byne and Parsons, among others, saw to that.] Unfortunately, evidence currently available is limited and largely correlational in nature. Owing to this, it is not possible for alternative developmental processes associated with sexual orientation to be excluded.^60”

Same-gender Sex Activists Bludgeon the American Psychiatric Association into Submission

ryansorba — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:33:54 +0000

“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, Same-gender sex activist Let us, for a moment, rewind to the year1970. In this year, same-gender sex activists began a program of intimidation aimed at the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Activist Frank Kameny states the movement’s 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…” (The Gay Crusaders, by Kay Tobin and Randy Wicker, p. 98)In 1970, psychiatrists generally considered sexual desires toward members of one’s own gender to be disordered. Karoly Maria Kertbeny’s term, “homosexual” was the official descriptor for those inflicted by this mental-physical disassociative disorder.

Psychiatry’s authoritative voice influenced public opinion, which at the time was negative toward same-gender sex. Of course, public sexual activity in parks and public restrooms contributed to societies negative views about the types of people that did such things, but “scientific opinion” was crucial in the public attitude. Led by radicals like Frank Kameny, same-gender sex activists attacked many psychiatrists publicly, as Newsweek describes, “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, gay-lib organizations have repeatedly disrupted medical meetings, and three months ago—in the movements 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!’” (Newsweek, 8-23-71, p.47)

Ironically, at the very moment Franklin Kameny was claiming that same-gender sex was healthy, safe, and natural, a deadly virus was silently passing through communities of men all over the nation as a result of the promiscuous, unhealthy nature of the sex they were having. Only a decade later, thousands of men would be dead or dying, of AIDS.On June 7, of the following year, 1971, Franklin Kameny wrote a letter to the 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.” (The Gay Crusaders p. 130-131)Same-gender sex activists continued to pressure the APA through 1973. A same-gender sex magazine, 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.” (The Advocate, 12-28-93, p.40) As a result of the pressure, in the words of the prominent journalist and same-gender sex activists, Andrew Sullivan, in December of 1973 the APA, “…under intense political pressure…removed homosexuality from its official list of psychiatric disorders…” (Love Undetectable, book by Andrew Sullivan, 1998, p. 107) Under this “intense political pressure” the APA’s board of trustees finally caved in to the demands of same-gender sex activists. Another same-gender sex 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.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 97) After the vote by the American Psychiatric Associations Board of Trustees, some members of the APA, led by Dr. Charles Socarides called for a full vote by the APA’s 17,905 members. (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 104) On April 9, 1974, results of the vote were announced. Only 10,555 of the 17,905 APA members had voted in the election. The results were as follows,

Total APA members eligible to vote: 17,905 Number of APA members that actually voted: 10,555Number of members that “Abstained”: 367Number of “ No” votes-votes to keep “homosexuality” in the DSM as a mental disorder: 3,810Number of “Yes” votes-votes to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM as a mental disorder: 5,854 It should be noted that the number of “Yes” (5,854) made up only 32.7 percent of the total membership of the APA. Only slightly less than one-third of the APA’s membership approved the change. It should be further noted that the “National Gay Task Force” was able to obtain APA members addresses and the “NGTF” (with-out identifying itself) and they sent creepy letters to all members urging them to vote to remove “homosexuality” from the DSM. Bruce Voeller, the head of the NGTF admits, “Our costly letter has perhaps made the difference.” (The Long Road to Freedom, ed. by Mark Thompsan1994, p. 105-106) Dishonesty and intimidation had won the day for the same-gender sex movement, and when activists publicly claim that this vote was a scientific decision; they hide three years of deceit and intimidation. In same-gender sex publications, however, activists are remarkably candid about the reality of the vote. For example, 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.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.216-217) (–Author Marcus has worked as an associate producer for “CBS This Morning” and “Good Morning America.”)Lahausen’s lover, Barbara Gittings was a well known activist during this time as well. Gittings was the first head of the American Library Association Gay Task Force, although she was not a librarian her objective was to bring books advocating the same-gender sex movement to the attention of librarians in hopes of having them included in libraries. At one American Library Association meeting Gittings set up a same-gender kissing booth, to attract attention to the same-gender sex. 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.” (Making History: The Struggle for Gay and Lesbian Equal Rights, 1945-1990: an Oral History by Eric Marcus p.221)Gittings took place in the disruptive attacks (“saps”) on the APA. She states, “I am not opposed to sap tactics. In fact, I spearheaded a sap at a psychiatrists meeting and I’m ready to do it again.” (The Gay Crusaders, p.234) Barbara Gittings recounts, “The 1970 convention in San Francisco was disrupted by a group of feminists and gay men who were enraged by what the psychiatrists were saying about them—and newspapers all around the country carried the story” (The Gay Crusaders, p.216). The “Gay” Militants, a book about that time, adds details, “On May 14, 1970 psychiatrists became the hunted. An invasion by the coalition of ‘gay’ and woman’s liberationists interrupted the national convention of the American Psychiatric Association in San Francisco to protest the reading of a paper by an Australian psychiatrists 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.’” (The Gay Militants, by Donn Teal, p.272-273)Same-gender sex activists took over the podium and microphones. Then, “Konstantin Berlandt, of Berkeley GLF, paraded through the hall in bright red dress. Paper airplanes sailed down from the balcony. With two papers still unread, the chairman announced adjournment.” (Ibid., p.274) On June 23, 1970 same-gender sex activists disrupted yet another meeting, this time in Chicago, be repeatedly shouting down the main speakers discourse. (Ibid., 275) Then, in October at a meeting at the University of Southern California, same-gender sex activists shouted down a speaker and then took over the stage and the microphone. (Ibid., pp.276-280) Kay Lahusen and Barbera Gittings know what really happened to the APA. 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 sapped 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.” (Making History, p.224) The APA was thoroughly intimidated. Later in the same year (1974), after the APA’s vote, Gittings was interviewed by a historian of the same-gender sex movement, 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.” (Gay American History, by Jonathan Ned Katz, 1992, p.427. This interview was taped July 19, 1974). Anytime a scientific organization endorses same-gender sex, remember Gittings words: “They are running scared.” Same-gender sex activists have learned that intimidation works and they are never hesitant about using intimidation, psychological manipulation and deceit to reach the goals of their radical agenda. Later in 1974, same-gender sex activists set their vicious sights on an individual member of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. David Rueben, who was perhaps the best-known psychologist in the area of human sexuality at the time. Unbeknownst to Dr. Reuben, same-gender activists were lying in wait outside one of his lectures, and his physical safety was at risk. A same-gender sex activist and writer, Leigh Rutledge describes the attack in her book The Gay Decades, “June 16, A fist fight broke out at a Philadelphia playhouse when ten gay activists interrupt a lecture by Dr. David Rueben and denounce him as ‘a criminal’ for his views on male homosexuality. One policeman and a protestor are injured in the melee.” (The Gay Decades, by a man that engages in same-gender sex and writer, Leigh W. Rutledge, 1992, p.69) On that same page, this book tells us that, “The Centers for Disease Control estimate that gay or bisexual men account for as much as one-third of the syphilis cases in the U.S.”Apparently, the American Psychological Association also got the message of intimidation, because they caved in to same-gender sex activists in 1975. In the book, The Long Road to Freedom the author writes, “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 Long Road to Freedom, pp.115) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) publishes the scientific journal Science, intimidation by same-gender sex activists was over for them. “Under pressure from gay scientific groups, Science magazine banned anti-gay bias in its staff hiring and advertisement.” (The Long Road to Freedom, pp.214)Could the AAAS have been thinking about “pressure from gay scientific groups” when they published the poorly done studies by LeVay (“gay” brains) and Hamer (“gay” gene)? Two scientists who protested the LeVay study raise serious questions about AAAS, Science, and same-gender sex activists. “The appearance of LeVay’s paper highlights a serious issue in science public policy. Should such a study, based on a questionable design, with subjects drawn from a small, highly selected and non-representative sample, receive the kind of international attention and credibility that publication in a journal with the stature of Science lends?” (Science, 11-1-91, p.630)If Dr. LeVay was not able to draw a proper sample and to fulfill other basic requirements for a scientific study, why did he conduct the study at all? If the study was not done for scientific reasons it must have been done for political reasons. Indeed, LeVay’s study was part of a public relations campaign, (the born “gay” hoax) to make the public believe that individuals were born “gay.” Science, a supposedly reputable publication, must have been intimidated to risk their own legitimacy by published such shoddy work. When unethical political movements dominate science, pushing science in unscientific directions, science suffers and leads society astray. One lesson from these facts is unmistakable: every time a scientific group repeats the same-gender sex movement’s propaganda, you may justifiably suspect that these groups are acting out of ignorance or intimidation.Another lesson is that same-gender sex activists are so desperate to cover their deeply dysfunctional condition that they will stop at nothing to hide the facts from the public. Award-winning writer and same-gender sex activist Randy Shilts describes the denial among men that have sex with men, about their unhealthy lifestyles causing AIDS to be epidemic among them when he writes, “…the desperation of denial: how when something is so horrible you don’t want to believe it, you want to out it out of your mind and insist it isn’t true, and how you hate the person who says it is.” (And the Band Played On, 1988, p. 182) Desperate denial –this seems to be what drives the deceit, psychological manipulation, and intimidation of both scientific groups and the public.

Personal Accounts

ryansorba — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:23:37 +0000

Monday, January 29, 2007

Editorial: YCC Endorses Private-Accounts!

“Today, the top 20 percent of the United States population controls 80% of the wealth. We have a wealth gap that is unhealthy. It leads to class envy and political hyperbole,” writes Senator Rick Santorum in his influential book, It Takes a Family. “The current financial divide in America is between those people who save, and therefore are able to acquire assets, and thus the potential to build wealth, and those people who have not yet grasped that they have that opportunity.”

One way to help our fellow Americans to save, acquire assets and build new wealth is the Thrift Savings Account Plan for Social Security. The Thrift Savings Account Plan would allow Americans to take the hard earned money that they currently pay into the system (at a two percent rate of return) and place it in a private investment account (at an historical average of a six percent rate of return).

By returning Americans abilities to take ownership and responsibility for otherwise untouchable taxed income, in order to invest in diverse low risk securities investments, they would be able to see their money grow, be inclined to invest more, and be permitted to pass unspent savings on to their children. The Thrift Savings Account Plan would turn millions more Americans into active savers, investors, and members of the American ownership society. Further, the plan would release new capital into The Cause of Wealth in Nations- the free market, and thus create new jobs. In short, the Thrift Savings Account Plan rocks!

In razor sharp contrast, under the status quo, the average American will pay eighty-four thousand dollars into the system that they will never get back. Further, the wealth gap will continue to grow, creating class envy. What’s worse? There is no guarantee that future generations will receive social security benefits at all. Under current law, the government can pull the plug on social “in-security” at any time. How did it come to this?

Ostensibly, leftist politicians claim to want to “fix social security.” In reality, they want to institutionalize dependency at any cost. Their goal is to make middle-class Americans depend on them, financially! Leftists want the government to collect our money so that they can bribe us with it later for votes, it is the leftists way.

In order to lure Americans into handing their hard earned money over, leftist politicians love to make the argument that private-accounts are ”too risky,” but what I love to do is point out to people that these same politicians turn around, and use a special Congressional loophole, to sign-up for private-accounts themselves. Further, whenever they claim that diversified private-accounts are too ”insecure,” I let the truth be known. Since conception, there has never been a 20 year period, in which the market has not risen by a minimum of four percent, which is double social securities current rate of return! Heck, even online banks now offer savings accounts that pay a 5 percent rate of return, which is double and a half what our money makes under so-called “social security.” To be quite frank, under the liberal system, we are all getting screwed!

The leftists lack of faith in diversified private-accounts either demonstrates a lack of faith in the entire Free Market System, the system upon which this nation stands, which might explain why they continually fight for socialist policy, or, it shows that they would rather do nothing than something. It shows that they could care less about the Americans that they claim to represent, and that they care deeply for playing politics, via scare tactics, with our generation’s future.

With declining birth rates and a generation gap, we are looking into the eye of a perfect level 5 Social Security hurricane. Don’t let the donkeys in Congress postpone fixing the levees of Social Security any longer. Contact your federal representatives today, and demand that they champion private-accounts, and thus, our future!

Ryan Sorba

News

ryansorba — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 00:16:21 +0000

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

Human Events piece on International ANSWER

The leftist group ANSWER is descending upon San Francisco on Aug. 12th.

Read an expose over at Human Event Online.

Sunday, June 04, 2006

Upcoming Debates at Cal State

On Thursday, June 8th, members of YCC will be debating the issues of ”gay” marriage and the growing threat of Iran.

The debates will start at 6pm at Cal-State San Bernardino. For more information, email Ryan Sorba at portlock14 @ yahoo.com

Sunday, March 26, 2006

The Conservative Revolution: Illegal Immigrants Protesting and Lobbying for Citizens’ Rights

The Conservative Revolution: Illegal Immigrants Protesting and Lobbying for Citizens’ Rights

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

YCC Endorses state Senator Bill Morrow for Congress!

February 20, 2006

For Immediate Release

Contact: Ryan Sorba, YCC State Chairman (909) 915-7672 portlock14@yahoo.com

Young Conservatives of California Endorses state Senator Bill Morrow in Contested Republican Primary Election

San Diego, CA – Today, the Young Conservatives of California announced its support for state Senator Bill Morrow in the race for Congressional District 50.

Young Conservatives of California, created in 2005, is a non-partisan youth organization that is involved in grassroots politics throughout California. Members of Young Conservatives of California are predominantly college students that promote conservative values through involvement in campaigns, lobbying, and campus activism at our university and county chapters.

Ryan Sorba, YCC State Chairman, stated, “Young Conservatives of California is the only political youth organization of its kind in California. We endorse the most conservative candidates in the Republican primary, and support them through our grassroots efforts and coalition-building activities.”

Daniel Martinez, YCC Vice Chairman of Legislative Affairs, said, “We determined which candidate would receive our endorsement by comparing them to our Statement of Principles. We support candidates in the Republican Primary that live up to the Young Conservatives platform of fiscal responsibility, limited government, national security, and traditional family values.”

Senator Morrow has an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association and has voted against every tax increase proposed. He takes a courageous stance on illegal immigration, supports conservative college students and has a consistent pro-life position.

We are happy to announce that state Senator Bill Morrow is the best candidate for Congressional District 50.