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.