Conservatives on Campus

Back when I was an undergrad at the University of Michigan in the early 1980's the conservative movement was marginalized at best. (They didn't call Michigan the "Berkeley of the Midwest" for nothing.) Indeed, I remember during one of the years there students set up a "shantytown" right on the Diag (for those not familiar with the campus, it's the central area of the campus, around which many of the buildings were arranged, with a big "M" plastered right where all the walking paths converged) in order to protest South African apartheid. Quite frankly, I didn't see much of a point. All it did was uglify the Diag; it sure didn't appear to change any minds. I suppose it made the students who did it feel good in that warm fuzzy "progressivist" way that you describe.

As far as I can tell, nothing's changed, although there were right wing wingnuts even then. Indeed, to my eternal embarrassment I do have to acknowledge that Ann Coulter was attending law school at U. of M. at the very time I was attending medical school there. (She graduated in 1989; I graduated in 1988.) I do not recall ever having seen her or heard of her, though.

I share our host's sentiments about the situation, generally speaking, although I must admit I'm a little underwhelmed by the activities these people offer. (Assumes old codger voice.) Back when I was a freshman, we had to invent our own ways to be socially divisive. Why, none of these gol-durn whippersnappers have the gumption to put two nee-yoo-rons together and invent somethin' like the "Smash the Patriarchy Bake Sale".

I'm a graduate of Johnson & Wales University in Providence, RI. To say that there's a strong progressive element there would be an understatement.

Providence is host to JWU, Brown University, Providence College, Rhode Island School of Design, URI and CCRI extensions, Roger Williams College extension, and part of Rhode Island College.

But you rarely see progressive elements setting up demonstrations or informational kiosks, etc. The campus Republicans at Roger Williams University in Newport do like to stir things up occasionally what with having a minority decry EEO, etc. But other than that, it's pretty homogeneous in one of the bluest of the blue states.

I'm surprised that Sorba didn't just write for some money from the Mellon-Scaife-Olin bunch.

ha ha!
This kid was at my campus (where he did his undergrad degree), and he stirred up his fair share of trouble. For what it's worth, San Bernardino (East of LA, for the non-CA) is a very conservative area, and the student body on campus has a pretty conservative bent, compared to most colleges (the faculty, however, are pretty standard issue). Sorba got into a significant amount of trouble for some homophobic stuff, as I recall (which, frankly, doesn't go down too well with the college students regardless of politics; they don't like the bigotry). I guess he decided to make a career of it.

I'm not so sure most campuses are as "liberal" as made out. Certainly most faculty members aren't. I think the claim that they are is unsubstantiated. However it is probably true that on many issues they hew to what many would call a progressive line -- like believing in evolution, which isn't progressive, just science.

In any event, most progressives wouldn't be outraged by conservatives proselytizing on campus. We may be outraged by what they say, but then they are outraged by what we say, too.

So I don't say "good". I say "yawn". That's what a unversity venue is supposed to be like. Incidentally I went to a behometh state university in the midwest (Big Ten) that had a reputation for being just as radical as Berkeley and doing it longer. But there were plenty of very conservative students there. We just had louder mouths in those days.

I was one of the more right-wing guys at my undergraduate school, back in the early 1980s, so I was glad to see this post. I agree with Chad that it's useful to get people thinking/arguing about some of these issues. People on either side of the issues need a reality check to see that not everyone who disagrees with them is a Minion of Satan.

Back in my day (sonny!), one big issue was nuclear power. And there were questions that one just didn't ask, such as where we would get our electricity if we shut down the local nuclear plant, what would be burned to generate it and at what cost, how much could really be saved by people cooking lunch in their solar reflectors, where the factories were that were going to make all the rooftop solar cells, and what metals they might need to use. Nah, Nukes Bad, Solar Good, and that was all ye know and all ye need know.

STOP reflecting and START thinking...

...and know that We are the Fourteenth Generation!

The Conservative Revolution is Upon Us! -Ryan Sorba

The Born 'Gay' Hoax: Germany

A little over one-hundred years ago, the first concept of an inborn "homosexual" condition began to circulate in Germany. Prior to this time, there is no known record of any human being ever claiming to have been "born" with same-gender sexual attractions. 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. At the age of 14, Ulrichs was seduced by his riding instructor, a homosexual man about 30 years old (Kennedy in Pascal:15). Observers familiar with the apparently high correlation between childhood sexual molestation and adult same-gender sexual fixation might conclude that this youthful experience was the cause of Ulrichs sexuality.
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. Ulrichs coined the terms "Urning" (male) and "Dialing" (female) to refer to members of this "third-gender," which was neither male nor female, but a combination of both. The term "Uranian" was introduced in 1862 as a new designation for same-gender sexuality in general (both Urnings and Dailings). He took the term from Plato's Symposium, in which same-gender sex was said to fall under the protection of the ninth muse, Urania. Ulrichs reasoned that since same-gender sexual attractions were an inborn condition (natural), same-gender sex 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 Benkert, writing under the pseudonym 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 push his movement underground. 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.

Chapter 2

The Born "Gay" Hoax: America

1985

In 1985, same-gender sex activists resurrected Karl Heinrich Ulrichs' "third-gender" theory from the dead. Prior to this time, with rare exception, same-gender sex was considered a behavior. Same-gender sex activists 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 award winning 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)
It wasn't until the late-1980s that momentum began to build in favor of promoting the notion that persons must be born "gay." The forward thrust for the idea came in 1985, when two political activists and public relations specialists, Marshall Kirk (MCkusick) and Hunter Madsen, penned and published a low-profile document entitled "The Gay Agenda" in a pro-same-gender sex movement magazine called Christopher Street. 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 (i.e. sodomy). "The Gay Agenda" also outlined the strategy that would eventually be used to convince both the government and the people that individuals must be born "gay."
Initially, there was no enthusiasm for this born "gay" strategy among same-gender sex activists. In fact, many activists considered the proposed strategy deceitful and degrading because they viewed "rights related to sexuality as analogous to the constitutional rights to association, expression, or religion." (The Advocate, 3-24-92 p.62 quotation (Pat) mine) Initially, there were strong reservations against such a strategy; however, these reservations would not last for long.

1986

In 1986, the pro-same-gender sex movement 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 movement was hit with a near knock-out blow in Bowers. However, those fighting to decriminalize sodomy did not throw in the towel. The loss left activists from all sides of the ideological spectrum desperate and galvanized, with one last narrow opportunity to decriminalize sodomy in America.
If same-gender sex activists could make a compelling case that they were born "gay," then they could 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. It must be noted that 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.

The legalization of sodomy, by way of "Minority Status," is the secret to understanding why same-gender sex activists adopted the strategy outlined in "The Gay Agenda," and began once again to promote the "third-gender" Ulrichsian claim, that people are born "gay."

1987

Wasting little time, Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Madsen writing under the pseudonym, Erastes Pill) published a follow-up to the "The Gay Agenda" called "The Overhauling of Straight America." The article, which appeared in a pro-same-gender sex movement magazine called Guide in November of 1987, outlined the point-by-point strategy that should be used to convince what the authors refer to as "Straight America" that men who have sex with men, and women who have sex with women, are born "gay."

1988

In the following year, 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." The born "gay" hoax's time had come.

1989

Subsequently, in 1989 Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen expanded their article "The Overhauling of Straight America" into a whole book entitled, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay's in the 90s. 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) The authors could not have been clearer about their plan to deceive the American people to further their own political agenda. Again, this outline for deception, the so-called "Gay Agenda" and its cumulative post-luminaries, is what I refer to as The Born "Gay" Hoax. The following excerpts from "After the Ball" exemplify the manipulative tactics Kirk and Madsen suggest activists employ to "Overhaul Straight America."

"The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays...To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally we would have the straight register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream...(Kirk and Pill/Madsen: 7)

The masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself...the imagery of sex should be downplayed...(ibid p.8).

...gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector (ibid p.8).

...make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream's sense of threat, which lower its guard... (ibid p.8).

...replace the mainstream's self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt (ibid. p.10).

Hauntingly, the authors actually promote mimicking of Hitler's "Big Lie" technique in the quote below:

Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible..." "The principal behind this advice is simple: almost all behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances." (Kirk and Madsen p. 7)

Unfortunately, this social learning principle has proven itself time and time again throughout history as various inhumane and outrageous behaviors have become common place and ordinary.

Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject (ibid, p.8)

Madsen and Pill explain their scheme in greater depth, when they write:

"Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message--of normalcy. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream." (Ibid p.8)

"Not so many years ago, all of these statements would have been unbelievably offensive to most Americans, even if they contained no reference to "homosexuality," precisely because they all advocate coercive tampering with peoples most private domain, their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs (Kirk and Madsen call it 'transforming the social values of straight America'-(ibid. p.14)) Let's look at the mechanics of their strategy for 'transforming' society into what they feel would be a more acceptable form. (Lively, Pink Swastika, p.21) The authors continue with malice:

"Would a desensitizing campaign of open and sustained talk about gay issues reach every rabid opponent of homosexuality? Of course not. While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency. Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed "secular humanism"). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before, on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here."

...the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know - this trick is so old it creaks (ibid, p.9)

...it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified (ibid. p.10)

...we intend to make anti-gays to look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types (Ibid. p. 10)

Each sign will tap patriotic sentiment; each message will drill a seemingly agreeable position into mainstream heads (Ibid p.11)

The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America...the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern [sic] ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs and convicts...Nazi concentration camps...(Ibid. p. 10)

This behavior-modification mentality, combined with the isolation of "straights" and others as groups or classes who assume the status of dehumanized targets of one sort or another continues, undisturbed in intensity:

These images (of anyone opposed to homosexual behavior) should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the "bracket technique." For example, for a few seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is seen pounding the pulpit in rage about "those sick, abominable creatures." While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to pathetic photos of gays who look decent, harmless, and likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher, and so forth. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating." (Ibid. p.13-14)

"A group called Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) used this technique in an advertising campaign in the fall of 1995 against Pat Robertson, Jesse Helms and Jerry Falwell. As reported in the San Francisco Examiner, Sunday, November 12, 1995... "a new television ad campaign [portrays scenes of] a teenage girl contemplating suicide with a handgun, [and] a young man being beaten by a gang as his attackers shout slurs...interspersed with actual clips of the Rev. Pat Robertson and other conservatives deploring homosexuality.' Most stations turned down the ads, but they ran in Tulsa, and Washington D.C. A print version of the ad (much less emotionally effective) was run in USA Today, November 21, 1995."
It is appalling to hear the tactics promoted by Marshall Kirk (MCkusick) and Hunter Madsen, and the same-gender sex activists who have employed these techniques have nothing to be proud of. These soi-disant propagandistic tactics, and even the verbiage in which they are couched, represent a twisted and fascist, deceitful and degrading approach to the winning of American public opinion."
Stunningly, same-gender sex activists are remarkably candid about their Machiavellian aims in specialized press. Just ahead, I have provided several quotations and examples of same-gender sex activists admitting that public born "gay" rhetoric was a complete fabrication, contrived and carried out for specific political ends; mainly, the overturning of Bowers, and the normalization of same-gender sex acts.
Dr. Lillian Faderman- who has won the Monette/Horwitz Award from the same-gender sex 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 though, 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 (NCLR) 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, and Kirk, and Madsen, 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 straight faced, and basically make the argument that reparative therapy is the dangerous equivalent of pouring bleach on a dark person's skin to make them lighter. But then, one of these self-proclaimed "gays" went out and changed her own so-called "sexual-orientation," 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!
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 propagandist. The term homosexualist can be used to describe any same-gender sex activist that uses born "gay" propaganda purposely, to argue for the normalization of same-gender sex.
In closing, the carefully calculated lies of homosexualists are blatant, and have been admitted in numerous pro-same-gender sex movement 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.

Chapter 3

The Studies: Debunked

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. According to a Newsweek cover story in 1992, LeVay engaged in same-gender sex himself, and lost his partner to AIDS. The article states that when his partner, "Richard Heresey, died of AIDS, LeVay went into deep depression. Hospitalized for two weeks, he began reevaluating his goals. "It makes you think of what your life is about," he says. Around that time, a UCLA lab announced its finding that a portion of the male hypothalamus was more than twice as large as woman's. Suddenly, it seemed LeVay had a research area to pursue: was it also larger than that of gays?" LeVay told reporters: "I felt if I didn't find anything, I would give up a scientific career altogether" (Newsweek: February 24, 1992 p.49). LeVay also seemed to understand the impact that his study would have on society. In reference to this study he writes, "It's important to educate society. I think this issue does affect religious and legal attitudes." 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 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 some men are born "gay," it was actually discredited shortly after its release for several reasons.
First, LeVay compared the brains of 19 men who had sex with men and died of AIDS (which does not necessarily mean they engaged with in sex with other men) (which is also known to ravage the brain which could effect hypothalamus size) 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 a hypothalamus that was larger than the average size of the hypothalamus of the "supposed" men that had sex with women. Further, some of the men that had sex with women had a hypothalamus that was smaller than the average size of the "supposed" men that 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).*
This study was obviously either manufactured or the product of an insanely biased man's desperate denial and deep depression. 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)
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 have been "gay" 22% of the time. If the non-twin percentage was 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 does not engage in same-gender sex)
Obviously, if this data had been released with the original study, it would have been immediately clear that there is no so-called "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 hidden "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 have reported being "gay," but the 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 not genetics. But the researches left this out.
Third, this study did not have a proper sample. According to a leading pro-same-gender sex movement 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 exclusively and unchangeably "gay" in order to produce results favorable to born "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 which 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 prove overpower Truth. The influence of the studies cast the spell of belief over many. Why shouldn't they have? They have gone publicly unchallenged. These fraudulent studies still appear in college text books across the nation, and they have directly and indirectly convinced millions, including one homosexualist 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 14th 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. Born "gay" propagandists know 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," and through general recruitment and desensitization via the mass media and porn industries, 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 actually 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
depp=true