Only One Way To Think If You Want To Survive! Really?


The below article is lengthy, and prophetic.  You will note it was written over 4 years ago, and the LGBTQ juggernaut has upped the ante and intensified the agenda since then.  They won’t stop until people with a high, or Biblical, standard of morality push back.  Committing national, and even worldwide suicide is a very poor option, and not everyone wants to go along with it!

Friday, 17 July 2015

The New American Magazine

The Queering of America

Written by  William F. Jasper

The Queering of America

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down state laws barring same-sex “marriage” is the culmination of a decades-long corrosive process, one that has been methodically guided by a strategic subversive plan. All moral people are rightly outraged by this official mockery of the natural law, the moral law, and the divine law. But we should not be shocked or surprised, as the unmistakable signs that this was coming have been ever more obvious with each and every concession to the “gay” lobby and “gay” culture. This article originally appeared in the June 8, 1998 issue of The New American, 17 years ago. — The editors
‘‘I want to give you a little more evidence for my notion that this country has shifted in the 1990s and has transformed,” lesbian activist Elizabeth Birch told her university audience earlier this year. “Where is the least likely place anybody would look for leadership on a social issue?” she asked. “Corporate America, right?” But therein lies a tremendous irony. Ms. Birch explains: “By 1991, almost no companies in this country, almost none, had even nondiscrimination policies. Just a handful of years later, over half of the Fortune 500 had instituted nondiscrimination policies…. Over 100 of the Fortune 1,500 have instituted domestic partner coverage. That means the CEO at some point says, ‘I am going to take on my board, my shareholders, and my customers and do this.’ And I’ve happened to have the privilege to work very closely with a number of these companies. These are household names like Kodak, American Express, IBM, and the Disney Corporation.”
Look at Disney
Disney, of course, epitomizes the astonishing transformation of which Ms. Birch spoke. In the past few years, the company once synonymous with wholesomeness and quality family entertainment has become a leading purveyor of perversion — and the target of repeated campaigns by churches and religious organizations offended by its scandalous productions. Who would have thought it possible that the beloved Magic Kingdom would so soon after Walt Disney’s passing turn into a Wicked Empire that: hires a convicted child molester to direct a movie; recruits an open lesbian and an avowed homosexual to top executive positions; publishes openly pro-homosexual books directed toward youngsters; injects subliminal pornographic images into its animated movies; produces a children’s animated epic with sub rosa homosexual characters; and sponsors an annual homosexual confabulation at Disney World that subjects unsuspecting families to the rowdy and raunchy activities of hordes of deviants?
In her keynote address to the 1998 University of California Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered Association’s “Exposed!” conference, Elizabeth Birch triumphantly revealed a deep, dark secret. First she asked furtively, “Is there any press in the room?” Then she explained: “Okay, I’m gonna tell you — ’cause some of these conversations are very private — but when I said to Michael Eisner, CEO of Disney, [that] ‘30 percent of your employees are gay,’ he said, ‘You are wrong, Elizabeth, it’s 40 [percent].’”
Until a very short time ago, homosexuality was known as the unmentionable vice. It was not spoken of in decent company. But that recent bygone era seems like ancient history; in “post-Christian America,” one cannot open a newspaper, flip a television channel, turn on a radio, watch a movie, or pass a magazine rack without being clobbered by the “gay rights” issue du jour or the latest homosexual-themed pop entertainment offering. An incredible societal transformation — a tectonic shift of enormous magnitude — has taken place before our eyes, in less than the space of one generation. What was once universally seen for the vile abomination that it is, in a few short years has been transmuted into simply a different “lifestyle” or “orientation,” protected by law and endlessly defended, glorified, and celebrated by the cultural elites. What was once deviant, abhorrent, and criminal has been rendered by a perverse alchemy into something “polite” society now calls, simply, “gay.”
The homosexual revolution is but the latest and most viscerally repellent installment in an ongoing, much larger revolution that has been in the process of upending our entire civilization for many years. And it may yet succeed in doing so. The unimaginable success thus far of the homosexual revolution provides one of the most dreadful portents on the horizon today. For this revolution is far from over. And those “tolerant” citizens who think that, “Hey, I’m not gay, but they’re not harming me,” have a rude awakening coming. The militant sodomites have made it explicitly clear that tolerance is not sufficient; they demand positive “approval” from society, manifested in the enactment of laws granting them special rights, and the abolition of the residual laws that impede their full homoerotic expression and deny their full access to children. Moreover, as we shall see, they insist on the complete “conversion” of “straight” society, which involves the therapeutic cleansing of all “homophobic,” “homohating,” “anti-gay bias” attitudes.
Straight America has been asleep on a deadly battlefield with a relentless enemy that is waging total war and believes in giving no quarter. We exaggerate not. In their own words to their own troops, the apostles of perversion describe their lavender jihad as “war” and constantly invoke aggressive, military terms such as “Trojan Horse,” “deception,” “propaganda,” “war strategy,” “battle tactics,” “hand-to-hand combat,” “rage,” “fury,” “enemy,” “war conference,” “attack,” “hate,” “vilify,” “destroy,” “conquer,” “subvert,” etc.
“Gay” Agenda
If you are already sickened by the super-saturation of contemporary culture with “gayness” and the non-stop whining about gay victimization, get set for an acceleration of the homo “rights” agenda. The targets include:
• Legalized marriage and adoption rights.
• Mandated “domestic partner” policies for all employers, public and private.
• Vast increases in government funding for all homosexual programs.
• Explicit homosexual “education” at all levels of schooling.
• More homosexual teacher/“role models” in the schools.
• Broad dissemination of explicit homosexual literature in schools and public libraries.
• Abolition of “age of consent” laws.
• Abolition of all state and local statutes restricting homosexual behavior.
• Criminalization, prosecution, and persecution of “homophobes,” i.e., religious “bigots.”
• A dramatic increase in the visibility of provocative and “diverse” manifestations of the gay subculture.
• Expanded pervert programming on television.
• Rapid expansion of the gay revolution to small-town, suburban, and rural America.
• Admittance of homosexuals and lesbians into Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, and other private youth groups.
How do we know? The homosexual strategists tell us so in their own books and publications. Just as they told us years ago of the impending social sea-change that has now come to pass. One of the most influential manifestos of the militant homosexuals has proven to be the 1989 bestseller by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, entitled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s. This theoretical and operational manual for the “overhauling of straight America” left no doubt as to the admittedly “subversive” nature of its authors’ plan for “converting” America. Kirk and Madsen state: “By conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American way of life. We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind and will, through a planned psychological attack. We mean ‘subverting’ the mechanism of prejudice to our own ends — using the very process that made America hate us to turn their hatred into warm regard — whether they like it or not.”
Sodomite Strategy
And, indeed, the buggery brain trust has been wildly successful in carrying out this “planned psychological attack.” Kirk and Madsen, Harvard-trained professionals in neuropsychiatry, public persuasion, and social marketing, have shown themselves to be formidable strategists and tacticians. Their plan for “converting” America involves the systematic use of very sophisticated psychological techniques of desensitizing, jamming, and conditioning. Their book provided the step-by-step program that has been relentlessly employed — and is still being religiously pursued — to totally “overhaul” America. The authors describe the opening phase of their plan as “our recipe for desensitizing Ambivalent Skeptics; that is for helping straights view homosexuality with neutrality rather than keen hostility.” “At least at the outset,” say Kirk and Madsen, “we seek desensitization and nothing more. You can forget about trying up front to persuade folks that homosexuality is a good thing. But if you can get them to think that it is just another thing — meriting no more than a shrug of the shoulders — then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won.”
And how would this be accomplished? Through a massive media, public relations, and advertising “propaganda campaign.” “Gays must launch a large-scale campaign — we’ve called it the Waging Peace campaign — to reach straights through the mainstream media,” the co-authors wrote. “We’re talking about propaganda.” They explained to their deviate cohorts that “propaganda relies more upon emotional manipulation than upon logic, since its goal is, in fact, to bring about a change in the public’s feelings.”
“The main thing,” they asserted, “is to talk about gayness until the issue becomes thoroughly tiresome.” (Emphasis in original.) Accordingly, they said, the “free and frequent discussion of gay rights by a variety of persons in a variety of places gives the impression that homosexuality is commonplace. That impression is essential, because … the acceptability of any new behavior ultimately hinges on the proportion of one’s fellows accepting or doing it.” And, the pervert pair opined, the “fastest way to convince straights that homosexuality is commonplace is to get a lot of people talking about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. Open, frank talk makes gayness seem less furtive, alien, and sinful; more aboveboard.” This strategy comprehended fully the truth of Alexander Pope’s observation that, “Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”
Even the religious “bigots” and “intransigents” who do not “embrace” gay culture, noted Kirk and Madsen, will begin to feel more and more isolated and more reticent when it comes to expressing disapproval. And the conservative “may still shake his head and think, ‘People are crazy these days,’ but in time his objections will become more reflective, more philosophical, less emotional.”
But — and this is all-important — the non-stop, desensitizing talk about “gayness” was meticulously designed to be a strictly controlled propaganda operation, employing not only the aforementioned sophisticated psychological techniques, but the very deliberate and massive use of the Big Lie. The Big Lie technique — repeating a gross falsehood often enough that it becomes “fact” — has been a central and essential component of the long-term campaign by the queer lobby — and its allies and patrons — to “sell” the American public the fallacies that:
• Homosexuals comprise 10 percent of the population.
• Homosexuality is an innate, genetically determined orientation.
• Science, reason, and true Christian charity affirm homosexuality as natural and virtuous.
 • Homosexuals are just as “normal” as the general heterosexual society and present no moral, social, or health threat to the larger community.
• Common stereotypes concerning homosexual behavior, traits, mannerisms, dress, and sexual practices are vicious and false.
• Homosexuals are kind, loving, monogamous people, not practitioners of wild, promiscuous sex.
• Homosexuals present no more danger to children or national security than do heterosexuals.
• Homosexuals are innocent victims of an oppressive heterosexual society.
• Fairness and decency demand that “good” heterosexuals defend homosexuals from the bigotry and oppression of “straight” society.
• “Anti-gay” attitudes and moral condemnations of homosexuality constitute “hate crimes” and/or mental illness, requiring either prosecution or coercive medical treatment and “reeducation.”
Lies Have Consequences
Has this campaign of “emotional manipulation” worked? Absolutely. The ten percent myth has been so frequently cited in popular literature that it has achieved the status of unchallenged dogma in both straight and deviant circles. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support such an extravagant claim. Like so many other lies concerning homosexuality, it owes its origins to the perverse pseudoscience and outright deception of Alfred Kinsey. The most generous, reliable estimates, based on surveys using scientifically recognized methodology, put the figure at closer to two percent (see “Pseudo-science Behind the Ten Percent Myth”). Of course, establishing “normalcy” by citing the percentage of the population which claims a particular belief, practice, habit, or lifestyle — whether it be 10, 20, or even 90 percent, and whether or not the figure is genuine — does not answer the more important questions concerning the moral rightness or wrongness of the belief, practice, habit, or lifestyle. Moral verities are not properly derived from polls, scientific measurements, or sociological data.
Rivaling the 10 percent myth in terms of frequency of repetition and the employment of unalloyed mendacity and bogus science is the “born gay” lie. Kirk and Madsen know this is the case, but are not about to let facts get in the way of their higher purpose. “We argue,” say the author-activists, “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 predisposition and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.” It’s a simple matter of expediency. “To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled ‘moral choice and sin’ and give the religious Intransigents a stick to beat us with,” they confess. With the help of Time, Newsweek, ABC, NBC, CBS, and the rest of the prostitute press, the homosexual propagandists have been largely successful in keeping the moral choice/sin “can of worms” closed.
However, the cooperation of corrupt and radical members of the clergy also has been crucially important in keeping the “sin” stick hidden in the closet. “While public opinion is one important source of mainstream values,” say the manifesto co-authors, “religious training in childhood is another. Yet two things can be done to confound the homohatred of the moderately religious.” And what are those things? “First,” the lavender war strategists explain, “gays can use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that ‘justify’ religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards. This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings….” Moderate churches? They mean, naturally, “progressive,” “socialist,” and “communist,” churches — members of the World Council of Churches, and member churches of the openly homosexual Metropolitan Community Churches denomination.
“Second,” say Kirk and Madsen, “gays can undermine the moral authority of homohating churches over less fervent adherents by portraying such institutions as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the atavistic tug of Old Time Religion one must set the mightier pull of Science and Public Opinion….”
They are confident the formula will work. “Such an ‘unholy’ alliance has already worked well in America against churches, on such topics as divorce and abortion,” they note. And “with enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work for gays.” As indeed it has. The above words were published, recall, in 1989. Over the past decade, we have seen pro-sodomite “Reverends” like Jesse Jackson, Mel White, Hans Venable, Larry Bethune, Jerry Sloan, William S. Coffin, Paul Moore, and many others marching in Gay Pride parades and insisting that active, practicing perverts can be, at the same time, faithful Christians.
Wholesome “Everyman”
For the most part — aside from the repugnant and thuggish activities of Queer Nation and ACT-UP extremists — the Lavender Lobby has followed the Kirk and Madsen prescription to not “draw attention to the gay sex habits that provoke public revulsion.” “In the early stages of the campaign,” the deviant advisers admonished, “the public should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself.” What’s more, they advised their fellow deviates to keep the “cocky mustachioed leathermen, drag queens and bull dykes,” as well as pedophiles and other “exotic” gays, as far from straights and the media as possible. “Persons featured in the media campaign should be wholesome and admirable by straight standards,” they insisted, and “indistinguishable from the straights we’d like to reach.”
Thus, the slick public relations campaigns of the perverts generally have featured as spokespersons conservative-appearing homosexuals in Brooks Brothers suits and lesbians in Liz Claiborne-style fashions. And countless news stories, commercials, and public presentations have followed the Kirk-Madsen script, which calls for presenting “conventional young people, middle-aged women, and older folks of all races,” along with “parents and friends of gays.” The endless media procession of “coming out” stories has been an integral part of this plot.
“First, coming out helps desensitize straights,” according to propagandists Kirk and Madsen. “As more and more gays emerge into everyday life, gays as a group will begin to seem more familiar and unexceptional to straights, hence less alarming and objectionable.” They elaborated further that “coming out is a critical catalyst for the all-important ‘conversion’ process. Conversion is more than merely desensitizing straights or jamming their homohatred: it entails making straights to identify with them. This becomes possible when a heterosexual learns that someone he already likes and admires, such as a friend or family member, is homosexual. The discovery leads to an internal showdown between the straight’s personal affection on the one hand and his bigotry on the other.”
And you thought that the decade-long deluge of “coming out” events was a spontaneous affair! Ha! Never has a charade been more carefully choreographed. “In order to make a Gay victim sympathetic to straights you have to portray him as Everyman,” the Kirk-Madsen script explained, confident that “the press will publicize our concerns and report our news, and our community will enjoy enhanced prestige.” It is the long-term, cumulative effect of many little steps that they seek: “After ‘meeting’ enough likable gays on television, Jane Doe may begin to feel she knows gays as a group, even if none has ever introduced himself to her personally.”
In addition to the “Everyman” strategy, the Kirk-Madsen program outlined a campaign to “paint gay men and lesbians as superior — veritable pillars of society.” This involves both publicizing an historical “honor roll of prominent gay or bisexual men and women,” including “suspected ‘inverts’” from “Socrates to Eleanor Roosevelt,” and lining up celebrity endorsements. The past few years have witnessed a politically correct stampede of politicians, entertainers, authors, and intellectuals into the “pro-gay” camp, a host of celebs pouring out of the closets, and an avalanche of movies and television programs with homosexual, lesbian, and transvestite characters and themes. Singers Elton John, Boy George, K.D. Lang, Janis Ian, and Melissa Etheridge openly proclaim their “gay” identities. Homosexual movie/record mogul David Geffen (the “G” in SKG Dreamworks, with Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg) lavishes millions of dollars on gay/lesbian causes. Geffen, together with Fox TV founder Barry Diller, Hollywood power broker Sandy Gallin, designer Calvin Klein, and a close group of homosexual and pro-homosexual friends, comprise what has been dubbed the Velvet Mafia, which has boosted the queer content of films and television programming and helped to line up stars such as Oprah Winfrey, Madonna, Tom Hanks, Sharon Stone, Magic Johnson, Barbra Streisand, Ted Danson, and a legion of others to endorse “gay rights” or raise funds for homosexual causes. One measurement of the magnitude of their baleful influence can be seen in the willingness of macho-male stars Patrick Swayze and Wesley Snipes to take roles as prancing transvestites in the drag-queen comedy, To Wong Foo, Thanks For Everything, Julie Newmar, or of Tom Selleck and Kevin Kline to do the homosexual kissing scene in the blatant, gay agitprop “comedy,” In and Out.
Admissions Against Interest
The Hollywood and media power elites have enthusiastically implemented the homosexual propaganda agenda as outlined by Kirk and Madsen. But even a cursory perusal of the homosexual press (which is about all any self-respecting “straight” can stomach) quickly reveals that the “normal,” “wholesome,” “victim” image is a monstrous lie. But don’t take our word for it. Read what homosexual author and playwright Larry Kramer, one of America’s best-known, militant gay activists, says in The Advocate, which bills itself as “The National Gay & Lesbian Newsmagazine.”
In his angry essay, “Sex and Sensibility,” in the May 27, 1997 issue of The Advocate, Kramer laments the fact that his fellow homosexuals, far from having learned their lesson from the plague of AIDS, are rushing promiscuously and obliviously into the abyss of destruction. “Nature always extracts a price for sexual promiscuity,” says Kramer, surveying the rampant debauchery of contemporary “gay” culture. AIDS and other deadly and debilitating sexual diseases comprise a major component of that price. “Tragically, not enough of us have responded to this information maturely and responsibly,” says Kramer. We cannot repeat (and have no desire to) most of Kramer’s profanity-strewn jeremiad against his fellow perverts. But he makes our case more powerfully than we — or any other straight “homophobe,” for that matter — ever could.
“We must create a new culture that is not confined and centered so tragically on our obsession with our [genitalia] and what we do with them,” Kramer declares, while almost despairing of that lofty gay ideal. “Instead,” he says, “our ‘artists’ just continue to perpetuate what got us into all this trouble and death in the first place.” He cites, as an example, the anonymous, promiscuous sex of the then-new novel, The Farewell Symphony, by Edmund White, whom he describes as “our most distinguished gay writer.” “There are so many faceless, indistinguishable pieces of flesh that litter these 500 pages that reading them becomes, for any reasonably sentient human being, at first a heartless experience and finally a boring one…. Surely life was more than this, even for — especially for — Edmund White.”
Kramer vainly pleads: “Is it not incumbent, particularly in the time of a plague that has been spread by our own callous indifference to ending it, that those of us who are read and listened to perceive of ourselves as fuller human beings and capable of writing about far more than just what sex we had night after night for 30 years?” “I am so sick,” he continues, “of the literature of sex, of the soft porn of all our novels and short stories that traffic only or mostly in sex. Tricks, bushes, S/M, discos, drugs, bathhouses, Fire Island, phone sex, meat racks — is that all we are capable of writing about or our audience capable of reading?”
Kramer continues to dish it out, with a vengeance:
We don’t have a gay culture, I don’t believe. We have our sexuality, and we have made a culture out of our sexuality, and that culture has killed us. I want to say this again: We have made sex the cornerstone of gay liberation and gay culture, and it has killed us….
We’ve all been partners in our destruction…. We have been the cause of our own victimization. I know these are grotesquely politically incorrect things to say. So be it. We knew we were playing with fire, and we continued to play with fire, and the fire consumed monstrously large numbers of us and singed the rest of us, all of us, whether we notice our burn marks or not. And we still play with fire.
Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen know that what Kramer says is true. In fact, they sound off with similar-sounding anger against rampant pervert excesses in their book. In chapter 6, “The State of Our Community: Gay Pride Goeth Before the Fall,” they write: “Of all the misbehavior we decry, self-indulgence is perhaps the most characteristic of gays, and of the gay community as a whole.” “Indeed,” aver the deviant duo, destructive self-indulgence “was institutionalized, long ago … as a central tenet of gay liberation.” Amongst gays, they say, “any self restraint is, itself, suspect of being a sign of self-hatred and blue-nosery — so one virtually must act out one’s most fleeting impulses in order to prove that one isn’t a hung-up, judgmental old poop.”
Kirk and Madsen confess that they, too, formerly indulged in many excesses. But they are appalled at the wild, public debauchery and the “ongoing lavatorial passion play” in which so many gays indulge. They write:
Despite their high visibility, and attempts by authorities to squelch them, however, a coterie of gay men continues, daily and nightly, to perform the play before what is, all too often an S.R.O. [standing room only] straight audience — in the men’s rooms of Ivy League Colleges, and in the public lavatories, parks, and alleyways of every major city in the United States. Theirs is the wretchedest of all gay excesses.
But the wretchedness doesn’t end there. Validating what religious “homophobes” and professional psychologists alike have observed, Kirk and Madsen explicate a common problem of homosexuals:
As one gains experience, vanilla sex with one partner becomes familiar, tame, and boring, and loses its capacity to arouse. At first, the increasingly jaded gay man seeks novelty in partners, rather than practices, and becomes massively promiscuous; eventually, all bodies become boring, and only new practices will thrill. Two major avenues diverge in this yellow wood, two nerves upon which to press: that of raunch, and that of aggression. The pursuit of sexual happiness via raunch — fetishism, water sports and coprophilia, and so forth — seeks, essentially, to restore erectile thrills by restoring the “dirty,” hence forbidden, aspect of sex.
But these depravities soon fail to do the trick. “Unfortunately,” Kirk and Madsen say, “this, as with all attempts to sustain the furor sexualis of youth by sheer intensification of some peripheral aspect of the experience, is doomed to failure; mere amplification of ‘dirtiness’ results, finally, in mere wallowing in filth — which, however far the ante is upped, eventually fails to satisfy, or even to arouse.” Which is why so many homosexuals then “graduate” to the even more unspeakable depravities of sadomasochism and bondage sex. “Aggressive sex,” Kirk and Madsen acknowledge, “is worse than a mere dead end: in extreme cases, it’s dangerous.” No, in all cases it’s dangerous; in “extreme” cases it’s more extremely dangerous. And all too often it results in a literal dead end, as the cases of Jeffrey Dahmer, Andrew Cunanan, John Wayne Gacy, Juan Corona, Bruce Davis, Patrick Kearney, Andrei Chikatilo, Ludwig Tiene, and numerous other infamous homosexual mass murderers attest. This should not surprise, since, as Kirk and Madsen admit, the “trappings, expressions, and emotions [of “aggressive sex”] are those of pain and hate, and, say what you will, pain and hate are what it arouses.”
Kramer, Madsen, Kirk, and other “responsible” homosexual moralists regularly condemn the “promiscuous” sex of their more ribald confreres. But their definitions of what constitutes “promiscuous” and “responsible” are noteworthy. “By ‘promiscuous’ we mean those who have sex only with anonymous partners,” say Kirk and Madsen. Which would seem to leave wide latitude for sex with multiple partners — as long as you know their names. That would qualify as promiscuous in just about any heterosexual lexicon. Indeed, while even liberal heterosexuals would consider two or three sex partners per year to be treading the bounds of promiscuity, surveys of homosexuals repeatedly show that it is common for them to have dozens — even hundreds — of partners.
This mad pursuit of raw, gratuitous, non-stop sexual gratification provides no emotional fulfillment. “One of the major reasons the gay lifestyle doesn’t work is that, when gays form relationships at all — and they do so far less frequently than the wishful thinking of popular mythology would have it — they form them for the wrong reasons, with the wrong people, of the wrong ages,” Kirk and Madsen note. So what do these moralists offer as the “right” ages, people, reasons, and relationships? The ideal of these then-30-something authors is the pairing of “an attractive boy — of, say, sixteen or so” and “an older, presumably more mature and established man — of, say, thirty or so.” And this they say even as they condemn the “youth obsession” of the larger homosexual community.
Rage vs. Love
After the prudish public has been properly “desensitized,” “conditioned,” and “converted” to believe that decency and justice require support for “gay rights,” public hostility must be focused upon those who remain committed to traditional morality. In After the Ball, Madsen and Kirk have delineated an insidious, Orwellian propaganda program that you undoubtedly have already witnessed in operation — perhaps without even realizing it. This is what they recommend:
The best way to make homohatred look bad is to vilify those who victimize gays. The public should be shown images of ranting homohaters whose associated traits and attitudes appall and anger Middle America. The images might include:
Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered or castrated;
Hysterical backwoods preachers, drooling with hate to a degree that looks both comical and deranged;
Menacing punks, thugs, and convicts….
Whom do they advocate targeting for this vicious treatment? All those “denizens of bigotry’s darkest realm — say, 30-35% of the citizenry” who are “vehemently opposed to homosexuality.” If you fall into that category, you are considered one of “the damned.”
What is the force that motivates these revolutionaries? Kirk and Madsen offer a revealing answer in After the Ball. “After all,” they tell their readers, “we are asking you to change a nation under your own steam. And where, for that matter, is the steam supposed to come from? Your patriotism and sense of fair play? Your homophile zeal?… Agape? No, few are motivated over the long haul by zeal or saintliness. Yet sufficient motivation is found … all around you: the sustaining emotional steam that comes not from Love but from Rage.” Yes, a hellish rage and fury drives this revolution. “Fury galvanizes,” say the authors. “Now it must drive all of us to decisive action. America in the 1990s is the time and place for rage — ice-cold, controlled, directed rage.”
Unfortunately, Christians have allowed Hell’s rage, fury, and deception to wage war on our civilization virtually unchallenged and unimpeded. It is time to join the battle — not with rage, but with courage born of, yes, agape — love.
Paul Cameron, Ph.D.
Chairman, Family Research Institute
POB 62640
Colorado Springs, CO 80962
303 681 3113


  1. Do you mind if I quote a couple of your posts as long as I provide credit and sources back to your site? My blog site is in the very same area of interest as yours and my visitors would genuinely benefit from some of the information you provide here. Please let me know if this ok with you. Appreciate it!


    1. You may use, quote or link any of my posts with or without attribution.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: