This BLOG will not show pictures of the graphic nature purveyed in public by the participants performing live acts of perversion. The following is a newsletter from Dr. Paul Cameron of Family Research Institute. Paul has pursued knowledge and statistics that reveal the fraud, hypocrisy, violence, vitriol, child molestation, political machinations and societal dangers etc. that are endemic in the “Gay” community.

How Fast Can Elites Change Opinions About Homosexuality?

How long does it take for much of the elite, backed by homosexual organizations (as the Human Rights Campaign), to reverse US opinions about homosexuality? The effort to get acceptance of gay marriage, driven in part by liberals on the Supreme Court, offers an estimate.

Background: Christianity was ascendant after WWII. Popular movies included Samson and Delilah (1949); Martin Luther (1953); A Man Called Peter (1955); The Ten Commandments (1956); The Big Fisherman (1959)and Ben Hur (1959). President Roosevelt called the US a “Christian nation” during WWII and two years after pushing to have “under God” inserted into the pledge of allegiance, President Eisenhower signed a 1956 law changing the national motto to ‘in God we trust.’ In 1950, under President Truman, Democrat Senator Hoey’s commission documented extensive homosexual misconduct in the federal government (e.g., trying to seduce colleagues; discriminating against normals whilst packing departments with other homosexuals; commandeering restrooms), and concluded “one homosexual can pollute a government office.”

Psychiatrist Dr. FT Moore’s 1945 assessment was essentially that of Christian theorists:

“Homosexuality is to a very large extent an acquired abnormality and propagates itself as a morally contagious disease [tending] … to bring about more and more unfruitful unions that withdraw men and women from normal family life, the development of homes, and the procreation of children. The growth of a homosexual society in any country is a menace….”

Anti-Christian Nazi Himmler (in 1937) agreed with the above and added: the homosexual “is a pathological liar” with “an insatiable desire to communicate everything, especially with regards to his sex life,” “if we continue to allow this vice …it will be the end of … the Germanic world.”

In 1953, President Eisenhower characterized homosexual employees as “wickedness in government” barring them from Federal jobs. Organized homosexuals recruited psychologist Evelyn Hooker who wanted “oppressive attitudes towards gays and lesbians be changed’’ (1978, p. 133), to prove the studies showing gays disturbed were wrong. Hooker’s resulting study was shoddy: a gay organization, ‘‘the Mattachine Society … in the summer of 1953’’ volunteered 74 gays as subjects who, along with 40 heterosexuals, were administered ‘‘the total battery’’ (Hooker, 1954, p. 20). By 1956 the 74 gay subjects had been winnowed to 40 for one publication and 30 for her most famous paper (published in 1957). In 1961, ostensibly because of fear of arrest for having set up an illegal abortion, she destroyed all her records: no one else could re-examine her database.

Hooker’s ‘no differences between gays and normals’ study stood out because both before and after it, the rest of the literature testified to gays being more troubled. She admitted to changing the study mid-stream because the gays stood out:

“12 pictures were used: 3BM, 6BM, 7BM, 12M, 13MF, 16, and 18GF of the TAT; and from the MAPS, the Living Room, the Street Scene, the Bathroom, the Bedroom, and the Dream…. … The problem of identifying the homosexual protocol from the heterosexual was essentially a much easier one than that encountered with the Rorschach, since few homosexuals failed to give open homosexual stories on at least one picture. The second task given the Rorschach judges, of distinguishing the homosexual from the heterosexual records when they were presented in matched pairs, was therefore omitted. (1957, pp. 25–26)”

Homosexuals knew they had to be indistinguishable from their heterosexual counterparts for the study to report them ‘normal,’ yet flagged themselves by ‘seeing’ homosexuality in the TAT and MAPS, adding to the belief they were obsessive-compulsive! Yet THIS is the study that ‘proved’ gays were normal and the study the American Psychological Assn [APA] used to convince the American Psychiatric Assn. to no longer consider homosexuality a pathology! The APA and American Psychiatric Associations along with the National Assn of Social Workers have touted Hooker’s study since 1956. In 2003 they again lied about it to the Supreme Court:

“In one of the first rigorous examinations of the mental health status of homosexuality, Dr. Evelyn Hooker administered a battery of standard psychological tests to homosexual and heterosexual men who were matched for age, IQ, and education. … Based on the ratings of expert judges who were kept unaware of the men’s sexual orientation, Hooker determined that homosexual and heterosexual men could not be distinguished from one another on the basis of the psychological testing.”

No rigorous study finds results against its thesis – that judges using the mini-battery of projective tests would be unable to detect the homosexuals — and then substitutes another task for judges to ‘prove it anyway.’ Rigorous studies do what they said they would do, publish the results, and perhaps try to account for a failure to achieve an expected outcome. Hooker did not administer “a battery of standard psychological tests” (she used only 12 of the 53 TAT and MAPS items), the men were not “matched for age, IQ, and education,” nor did she ever reveal how the heterosexuals were assembled [see Cameron & Cameron 2012]). Scholars ignore their intellect and training to examine the Hooker study and call it “rigorous” or to make it the centerpiece of ‘proving homosexuals are normal.’

Why, in 1958, Did SCOTUS Allow Homosexuals to Use the US mail?

In 1958, amid a period saturated with Christianity, why did the US Supreme Court, without explanation, overturn decades of forbidding homosexuals to use the US Mail? Wikipedia gloats that by doing so ”the Supreme Court facilitated the flourishing of a gay and lesbian culture … at the same time as the federal government was purging homosexuals from its ranks.” Indeed, the court was helping to start the sexual revolution – and unleashing its staunchest supporters. In 1960, the birth control pill, one of the most consequential inventions in history, was launched, potentially transforming normals’ as well as homosexuals’ sex into pregnancy-free entertainment.

Although the possibility that the gay and lesbian culture was ‘flourishing’ within the court cannot be ruled out, it seems more likely that the American Psychological Association’s enthusiasm for Hooker’s study was the major influence. Her paper in August of 1956 made the ‘news’ and was soon cited when professionals discussed homosexuality. Hooker was appointed chair of the National Institute of Mental Health’s Task Force on Homosexuality in 1967. It followed Hooker saying that “The extreme opprobrium that our society has attached to homosexual behavior, by way of criminal statutes and restrictive employment practices, has done more social harm than good and goes beyond what is necessary for the maintenance of public order and human decency.” Following in train, the American Psychological and Psychiatric Associations declared homosexuals both normal and victims during the 1970s.

The Christian and mental health perspectives differed sharply on homosexuality – and the Supreme Court sided with the liberal-minded mental health view in 1958. The Defense of Marriage Act — assuring only a man and a woman could marry — was passed in 1996. But, as with other laws attempting to curtail homosexuality, the US Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in 2013 and legislated homosexual marriage in 2015.

Today, all kinds of laws and regulations protect homosexuals. In 2024, the electorate in Hawaii, Colorado, and California voted on whether to protect gay marriage from the possibility that the Supreme Court would, as with abortion, cancel its holding that it was a constitutional and thus a federal issue and throw the issue back to the states.

Has the electorate accepted the notion that homosexuals are so ‘special’ that those who enjoy same-sex sex should have the benefits of marriage even if the Supreme Court reversed itself (as with a federal right to abortion) and the Court held homosexuals were not constitutionally entitled to marriage? The 2024 election offers an answer.

Unlike a poll in which respondents know someone knows what they chose and the answer doesn’t cost, voting takes effort and is secret. As such, voting likely reveals true opinions. Table 1 lists the percentage of votes against gay marriage in the past, the 2024 votes to protect gay marriage, and the % for Trump.

Table 1: Electorate’s Votes Against and the 2024 Vote for Protecting Homosexual Marriage

State	Year against	% against	2024 % vote for	2024% for Trump
HI	1998 (26 years ago)	69	52	38
CO	2006 (18 years ago)	55	64	43
CA	2008 (16 years ago)	52	63	38

(all percentages are rounded)

The states in Table 1 are currently Democrat. But each voted against gay marriage a decade or so ago. Each state went from opposing to protecting homosexual marriage. Hinting that acceptance of homosexual marriage was growing at the time of the first vote, Hawaii registered 69% against gay marriage in 1998, whilst 10 years later, California voted 52% against it.

Many of the electorate in the first vote against gay marriage were replaced by younger voters in 2024. If we consider conservatives to have voted for Trump, Hawaii’s 48% against protecting gay marriage in 2024 exceeds its 38% Trump vote, suggesting many conservatives remained opposed. But 36% of the Colorado electorate voted against protecting gay marriage, whilst its vote for Trump at 43% suggests some conservatives supported protecting gay marriage.

The issue offers a test of public support of traditional Christian v mental health worldviews. After the mental health professional organizations baptized gays as normal and socially valuable, how long did it take for LGBTs, the media, the educational establishment, and Supreme Court opinions on homosexuality to reverse public opinion on gay marriage? Table 1 suggests that it took about three decades for these states’ electorates to support gay marriage.

© January 2025 Dr. Paul Cameron www.familyresearchinst.org POB 62640 Colorado Springs, CO 80962

Pensiamento Peligroso