When someone proclaims, “I’m gay” he is invoking two myths– myths that are the cornerstone of gay power. The first myth is, “I always have been and always will be gay,” while the second is, “I am completely and entirely gay.” Nobody ever claimed to have a “minor case of homosexuality.”
These myths combine to form the myth of the total organic homosexual, that a person is totally and permanently gay by nature. Increased acceptance of these myths threatens to crush long-held religious beliefs against homosexuality.
Gay rights laws originally protected on the basis of “sexual preference.” At the time society did not accept these myths but, as our culture has shifted towards acceptance, the squishy “preference” has been legally replaced with the rigid “sexual orientation.”
Let’s suppose that you consider gay sex as morally wrong and/or you are opposed gay marriage while I believed the gay myths. How would I see you?
To me you have a religion that works only for straights but not for gays. You purport to follow a god that condemns a class of people just for being the way he made them. You are promoting bigotry that merely masquerades as religion. The more you try to oppose gay marriage the more bigoted you seem to me. If you persisted in speaking against homosexual acts or gay marriage I would view you as abhorrent as one who would preach that Blacks are so inherently evil that God will send them all to hell and I would do everything possible to crush you and your beliefs.
Suppose instead I was only ambivalent about whether the gay myths were true. Would I defend you from attackers and thereby protect someone who was possibly propagating evil, bigoted beliefs? Would I visit your church or, if I already attended, would I tend to leave?
I might express my ambivalence by supporting homosexuality with, “Whether homosexuality is inherent or not, let people marry whoever they want.” At the same time I could not express what my position would have been if I were convinced the myths were false.
The gay marriage debate cannot be won without recognizing that the gay myths are central to it and must be exposed as false to as broad a swath of society as possible. This would require using language that does require a shift in other core beliefs such as expecting to make them all “Christian” first. How can this be done?
If I were to question, “Do I have a broken rib, a high IQ, or Asperger’s Syndrome?” what would I do? I would get some tests run.
Not so to the question, “Am I gay?” A person proclaims himself to be “gay” much the same way a person proclaims himself to be a follower of a set of religious or political beliefs: I’m a Roman Catholic. I’m a Democrat. I’m gay. If I look inside myself and, after considering all the factors, decide that I’m gay, then I’m gay. If instead I look at those same factors and do not decide that I’m gay, then I’m straight. Either decision I make, you are required to respect and defer to it. Still, some think that kids need greater exposure to homosexual material to ensure they do not make the “wrong” decision.
Gay proponents champions direct proclamation and eschew any type of scientific, medical, or psychological test or external evaluation for at least three reasons: First, a test destroys the absolute nature of homosexuality. For any test there can be myriad test scores giving myriad gradations from homo to heterosexuality. What do you call someone who scores only 80% on the gayness test—“kind of gay?”
Next, any kind of test can reveal the pliable nature of homosexuality. What if you score 80% one year but only 65% another? Have your sexual attractions changed?
A third and perhaps the biggest problem is that it reduces “I’m gay” from an identity to merely a label.
If a person has certain characteristics, attractions, fantasies, fetishes, etc. causing an evaluation to declare that he is gay, “gay” is nothing more than an observation or a label for these characteristics. If instead a person proclaims that he is gay, he then assumes a gay identity and can assert that all of those characteristics flow out of his inherent identity. This thereby relieves him of culpability for his thoughts and actions.
Even for those who are not considered gay, believing in a gay identity has a payoff. If I accept that there is a class of people who cannot be held responsible for their sexual appetites then maybe I can’t be held responsible for mine either.
Saying, “I have a same-sex attraction” raises the question: Am I going to feed or starve the attraction. When someone decides, “I’m gay” the question is answered. Homosexuality is not a choice; rather homosexuality is a decision.
Would gays accept objective criteria? Ask any gay activist, “If there were a test for sexual orientation and it showed that you were really bisexual or even straight, would you accept the test results?” The invariable answer would be, “Of course not! I’m gay!”
When you ask two gay guys, “How did you determine that you were gay?” you will probably get two very different stories such as, “Guys always intimidated me so I hung out with girls and that’s how I know I’m gay,” or “I was forced to have gay sex and found I liked it.” From diverse stories like these can we distill some type of universal criteria that we can apply to determine whom is/is not gay? —Nothing that the majority who proclaim to be gay would accept.
So ask someone who professes to be gay, “Who diagnosed you as ‘gay’ and how strongly did they rate your homosexual proclivity?” When he acknowledges that he is self -diagnosed, you can then ask, “What special training have you received enabling you to diagnose a person as gay and can you can you successfully diagnose it in others?” The conversation should get interesting from there.
If a boy relates much better to men and guy things but feels awkward around women and gal things we are told that this it is a clear indication he is gay. However, if he relates much better to women and gal things but feels awkward around men and guy things we are told that this also is a clear indication he is gay. Am I missing something here?
If a guy marries a woman, has kids but then leaves her and “comes out” as gay, gay activists tell us that just because he had straight sex and maybe even enjoyed it does not mean he was straight. If we accept that, by the same reasoning, just because a straight has gay sex doesn’t make him gay. Indeed, if a male pedophile has sex with boys he is not considered a homosexual unless he considers himself to be homosexual. Therefore we can’t even tell whether a person is really straight or gay by his sexual activity or any other characteristic.
Perhaps you have seen studies on the causes of homosexuality. Most studies use a sleight of hand: They do not explore whether homosexuality is a sexual preference or an orientation but start with the gay identity as a premise. So however a person has come into homosexuality, whether by nature or by nurture, he is portrayed as now having the invincible gay identity.
Ask the authors of these studies, “Did you use some objective criteria to determine which of your subjects were gay, straight or bisexual?” Also, what portion of your subjects did you determine were gay but had not yet come out as gay, and which subjects were gay but had not even “admitted it to themselves?” Pesky questions like these combined with the significant political pressure to find the “correct” answers suggest that studies are not the best source to determine if the empowering gay myths are true.
What does “I’m gay” mean? Most would say that, at some level, it means a person is sexually attracted to those of the same sex. Consider how absurd this is. People wear clothes. We can’t see people’s private parts and only infer their gender from characteristics or dress. The most emphatic statement of “sexual orientation” we can make is that a subject is sexually attracted to characteristics that are generally thought of as being “male” or “female.” However these characteristics overlap. Not all females have bigger breasts than all males. Not all males have more facial hair than all females particularly if a female dons a lifelike but fake beard.
A person is not sexually attracted to all members of a given sex and there are other characteristics that negate sexually attractive ones such as a person being listless or having terrible hygiene. If those who have claimed, “I’m gay” are said to be self-proclaimed as sexually attracted to certain characteristics generally attributed to those of their same sex, “I’m gay” now doesn’t sound very compelling.
If you asked a promiscuous 19-year-old male what he thought about having sex with a 62-year-old woman—someone old enough to be his grandmother—you would probably get a retching noise. But what about when he is 65 himself? From this we can see that a person’s sexual tastes change over time. If we can accept this, why is it so difficult to accept that a person’s changing taste for the ideal sexual partner could even cross between opposite-sex and same-sex under certain circumstances, particularly if their former partner has become listless and has developed terrible hygiene?
Our culture also exerts control on what is or is not sexually attractive. Female armpit hair is a serious sexual turn-off for modern, western men. Were men less sexually attracted to women a few hundred years ago when shaving armpit hair was not practiced or has our culture told us that removing armpit hair is necessary for a woman to be “sexy?” Consider how sexy Playboy pinups are. Would these be as sexy in a nudist colony? Isn’t what and who is sexy also influenced by context? If our concept of what is sexy is so set, why can sexual attractiveness be trumped by halitosis?
Every discrimination law that protects homosexuality just as vigorously protects bisexuality. So what is bisexuality? It is having some level of sexual attraction to features that are generally thought of as male and also as female. Does it always occur in equal quantities of each; the 50-50 bisexual? Can’t someone else be a 60-40 bisexual or any other ratio? We speak of someone who is “straight with gay tendencies”—an 80-20 bisexual.
If a bisexual has a good relationship with one gender and a bad relationship with the other, can’t this “bisexual person” easily go from 50-50 to 40-60? Since we’ve already shown that gay ideology says it’s not even possible to objectively determine whom is/is not gay, it would be absurd to assert that a particular bisexual was born at 63.2 percent gay and must be stuck at that exact level for his entire life. By providing specific legal protection for bisexuals, discrimination laws acknowledge that we are all bisexual because we all have the full capability of going either way.
When some states had criminal sodomy laws, some banned only homosexual sodomy while others banned both homo and hetero sodomy. For the man committing the sodomy, the physical sensation is identical whether with a woman or another man. It is interesting how gays claim to have a rigid biological basis for their attractions when they cannot even point to a distinctive sexual sensation that should be the hallmark of their uniqueness.
The statement, “I’m gay” has as much solidity as, “I’ve fallen in love; I’ve found my soul-mate.” Either phrase can arise from a multiplicity of factors, can feel just as certain and settled at the time and may last a lifetime. However just as many factors may lead you and your “soul-mate” to divorce court other factors may lead a person to question his or her “sexual orientation.” Or was that only a “sexual preference?”
Gay power and influence depend on convincing the public that gays “always have been and always will be gay,” and also that gays “are completely and entirely gay.” Can you see the response to someone demanding rights when he admits he is “more gay than he was last year and is now almost entirely gay”? While we need to focus on defeating the gay-empowering myths to defeat gay marriage and gay power, don’t expect that the material in this paper will sway a true believer of it. However, if this material is broadly disseminated it can help those who are struggling with the question, “Am I gay.” While this may weaken the grip of gay power, even if it does not, is not helping only a few individuals worth the effort?
For more proof that people are not “born gay” go to http://www.nowayborngay.org/home.php