Conservative Colloquium

An Intellectual Forum for All Things Conservative

The Born “Gay” Hoax in America

Posted by Tony Listi on October 1, 2007


Chapter 2
The Born “Gay” Hoax: America

In 1985, the political descendents of Karl Heinrich Ulrichs resurrected the born “gay” hoax. Prior to this time, with rare exception, those that engaged in same-gender sexual conduct had always been considered to have an unnatural behavioral vice, initiated or followed by psychological dysfunction. Prior to 1985, mainstream same-gender sex activists in America even defended the idea that “homosexuality” was a behavior. For example, Professor Lillian Faderman, a same-gender sex activist, has written that “the lesbians of the 1970s valorized homosexuality by claiming that any woman could become a lesbian–and that it was a fine choice.” (The Advocate, Feb 6th 1996. Pg.72)

In 1985, however, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen tore a page from the playbook of Ulrichs, when they penned a low-profile document entitled “The Gay Agenda” in a same-gender sex magazine called Christopher Street. Kirk and Madsen, it must be noted, were world-renowned sexual psychologists, public relations specialists, and same-gender sex political activists. In short, “The Gay Agenda” explained the strategic importance of shifting the central issue in the debate over same-gender sex away from same-gender sex and psychology, and toward a third-gender Ulrichsian sexual identity. Thus, they would force opponents into a position where they would be seen as attacking the civil rights of so-called “gay” citizens, rather than opposing a specific antisocial behavior. (Lively) “The Gay Agenda” also outlined the strategy that would eventually be used to convince both the government and the people that some individuals are born “gay.” But, there was no initial enthusiasm for this born “gay” hoax among same-gender sex activists. In fact, many activists considered the proposed strategy deceitful and degrading, but these initial reservations would not hold for long.
In 1986, same-gender sex activists lost Bowers v. Hardwick, the United States Supreme Court case which upheld the right of individual states to criminalize sodomy. After years of widespread public activism throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the same-gender sex movement hit a wall in Bowers. But, the activists did not throw in the towel. The loss left same-gender sex activists from all sides of the political spectrum desperate and galvanized, with one last narrow opportunity to decriminalize sodomy in America.
In order to decriminalize and eventually legitimize sodomy, the activists would now have to adopt the Ulrichsian strategy outlined in Kirk and Madsen’s “Gay Agenda.” They would pursue Minority Status under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Civil Rights Act recognizes Minority Status only for those groups who:

1) Have suffered a long history of discrimination
2) Are powerless to help themselves as a community
3) Are “born that way.

If they could make a compelling case that they were born “gay,” they would become eligible for Minority Status, as a “Suspect Class” under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. If Minority status were granted, it would force the courts to overturn Bowers v. Hardwick, thus, legalizing sodomy.
The legalization of sodomy, by way of “Minority Status,” is the secret to understanding why same-gender sex activists began once again to promote the Ulrichsian claim, that people are born “gay.”
The born “gay” hoax’s time had come. Subsequently, in 1988, a “war conference” of 175 leading same-gender sex activists representing organizations from every part of the United States convened in Warrenton, Virginia. The purpose of the conference, according to Kirk and Madsen, was to establish an official agenda for the new “gay” movement.* ( At this “War Conference” the same-gender sex activists adopted the identity politic strategy outlined in the “Gay Agenda,” which was an argument and outline for a born “gay” public relations campaign. In this deliberately deceitful agenda for America, Kirk and Madsen stated that they intended to “get tough” on straights! They continued on to say, “it is time to learn from Madison Avenue, and to roll out the big guns. . . . We are talking about propaganda.”
Kirk and Madsen explained the central tenant of their deceptive strategy: “The public should be persuaded that gays are victims of circumstance, that they no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height, skin color, talents, or limitations. (We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been ‘born gay’–even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence.)” (Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay;s in the 90s, p.184) They could not have been clearer about their plan to deceive the American people to further their own political agenda.
Same-gender sex activists are remarkably candid about their Machiavellian aims. Below, I have provided several quotations and examples of same-gender sex activists openly admitting that born “gay” rhetoric was a complete fabrication, contrived and carried out for specific political ends, namely, the overturning of Bowers, and the normalization of same-gender sex.
Dr. Lillian Faderman- who has won the Monette/Horwitz Award from the homosexual activist group Lambda Literary Foundation states: “And we continue to demand Rights, ignoring the fact that human sexuality is fluid and flexible, acting as though we are all stuck in our category forever,” she later states, “The narrow categories of identity politics are obviously deceptive.” (The Advocate, 9-5-95, p.43)
It is obvious that Dr. Faderman sees a political threat from the truth, from the fluidity of sexuality. “I must confess that I am both elated and terrified by the possibilities of ‘a bisexual moment.’ I’m elated because I truly believe that bisexuality is the natural human condition. But I’m much less happy when I think of the possibility of huge numbers of homosexuals (two-thirds of women who identify as lesbian for example) running off to explore the heterosexual side of their bisexual potential and, as a result, decimating our political ranks.” Later in the article Dr. Faderman writes, “The concept of gay and lesbian identity may be nothing but a social construct, but it has been crucial, enabling us to become a political movement and demand the rights that are do to us as a minority. What becomes of our political movement if we openly acknowledge that sexuality is flexible and fluid, that gay and lesbian does not signify ‘a people’ but rather a ‘sometime behavior’?” (The Advocate, 9-5-95, p.43)
Dr. John DeCecco is a homosexual psychologist, the Director of the Center for Research and Education in Sexuality at San Francisco State University and the Editor of the Journal of Homosexuality. Dr. De Cecco calls himself gay but insists that such attractions are a changeable “preference” not an orientation. He explains in his book entitled, If You Seduce A Straight Person You Can Make Them Gay, that, the whole born gay/immutable characteristic idea is just “gay and lesbian politics” and is aimed at achieving “gay” rights. (If You Seduce A Straight Person You Can Make Them Gay, John De Cecco, pg. 17-18)
Dr. Vera Whisman writes in her book, Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity, “The political dangers of a choice discourse go beyond the simple (if controversial) notion that some people genuinely choose their homosexuality. Indeed, my conclusions question some of the fundamental basis upon which the gay and lesbian rights movement has been built. If we cannot make political claims based on an essential and shared nature, are we not left once again as individual deviants? Without an essentialist [born gay] foundation, do we have a viable politics?” (Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity, By Dr. Vera Whisman; New York: Routlege, 1996 p.132)
Lesbian writer Jennie Ruby admits, “I don’t think lesbians are born…I think they are made. . . . The gay rights movement has (for many good practical reasons) adopted largely an identity politics” (Off Our Backs, Oct. 1996, p.22)
Jan Clausen, lesbian author of the book Apples and Oranges writes, “What’s got to stop is the rigging of history to make the either/or look permanent and universal. I understand why this argument may sound erotic to outsiders for whom the public assertion of a coherent, unchanging lesbian or gay identity has proved an indispensable tactic in the battle against homophobic persecution.”
Later in Clausen’s book Apples and Oranges she quotes the popular lesbian poet Audre Lorde, who admits the lies associated with the born “gay” hoax as well, when she writes, “I do not believe our wants have made all our lies holy.”
The National Center for Lesbian Rights is one of the homosexual activist organizations that pressure the American Psychiatric Association to reject sexual reparative therapy. The NCLR claims that the “gay” identity is innate and unchangeable. JoAnne Loulan was one of the lesbian psychotherapists who served on the board of directors for this organization. Loulan made hypocritical headlines on the February 18, 1997 edition of the homosexual magazine The Advocate because she reportedly changed her own sexual orientation when she fell in love with a man! Further, Kate Kendall, the Director of the NCLR, who had repeatedly and boisterously proclaimed, in the spirit of Ulrichs, that the so-called “gay” person was endowed with a “sexual orientation” that was fixed, innate, and unchangeable, and publicly commanded the American 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.”
Psychiatric Association to halt all forms of homoerotic and homosexual reparative therapies for all people looking to get help, actually wrote an article for Frontier Magazine, arguing that sexual orientation is fluid, not fixed. (Frontiers, 4-19-96, pg. 31)
Kate Kendall and Joanne Loulan had the boldness to stand before the American Psychiatric Association with straight faces and proclaim that reparative therapy was the dangerous equivalent of pouring bleach on a dark person’s skin to make them lighter. Then, one of these self-proclaimed “gays” went out and changed her own sexual affiliation, by “falling in love” with a man; and the other took the time to write an article for an insiders’ magazine arguing that sexuality is changeable!
Unfortunately, many of us have been tricked into believing and spreading the lie that same-gender sexuality is genetic, biological, or otherwise natural. Due to belief, some of us have even advocated for so-called “gay” rights.
Those that have been tricked by the born “gay” hoax have little for which to be ashamed. There is no shame in believing a lie until you learn the truth. The truth is that beginning in 1985, the born “gay” hoax was sold to the American public by a new kind of same-gender sex activist, the homosexualist. The term homosexualist can be used to describe any same-gender sex activist that uses the born “gay” tactic, purposely or ignorantly, to argue for the normalization of same-gender sex.
The carefully calculated lies of homosexualists are blatant, and have been admitted in “gay” publications. It is obvious however, that born “gay” propagandists from Kirk and Madsen on, keep the fact of choice secret from the straight community for political reasons. Homosexualists however, as evidenced by their own articles, talk about the born “gay” hoax and the realities of sexual choice regularly amongst themselves.

23 Responses to “The Born “Gay” Hoax in America”

  1. James said

    I am gay, and have no idea if I was born gay or not. To me, (other than the idea of there becoming a way of modifying genes to stamp out homosexuality)- it is irrelevant to me. A mixture of genetics and early childhood experiences and environment perhaps. Who knows. All I know is that I grew up with a mother and father, a supportive loving home, and wasn’t ever sexually molested (to my recollection). But I am concerned you are using this born gay hoax idea to question the fact that many gay people simply did not, and do not choose their sexualities.

    I cannot speak for all homosexuals, just as you cannot speak for all heterosexuals, or all Christians for that matter. But I certainly did not choose my sexuality. In fact, throughout my teens, I actually made the consious choice to be straight. I thought about it, prayed to be it, dated girls in the hope I would once day find the attraction. It did not come. It has never changed. Whist my attractions to certain “types” of people may change / mature, the gender has stayed the same.

    I find this kind of textbook research quite frustrating, because it presupposes my own experience. As if, as a gay man, I really did choose my sexuality, and that its fixed position is really just a lie I am telling myself. You seem to know my own experience better than I do obviously. I actually find sexuality/identity politics often troubling too, but maybe for different reasons than you do.

    When in your life did you come to the decision to be heterosexual. I doubt that decision never presented itself. You just followed the feelings you had – towards women. I would suggest if you DID infact choose heterosexuality, then at some point the option of homosexuality must have presented itself. For a choice, you have to have more than one option. Did you feel sexual attractions to men at one point you decided to ignore? If not, then your sexuality wasn’t a choice.

    So what arrogance is it – for both gay and straight people – to tell ME what was MY choice and what wasn’t? No matter what activists say in The Advocate, or some scientists say in a journal. They don’t speak for me if they argue the case for their own choices. They were not mine!

    • k said

      CAIS. Complete Androgeny Insensitivity Syndrome.

      This is an instance in which a person with XY chromosomes has a complete “immunity” to testosterone. There is no “hormone therapy” possible because their bodies cannot process testosterone.

      Because they cannot process testosterone, they appear as women. This is because, in the womb, all fetuses start out as girls. Because they cannot process testosterone their testicles never descend from their bodies and remain internal and they are declared to be girls when they are born.

      That’s just it. All babies start out as girls and then change into boys. In the same manner, you start out as heterosexual and something happens.

      We don’t choose to be heterosexual anymore than girls choose to be girls. ALL BABIES start out as girls just as all people start out as heterosexual.

  2. foospro86 said

    No one is saying that one can choose how one feels, including feelings of sexual attraction. We cannot condemn anyone for feelings they have no control over. But we either have the ability to NOT act on our feelings and emotions or we do not have free will at all.

    Regardless of our genetic makeup, we ALWAYS have the choice to act against our feelings, whether they are anger, greed, lust, etc. Otherwise, we would be nothing more than animals. I’m not saying it is always easy though. If we feel unhappy because we cannot act on feelings that would lead us astray, then their is something wrong with our psychology, if not our soul. And I think people underestimate how much our free choices can influence and change how we feel. Feelings do not just happen to us in every instance.
    But even if our free will can’t overcome some feelings, if something is wrong, we shouldn’t do it and should humbly suffer through them, as a sober person may have to live with an addiction.

    Regardless of government, if society is not willing to disapprove of homosexuality/sodomy, then it has no rational basis for condemning bestiality or pederasty. Where does one draw the line and, most importantly, why draw it there?

  3. watercat said

    That’s odd; no one is saying that, but on my computer screen there’s a whole essay that says exactly that.

  4. James said

    Ok, I will answer in order…

    “Regardless of our genetic makeup, we ALWAYS have the choice to act against our feelings, whether they are anger, greed, lust, etc.”

    I agree!

    “If we feel unhappy because we cannot act on feelings that would lead us astray, then their is something wrong with our psychology”

    I take issue with the “led astray”. You are correct to suggest following feelings that lead you astray is a bad idea. I just don’t see my feelings as leading me anywhere wrong/bad etc. because where my feelings have taken me is somewhere happy. Have I been led astray to happiness?

    “Regardless of government, if society is not willing to disapprove of homosexuality/sodomy, then it has no rational basis for condemning bestiality or pederasty”

    Umm, of course it does! Pederasty and bestiality and totally distinct from consentual homosexuality. Surely a civilised society can tell when an act is harmful, and when it isn’t without divine intervention?? Paedophila / pederasty etc. is harmful, there is a victim and a power relationship where someone can be easily manipulated. Surely we can all tell this is wrong. It is the same issue I have with Christians who use murder and homosexuality in the same breath. All sex has the ability to be dangerous and harmful, no matter who is involved, but homosexuality in of itself isnt harmful unless certain acts (unsafe sex for example) takes place. Just because there are people who act harmfully should not mean harmless homosexual sex between consenting adults should be illegal. Should we make hetero sex illegal because some straight men rape women or for that matter make marriage illegal because some men batter their wives?

    Seperate the harmful from the harmless!

  5. foospro86 said

    Watercat, one can choose to indulge one’s feelings, to try and justify one’s actions based on those feelings. That is what the essay is about.

  6. foospro86 said

    Alright James, what does happiness mean to you?

    “Surely we can all tell this is wrong”? You wouldn’t accept that type of argument against homosexual acts, would you? That is begging the question and thus not answering my question.

    How do you know that there is a “victim” and a “power relationship” with regard to pedophilia and bestiality? Tell me, where is the harm? Using rigorous logic, if there is no “harm” in homosexuality, there is no “harm” in the other two.
    Basically, you are implying all power relationships are harmful relationships. That seems absurd. Your know, there is a “power relationship” between parents and children. Is that a harmful relationship? There is a “power relationship” between the government and citizens. Is that inherently harmful too?

    How do you define “harm”?

  7. James said

    It just seems absurd to me that you cannot see the difference between harmless homosexual relationships/sex that shouldn’t be punished, and sex between a child and an adult. To you they are equally as bad and problematic. I don’t see how the experience of both activities in real life backs up your arguement.

    As pedophilia and homosexuality are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS – saying “if there is no “harm” in homosexuality, there is no “harm” in the other two” is like saying “if there is no harm in driving down a quiet road, then there is no harm in walking blindfolded down a busy highway” – they are TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS AND UNRELATED. One USUALLY has a bad outcome, one usually doesn’t – although, like sex/relationships, all have risks, but we as a society look at those risks and decide what we are willing to take. You cannot ban driving down roads because walking down them is too dangerous. They are two different issues that should be dealt with seperately.

    In almost all circumstances pedophilia leads to children engaging in activities they are too young to understand – often leading to serious mental health problems in later life. Whilst some people could argue FOR such a relationship (is it NAMBLA who argue for such relationships?) the common outcome is rarely good. The power relationship argument was probably not best put. My point was that in such a sexual relationship, there is hardly ever any equal footing, or equal choice in what occurs in that relationship. You would agree that in sex between two adults, you would hope and expect both partners are giving their consent and have volentarily engaged in whatever activity.

    I feel as if I am trying to explain away something so bleedin’ obvious. Why is it that as a gay man with a parter who I love, I have to explain why our relationship is not morally equivalent to a pedophile’s lust for defensless and impressionable children. That to me is just beyond my comprehension. Are you really that stupid not to see the difference? I ask that question not to offend, but because I just cannot see how you cannot make the distinction.

    And as for your question “what to you is happiness?” It’s rhetorical – what to YOU is happiness? I feel no sadness or despair in my relationship, it makes me content and smile. I donno, here I go again trying to explain the obvious!


  8. foospro86 said

    The reason I have to ask these questions (and why you have to defend yourself) is because you are challenging the moral order as it has been understood for centuries. And if you challenge traditional morality’s sanction against homosexuality, you must be able to provide good reasons for that and clearly show that your logic does not destroy sexual morality entirely. Otherwise, whether you recognize it or not, you are just advocating moral relativism and the destruction of moral order as a whole.

    You know, not so long ago, people thought it was self-evident that homosexuality was abhorrent. So your argument from self-evidence is pretty weak, no? Again, I could easily say it is just self-evident that homosexuality wrong. I could easily ask why you are so stupid that you cannot see that. You wouldn’t accept that, so why should I accept that for pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc.? Yes, NAMBLA is exactly what I have in mind….

    What is so important about mutual understanding with regard to sex? Again, what harm could it really do to a child, an animal, a corpse, etc.? A child could give consent, no? And what does it matter that an animal or a corpse cannot give consent?
    Again, how do you define harm?

    I didn’t mean the question to be rhetorical at all. Again, how do you define happiness? It is actually a pretty important question for civil society and politics/government.

  9. James said

    Some of my retort to this will be in the previous article that I have answered.
    I do totally understnad you point re: morality. But I still fall back on the point that all morality is relative to the time and place. Traditional morality in ancient cultures was totally different to todays, as is Muslim “traditional” culture that advocates the stoning of women. Traditional doesn’t always mean right. Traditional culture/morality accepted racism, public hanging, slavery etc.. You ask me to argue why I want to defy traditional morality – and I could ask you why you want to defend it so much! I hope that modern society continues to take its morality from its own time period and culture, adpating it when it believes there are things wrong, and keeping elements that it benefits from. That is how it has always been done. Christianity is just ONE possibly philsophy of life, out of thousands of other religions and ideas and cultures people have suffered under and benefitted from.

    My logic does not destroy traiditional morality entirely, as you ask me to clarify. Christian traditional morality states that one should not murder – all of my gay friends would agree. It askes to love thy neighbour, not to steal, turn the other cheek etc. I am not going to argue with these things. There MUST be many things about “traditional” morality that you yourself defy! Doesn’t the bible talk about slavery and war and something about not wearing mixed fibers…what about the crusades? There was a time that these acts were totally morally and religiously acceptable, even commended. Maybe you DO really deep down believe the crusades were the right thing to do, and in which case I have a deep deep problem with your own morality. If you do not think these things are ok, then you are surely defying the “traditional” morality of Christianity, or it’s institution which has always cared more about its wealth and influence than actually enlightening people. If this were not the case, why the secrecy over pedophile preists and the white washing of newly discovered gospels that give a different impression than the heavily edited version of the bible that exists.

    before you critise those who challange accepted order, please be aware that your accepted order has not always been for the good of humankind.

  10. foospro86 said

    Traditional morality (and I mean the Judeo-Christian tradition, of course) did not accept racism or slavery. As I commented at the other post, it is the Judeo-Christian tradition which eradicated slavery and has opposed racism! Modernity would not even exist as it does today without this tradition, and now it seeks to eat away at its own foundation. This tradition was the best thing that ever happened to humanity! One can only see that in comparison with ancient pagan cultures.

    ::sigh:: Maybe I will write a post just to clear up your confusion about what the Bible really says and how it should be understood.

    The crusades were a defensive reaction to Muslim imperialism!

    You have bought in to lies and misrepresentations of history, the Old Testament, and Christianity. I can address each of them in separate posts if you will be patient.

    Alright, so you have merely attacked Christianity and its legacy. Fine, that will be addressed. But you have still ignored the other questions that I have asked you in my previous comment. You have yet to offer any viable alternative to the Judeo-Christian tradition that does not devolve into moral relativism.
    You want to talk about “power relationships”? If morality is relative, then it really doesn’t exist. And if morality doesn’t exist, then the only good is power. Without right and wrong, there is only power and those too weak to seek it.

  11. foospro86 said

    Please see:

  12. foospro86 said

    Racism was the child of science, rational thought. Civilizational gaps that emerged between the West and Africa made people think blacks were inferior. Darwin and the eugenics movement added the weight of science to these inferences.
    I dare anyone to show a single verse of the Bible that advocates racism.

  13. James said

    As stated in the previous article’s response, I don’t believe in YOUR version of God, so therefore I must believe morality is relative. I come from a more humanist perspective on this. I believe it is important for human beings to relate right and wrong to human experience, therefore in a democratic way. As our IDEAS of right and wrong have always changed thru time, and from place to place (you cannot dispute this! Maybe the Catholic church has had one idea on it since it’s inception, but outside this, and before this happenened it has always changed over time). I say democratic because it seems to make sense to me that we look at experience and decide in a civilised culture what causes harm and what doesn’t and make our minds up. This is complex. It isn’t black and white or simple. The great thing about democracy is that it recognises we as humans have different ideas of right and wrong, good and bad etc. and our markers and lines are drawn in different places. It trusts in us the ability to govern out of knowledge and experience and trial and error for the common good. You have a major problem with that idea. I don’t. It SHOULD take into account YOUR ideas of it, also the atheists, the agnostics, the pagans, the Muslims etc and come up with a way of living that draws the biggest concensus. There are problems with this ideas too, just like there are problems of a theocracy. But I’d rather have a “freedom to” world, than a “freedom from” world anyday. Surely in a world of appossing ideas, this is fairest??

    Your idea is to state that only the Catholic’s view counts, that the Catholics have the only connection to the black and white truth and that because of this, we must ignore any other arguments and outlaw homosexuality even if it is monogomous long term relationships that would suffer.

    Secularism makes sense to me. It looks at ways we can benefit and protect humankind (screwing it up and succeeding as we go) without the interference of an outside Kim Jong-Il of the sky warning of the hell to come if we don’t do it the way some men 2000 years ago wrote down for us. I pecieve a better way, a way without fear or guilt that can enlighten humankind to what we can achieve when we understand that certain behaviour actually benefits all of us because ultimately we are the same, with the same needs and a sense of empathy. Lets use our human tools to run the world please. Not a dictator in the sky.

    I wont dispute the many good things Western civilisation has given us. But I will dispute that YOUR version of right and wrong is the only correct one. Simply because it is just one idea out of so so many.

    If you want to prove it is THE idea from God, then you will have to prove it – like the Muslims would have to do, or the Jews. They also would tell me that Islam or Judaism is infact the one true way and that you, my freind are talking bullshit on many things. My gosh, what is a poor unreligious boy to do? Which way to go? Who to choose? What if I make the wrong choice? If I convert to Catholicism, wont Alah be annoyed if I’m wrong?

    I hope you understand what I am trying to get at. Please bear in mind that I was brought up unreligious by very loving and decent, caring people. So for a Catholic to simply state that I should actually believe in the teachings of Catholicism and the bible because if I don’t I am doomed just doesn’t wash. There has to be more, because, like I said I hear the same things with as much passion and logic from all the other religions.

    I believe that Westen Civilisation has benefitted (on the whole) from our Judeo-Christian history, but that we are benefitting greatly from our secular world now too.

    Getting back to the original argument – homosexuality. I am afraid that simply telling me it goes against the bible or our historical understanding/thoughts on right/wrong does not make me believe that what I am doing NOW is wrong. I see no evidance of it. I have seen no victims of MY behaviour to date. Maybe I stuggle with the idea of a victimless crime. My loving another man does not undermine your love for someone of the opposite sex. Telling this secular, evidence obsessed person that my love for my boyfriend is the SAME and as bad as pedophilia is no good. Show me why in a way I can relate to, otherwise I think our argument will have to come to an end as it will just be both of us banging our heads against walls! 🙂

  14. Sam said

    The difference between homosexuality and peadophilia?

    …probably about 40years.

    Hows that for obvious, you neo-fascist moron?

  15. foospro86 said

    Haha, ironically, you have stumbled upon what G.K. Chesterton, a great conservative, called the “democracy of the dead.” I hate to break it to you, but if you are going to judge morality by that standard (“human experience”), then you will be outvoted! Our ancestors going back to the founding of this nation have always subscribed to the Judeo-Christian value system.
    No, you are not really an advocate for following “human experience” as a guide to morality. You are advocating your own experience as the standard of morality. Or at best, you are merely appealing to the “human experience” of your own generation. By that standard, whose view is more narrow-minded?

    Morality is not determined by a vote count or consensus, James. Democracy (or rather a democratic republic) may be a good instrument of government, but it has no authority to determine morality. Surely, this is self-evident? How many counterexamples must I cite?

    I have no problem with the form of government established by the Constitution. I have no problem with political self-government, as envisioned by the Founders. You accuse me falsely. Why are you throwing out this red herring? You’re just getting off-topic.

    Nope. A “freedom from” world is much better, and by that I mean “freedom from centralized government.” But again, it seems like you are rambling. What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

    That is an incorrect formulation of my position. The Catholic Church has the fullness of truth with regard to matters of faith (religious doctrine) and morality. Other views and perspectives with regard to those items need not be wholly wrong but rather almost always have some element of truth that has value for the Catholic.
    Wow, how many times do I have to state it? I am not arguing to “outlaw homosexuality”! Not all that is immoral should be illegal. Not all that is legal is actually moral.

    Secularism is a fiction ultimately. It is an attempt to determine morality by reason alone, but the fact of the matter is that you can’t prove something is good or bad merely by rational discourse. Secularism claims a false neutrality; it is a faith and religion just like any other.
    You want to eliminate guilt? Not possible without eliminating morality entirely. What else is guilt except the demands of morality pounding within the human heart?

    Kim Jong-il? Go ahead, flesh out the comparison. It doesn’t work. You just don’t understand Christian beliefs.

    Human tools? What the heck are you talking about?

    How can you say that Catholicism is wrong JUST because there are other different views? That is absurd reasoning. I could come up with a million different views of mathematics and that won’t change the fact that 2+2=4. You are really lost in a sea of relativist propaganda. Which one of us is using reason and which is using mere emotion with regard to the (in)validity of moral relativism?

    Allah is a fiction. Islam is a clever combination of Judaic and Christian beliefs. Christianity is merely a fulfillment of Judaism.
    I cannot prove to you that Christianity is true beyond all doubt. But at the very least, there are very persuasive theoretical proofs of the existence of God. I can provide historical support and reasoned evidence for the validity of Christianity. But ultimately, the leap of faith is required to fully accept Christianity. But of course, if secularists face up to the reality of what they take on faith, they will see that the leap is not so great.

    I will leave talk of hellfire and brimstone to the Protestants. I dare you to find one instance where I have explicitly mentioned fear of God or hell in my discourse with you. Christianity is not just about fear and condemnation; it is about love and finding meaning and purpose in a fallen world full of suffering. I really think you have a very skewed view of Christianity that probably came from non-Christians and pop culture. We should discuss all this in a different post.

    As I said, secularism is a fiction. It is a parasite on Christianity. It has done very little to improve Western civilization. Tell me, what good has secularism done for the West?

    Your behavior is based on moral relativism. Moral relativism undermines and ultimately destroys the very concept of morality. I think the destruction of morality is pretty harmful, don’t you?

    How’s this for secular evidence: Historically, homosexuality has been an indicator and symptom of civilizational decline. That is because it is a reflection of what you have demonstrated: an abandonment of core traditional moral values. Do you dispute this historical assertion?

  16. foospro86 said

    Sam, thanks for being so civil and courteous. Obviously, I was looking for the moral difference, not a numerical difference.

    And by the way, fascism was, is, and always will be the offspring of the political Left.

  17. James said

    “Our ancestors going back to the founding of this nation have always subscribed to the Judeo-Christian value system.”
    Yes but not all countries have. Many countries/continents, and in many other times, have adopted other value systmes. Thier experience hasn’t been Christian – and have adopted, thru THEIR EXPERIENCE and ideas, a moral code for themselves.

    “You are advocating your own experience as the standard of morality.” Not at all! The opposite – I’m saying that other peoples of the world decide for themselves and should do so. It seems it is you who advocates a standard of morality we must all adhere to based on YOUR own agreement with the writings in a book and its institutional traditions. Thank God for democracy where we can battle these ideas out freely is all I can say! 🙂 It doesn’t determin morality? It seems as if that is exactly what it tries to do! Maybe that is wrong – but I think our experience (or yours in the US perhaps) has shown the government tries to dictate morality lots!

    I don’t think I’m rambling – I am answering you questions (trying atleast) using examples to try to get you to understand my point of you. A freedom to world is relevant to the arguement IF you wish to outlaw homosexuality.

    “I am not arguing to “outlaw homosexuality”! OK, good. Unlike Ryan Sorba then.

    “Secularism is a fiction ultimately. It is an attempt to determine morality by reason alone ” I see ‘reason’ as the best possible way to judge something’s merits and problems. This is why I opt for secularism.

    with the issue of moral relativism, the dictionary has a definition: The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. / A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality. It is interesting because it helps me with my point that morality is always based on IDEAS / SYSTEMS of what is infact moral. You and me would agree on lots of things that are morally right. But then we would disagree on others. Your morality is christian morality. Mine comes from my own reasoning (thinking about why I see things as right/wrong aswell as my upbringing etc.), a Muslim’s morality comes from the Koran – so therefore it is relative. You believe morality exists in one place only – the Catholic Church, and any other place people claim to find it is ultimately wrong. A Muslim would say the same ofcourse, which is why I made the point about convincing me that Catholicism is infact true. There are too many, and have always been too many claims to the truth.

    “Allah is a fiction. Islam is a clever combination of Judaic and Christian beliefs.” So Muslims would make a similar argument against your faith. Infact I have heard some non religious people argue Christianity is a clever mishmash of pagan, astrological and Egyptian beliefs before it. I.E the Book of The Dead (10 commandments) and the Egyptian god Horus (Jesus), Indian god Mithra (Moses) etc.. etc… So to say YOURS is right, and rest is wrong is doing the same as every other religion before and concurrent to your own. So this is why I believe morality to be relative…because it have proven to be so from the real world. I think this…you think that… doesn’t that mean it’s relative? If not then I must be confused by the whole thing.

    “I can provide historical support and reasoned evidence for the validity of Christianity.” Please do so. But please do so in a way that wont make me just agree with the good aspects of Christian morality. I agree with lots of it anyway – as IDEAS! They are good ideas. I just don’t think it has come from God. I think it has come from people with a good grasp of some good ideas – and good ways of scaring us into following them! 🙂

    “Tell me, what good has secularism done for the West?”
    Sepatating church and state is a good thing! The libarising of abortion laws I think is a good thing. (see how people were treated before this and you see the price people pay for that being illegal). Decriminalisation of homosexuiality is a good thing. The teaching of evolution as apposed to creationsim is a good thing. (or did God put fossils in the ground just to test us?). These are just some things I SEE as good things, but then, it’s all subjective! 😉

    “I think the destruction of morality is pretty harmful, don’t you?” Yes I do – I hope we never lose the concept of right and wrong. I just think we have to argue out what IS right and wrong. I guess because I like doing it, I think the arguement over it is great and healthy.

    “homosexuality has been an indicator and symptom of civilizational decline”
    Homosexuality has ALWAYS existed so I doubt that. You probably mean “the allowance of homosexuality” or “the openness of homosexuality”. Civilisational decline? You think Roman decline came about from homosexual tolerance? Please give me examples.

    “And by the way, fascism was, is, and always will be the offspring of the political Left.” Both Left and Right in their extremes end up with people living behind barbed wire (metaphorically and literally).

  18. foospro86 said

    Mere experience cannot create a moral code. It can help shape and guide it. How could what we see, hear, touch, taste, or smell ever create a moral code? All morality is always a matter of faith and thus religion (broadly defined, such that secularism is a religion).

    Do you not have any belief in anything that transcends the material world? Government can legislate that the moon is made of green cheese, and it will still be wrong.
    Do you not have any strong beliefs that you hold firm to at all? Do you not have ANY universal belief?

    I’ll say it again in this post: Logic is only as good as the axioms that it begins with. Just as there are certain principles in mathematics and geometry that are taken on faith, so there must be social, cultural, and political axioms (aka religious beliefs). Secularists deceive themselves when they think they are guided by reason alone and take nothing for granted. Thus secularism does not follow its own guide of reason: reason shows its own limits. Reason cannot prove itself to be true. The scientific method cannot prove itself to be true. No one can get away from faith in practice. Please use your “own reasoning” and let this truth sink in.
    Secularism is the wayward, stubborn offspring of Christianity. No other religion so elevated the use of reason (a gift of God).

    The fact that there are similarities between religions only shows that human beings generally have been yearning for the same things from the divine. But, as a matter of reason, they can’t all be true. The fact that precepts from the 10 Commandments show up in other cultures only lends credence to my belief that there is one true morality that all people perceive, if dimly, and are trying to measure up to. It is a condemnation of your relativism.
    The historical and archaeological record (including the Bible and other non-biblical sources) supports the claim that Christianity grew out of Roman Palestine and the beliefs of its resident Jews, not those of any other land or people. Later on, the Reason of the greatest past thinkers of Rome and Greece would assist early Christians in clearly defining and defending Christian doctrine. But we’re getting too far afield….

    For archaeological support of the Bible:
    You know, fear can be a good thing if it is grounded in truth. You would do better not to dismiss something merely because it uses fear to motivate and then to inspire courage.

    Hate to break it to you, but Christianity created the separation of Church and state. Matthew 22:21 “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” And then reference St. Augustine’s City of God. Unlike Islam or any other religion up until that time (except Judaism perhaps), Christianity declared there be separate spheres for Church and state. Focusing on the world beyond, Christianity is apolitical in a certain sense. Surprised? 🙂 Haha, secularism was created by Christianity! Who knows what other treasures the Bible holds that you are ignorant of….
    The only reason the Church came to assume political power was because the Roman Empire and its administrative structures fell and left Europe in chaos and disorder. It filled the political vacuum of necessity and reluctantly at that. What would have been your solution to the starving, lawless masses of Rome and Italy, harried by barbarian hordes? Studied your Roman and Italian history, have you?
    Christianity created modern science too:

    Oh sure, destroying human life and not taking responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions, yeah that’s really moral! What a boon to civilization! Declining populations around Europe and an aversion to children! Yay for abortion! Abortion will complete what the Crusades tried to stop.
    As for evolution and fossils, I refer you to:
    See also:

    One cannot just argue about what is right and wrong. We don’t live life in a theoretical vacuum. We must decide and act, and it does matter what we choose.

    Homosexuality promotes a culture in which marriage and sexuality are divorced from the begetting and proper raising of children. It may not harm this or that family in the present, but it does harm to the institution itself long-term. The family unit is the building block of great and enduring civilizations (and religions). Destroy that and you destroy a civilization.
    It is almost certainly untrue to say tolerance/acceptance of homosexuality was THE cause of the fall of the Roman Empire. But it certainly aggravated and accelerated the decline. Study the piety of the Roman Republic and see the stark contrast with the late Empire. More than a cause of decline, homosexuality was a consequence of decline, the decline of the old Roman republican virtues.
    See also:

  19. James said

    “All morality is always a matter of faith and thus religion (broadly defined, such that secularism is a religion).”

    lol – well if secularism “broadly defined” is a religion – that’s the one I choose! I have faith in people to use reason to shape communities. may not always work – but neither does praying, so…

    “Do you not have any belief in anything that transcends the material world?” I have a hope there is more yes. I really think or material world has gone way to much down the…material! lol. But when I look at the night sky – I am filled with so much awe, that I recognise our little spot in the universe is a mere speck compared to the wonder and vastness of the universe. This leads me to believe there must be more. What that is, I don’t know. But neither do I really wish to know. This wonder and awe doesn’t lead me to the bible. I am sure it leads some, if not many to religion in order to explain it all. It seems to have the opposite effect on me. I enjoy that immense feeling of awe as it is, without knowing they whys and hows.

    “Do you not have any strong beliefs that you hold firm to at all? Do you not have ANY universal belief?”

    Ofcourse I do, and I hope others will adopt it to, but if they don’t, then that’s human nature. Luckily, in my community, the government legislates on most of the things I feel very strongly (murder, rape, pedophilia, stealing, a welfare state – tho hopefully not overbloated – and NHS….legal civil partnerships!!) and if it doesn’t, I will petition and fight for those things. I have done it before on some issues I care about deeply…what I find is, many of the things I feel very strongly about, many others do too – because they are often universal things that many people acknowledge…us all being human. I can hope the law has it’s place and uses REASON…and when it doesn’t we use democracy to try and change it. You don’t NEED religion to have a strong conviction of right and wrong and, thus fight in a democracy to see your community to acknowlede your beliefs. If they don’t – well, that’s democracy!

    “reason shows its own limits. Reason cannot prove itself to be true.”

    Just like religion. Reason however, still makes more sense to me for all the reasons I have spoken of before. Sorry.

    “one true morality that all people perceive”

    It suggests that as humans we are so similar that we all recognise the good and bad aspects of human nature similarly, and thus our sense of morality is often similar. This is great! It doesn’t go against my argument – but supports it in that REASON has always been part of our understanding of morality. Ofcourse murder is bad – reason suggests taking a life causes harm and pain, and goes against our sense of justice etc… For you, these feelings come from the divine – for me they come from us recognising our human nature.

    “Hate to break it to you, but Christianity created the separation of Church and state.”

    Good! Thanks to Christianity for that one. I am not trying to argue against ALL of the philisophical ideas in the bible! Like many others, seperating church and state was a good and reasonable one in my opinion. But again, it doesn’t tell me the bible is the word of God.

    Your links to fossil/evolution topics do not convince me – they fail to say where the fossils came from and how, if the world is 6000 years or so old, did they get there and science dates them to be millions of years old? The “gaps” question is interesting, but, not conclusive. I am afraid I wont be running to the bible for my answers on this because…well it doesn’t really say anything about fossils or dinosaurs…or does it????? Please enlighten me.

    Abortion – a toughy and actually you don’s HAVE to be religious to dislike it. I don’t LIKE the idea of abortion. However if the choice seems to be between backstreet abortions, which was the norm before legalisation, and it being done safely, with a reasoned limit, then it seems the lesser of two evils. It’s not nice ofcourse….but look at the reality of lives and occurrances before legalisation…do we really want to go back to that? Maybe you would prefer it. I wouldn’t.

    Homosexualtity being a consequence of decline? Surely, again, you mean the acceptance of it. Even if it isn’t publicly accepted, it still went on throughout a cultures boom, and decline. This is why I think Civil Partnerships in this country is a wonderful idea. It enables gay people the recognition and respect they would not have had in previous civilisations – and actually promotes a family life – family life being a very good thing in my belief. Maybe THIS civilisation is coming around to the idea that homosexuality can be tolerated without a resultant “decline” in moral values. If homosexuality really was do depreaved an immoral, why would so many gay people call for marriage or partnership recognition? I myself am not so fussed about “gay marriage”. Couldn’t care less about labels – leave marriage to straight people if you want. But the community recognising and respecting people who choose to live their lives together in the way it would recognise a man and woman doing so is a great virtue in that it has, if anything, promoted to everyone, including straight people, the virtues of a married lifestyles. Probably quite pleasing an idea in a western world where 50% of marriages end in divorce!

    Here’s a question for you then. In your “perfect” world – where would homosexuals hold a place? In jail only?? You cannot get rid of innate homosexuals. Some gay men are obviously born gay – you only have to look at how I was as a child. From the age of 7, I knew I was different. I got on well with girls in a way the other boys didn’t. I hated sport. I remember, when other children were having “boyfriends and girlfriends”, holding hands in the playground, I didn’t want that with women, but would imagine it with other boys. So even if I didn’t come out of the womb gay, by the time I was at least 9, it was there. This isn’t everyones experience, ofcourse…I know some of the most masculin gay men whose childhood was everything you would expect of a heterosexual boy. But I’m using the example for myself to make a point about innateness.

    I once spoke to a christian who told me that God hadn’t washed his hands of me because I was gay, but that I was gay because God had washed his hands of me. What a wonderful God – to wash his hands of a 7 year old child.

    If, in your eyes, homosexuality and murder are equally as bad…then all practicing homosexuals should be locked up for life, or given the death sentance? Do you honestly believe this? If you don’t, in your pefect world, what would happen?

  20. foospro86 said

    Secularism is a religion that has failed. Do you have no sense of the incomparable misery that purposeful secularism has created throughout history? Secular ideologies such as communism and fascism slaughtered at least a hundred million people. Sounds like a return to ancient pagan human sacrifices to me. Have you forgotten that the secularist French Revolution unleashed a Reign of Terror by Robespierre and a reign of tyranny and war under Napoleon?
    Haha, is this your religion you take so much pride in? Pure secularism has quite a track record of unimaginable atrocities that you can’t even begin to compare with the crimes committed in the name of but in contradiction to Christianity.
    This should not be surprising. Secularism cannot give any substantial credence and foundation the very notion of morality. Thus secularism inevitably devolves into the worship of power. And what is the greatest source of earthly, coercive power? The state of course! And so the worship of power devolves into statolatry, the worship of government. You might actually stop and consider what people in the past with your views have done.

    How can you accept awe and wonder and not be moved to seek out their source? How can you live your life without purpose or trying to seek out a purpose?

    But see, that is exactly what religion is basically: strongly held irrational (unprovable to be more precise) convictions. Secularists are no more rational than theists.
    Of course, where is the purpose in secularism? Why would you fight so strong at all for anything?

    Actually, religion can prove itself. It has; they are called miracles. It can reveal itself to human beings in a way that reason never can.
    Again, reason can’t “make more sense” because reason can’t make sense of itself. It can help religion make sense of itself though. Your religion is not really Reason at all; it is your irrational assumptions about human nature that make your religion and that you use reason to try to justify (unsuccessfully). Can you not see that reason is a tool which acts upon the material of religion?

    Sure, reason has always played a part in our notions of morality. It plays a part in how we perceive reality in general! But faith of some sort has played an equal if not greater role. You appeal to human nature, but what is it?!
    The Founders of America appealed to the “laws of nature and of nature’s God” in their declaration of independence from Britain. You think there can be a human nature without God?

    I refer you to our other conversation for a link about the age of the earth.
    The Bible is not a science book, nor does it claim to be. Whether dinosaurs existed or not is really relevant to discussions of the divine. (Yes, I believe they existed!) The books of the Bible have numerous authors and thus different styles; one must keep that in mind when trying to interpret the God-inspired truths it contains.

    It is not a choice between HOW the abortions should be done! The great moral question is whether they should be allowed to be done at all. ::sigh:: Let’s not get side-tracked in this tangent….

    I mean both. Homosexuality can emerge in societies where it was completely nonexistent as those societies decline. And as the acceptance of homosexuality increases, so does the practice of homosexuality and the decline of the society.

    Promotion of family life? How do you figure that? Homosexuals cannot create a family because they cannot create children.

    Haha, without a “resultant decline”? You don’t understand. The fact that homosexuality is already widely accepted socially and promoted politically means that the West is already in a slow decline! The gay agenda is not about toleration; it’s way beyond that.
    Gays call for “gay marriage” because it is a political means to enforce social acceptance and promotion of the “gay lifestyle.”

    If gays want to bind themselves to someone of the same sex, they don’t need govt. support to follow through on that. Besides, why should it concern society if gays get divorced (as they are now doing)?
    The virtues of “married lifestyle” are those of a family lifestyle. And families include children.
    “50% of marriages end in divorce” is a false statistic that people just keep repeating.

    I never said I wanted to “get rid” of innate homosexuals, if there are such people.

    Unbelievers always seem to have some story about some kooky Christian who didn’t know what he was talking about. God never gives up on people; they give up on him and choose their own fate. God is like a father waiting on the porch for his prodigal son to come home and welcomes him back with a feast. But it is a two way street. You have to cooperate with him; he forces no one into his kingdom. I’ve always found it hard to believe that people would actually choose hell (merely the total absence of God), but then I listen to atheists and have second thoughts sometimes.

    Again, I never said homosexuality was as bad as murder! Where are you getting this? God certainly demanded the death penalty for it for his chosen people (the Jews) while he ruled them, probably to instill seriousness for his Law while the rest of the world was full of sexual immorality much worse than today perhaps. But God does not rule the US or the UK. And Jesus seems to call for mercy and non-coercive means from his followers, though no less serious a condemnation for it.
    For now, I’d be happy if gays would just leave society alone and not coerce recognition or approval in any way of their relationships through political means. You have individual rights, not group rights or sexual orientation rights.

  21. S92 said

    Sexuality is a choice. All humans are MEANT to be with the opposite sex to continue the human race. You can CHOOSE to drive a different road, but you can’t be BORN into choosing it.

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 )

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

%d bloggers like this: