Posts Tagged ‘gay’

The Latest Homosexual Christophobia


By David Outten
MTV host Dan Savage recently “apologized” for vulgar remarks made about Christian students at the National High School Journalists Conference. Christian students walked out on his talk when he told them they should “learn to ignore the parts of the Bible that are [BS].” When some students walked out, he said, “It’s funny, as someone who’s on the receiving end of beatings that are justified by the Bible, how pansy-a** some people react when you push back.”
Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Why Obama is Wrong on Same Sex Marriage

By David Outten
President Obama has come out in favor of same sex marriage saying, “We are both practicing Christians, and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others, but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at the root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Whose “Spirit” Rules ‘Spirit Day’?

By Judith Reisman

On October 22, 2010 President Barack Obama issued a formal message to young girls and boys to “be true to” themselves by adopting the current lionized state of homosexism as “a source of pride, and a source of strength.” Having been young once himself, Mr. Obama knows that teenagers are by definition “immature” and remain so until roughly age 21 when their cognitive neuro anatomy catches up with their bodies.

Why tell children to feel “pride” and “strength” in adopting an early death sentence when you are too immature to know much of anything? How cruel, how outrageously heartless!
Instead of urging vulnerable youths into premature sexual riddled with crippling disease and death, Mr. Obama should have pointed to the October 9, 1998 Washington Post full page advert by The Whitman-Walker Clinic.
Read the rest of this entry »

Share

Beware the Gay Suicide Card

Here is a post from SoL Blog about an issue that could affect churches and orthodox synagogues as well!

One of the arguments made by critics of the LDS Church on the topic of homosexuality is that its stand causes young people to take their own lives. Detractors are actively using the gay youth suicide card on the LDS Church in the wake of President Packer’s talk at the Church’s General Conference, Oct. 3. On Oct. 7, a “silent protest” was held where a group of mostly young people lay down, death-like, outside the gates of the Salt Lake Temple. While we should all mourn suicides, is the Church responsible? Will the words Pres. Packer spoke at a church meeting really cause people to take their own lives as activists are saying?

Mormons or Church of Latter Day Saints

It has been admitted by activists that lies are acceptable in order to further their cause. One example is, talking about being “born that way,” activists said, “If this is an easier route to acceptance (which may in fact be the case), is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?”

It follows that we must take every pronouncement of a “gay suicide” with a very large grain of salt. In fact, some families of these suicide victims being cited by activists are speaking out.
Affirmation, a group self-described as LDS and pro-gay, in an article about suicides, is warned by family members of young gays David Standley and Todd Ranson who recently died not to jump so quickly to the causes of their deaths.

“David had a very severe mental illness his entire life where he experienced depression that he was unable to overcome. His biological father also committed suicide, which increased his chances to 90 percent that he would also do the same. David had the same mental illness as his biological father and his biological father’s father,” wrote Standley’s mother.

“Some people have said that Todd ended his life because he was gay or felt persecuted by the LDS Church and his family, but this is not true,” a family member wrote on a tribute web site dedicated to him . . . “Todd attempted suicide previously and we know from that experience that his manic depression was a constant thorn in his side and that there were other factors that influenced his suicide.”

As a matter of fact, mentally and emotionally healthy people of all ages do not kill themselves because others disapprove of them. Correction, criticism, and even rejection are part of life. Starting in grade school we get dropped, dumped, dismissed, disowned, and deceived. History is full of individuals and groups, good and bad, being rejected. People are even imprisoned because society cannot accept their behavior. And yet the vast majority do not commit suicide. Therefore, criticism or rejection, including bullying, cannot be blindly accepted as the cause for gay suicides.
A study called “Risk Factors for Attempted Suicide in Gay and Bisexual Youth” (G. Remafedi, 1999), reports that for every year a young person puts off labeling himself gay, the risk of suicide decreases by 20% (See narth.com). Of course activists do not want this known. We once asked a youth counselor at Utah Pride if she ever tried to dissuade a young teenager from labeling himself gay quite yet and there was total silence on the other end of the phone.

Rather than disapproval or perceived rejection from one’s family or church, could it be that there are hidden factors at work that contribute to gay youth suicides? How about encouragement to adopt a popularized but unnatural sexual label? How about addiction to soul-killing same-sex pornography? How about being introduced by adults to behaviors too heinous to mention in polite society? How about being told they are forever homosexual and thinking they will never have a normal family life? How about hearing over and over that gays commit suicide if they aren’t accepted by their family or church? How about confusion, self-loathing, depression, and guilt coming from a young person’s own dark thoughts and behaviors with no hope or resources for deliverance in sight?

As we’ve been hearing, some believe no “serious crisis [should] go to waste.” Given the above considerations, we should be highly skeptical of sexual activists’ exploitation of any person’s violence against himself.

-Janice Graham

Also see “Is ‘gay’ agenda to blame for teen suicides?” by Linda Harvey at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=211837

Click here to go to our SoL blog, read the posts and leave comments.

We have new entries in our news links and quotes sections of our website you will find informative.

If you or anyone you know is troubled with unwanted homosexuality, our website offers help and hope for those who truly desire to overcome it. On our website just click the Get Informed button. You will find helpful resources there: articles, papers, books, websites, videos. Be sure to read “The Only Good Choice,” found at the top of our Home Page.

Email: sgraham@standardofliberty.org. Website: www.standardofliberty.org Blog: http://standardoflibertyblog.blogspot.com/

Share

The ‘Gay Gene’ Hoax

Ryan Sorba Traces Initial Pseudo-Science Homosexuals Hang Their Hat On

By Ryan Sorba

One of the most common studies homosexual activists cite when they make the absurd claim that people are “born gay” was conducted in 1993 by pro-gay activist Dr. Dean Hamer and his team of geneticists at the National Cancer Institute.

Hamer and his colleagues reported that a “gay gene” seemed to be maternally linked and could be found on the Xq28 stretch of the X chromosome.

Hamer’s genetic study played a key role in a massive public-relations campaign designed by Harvard-educated and Madison Avenue-trained homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. I refer to this campaign as the “born gay hoax.” In the late 1980s and early 1990s, this hoax was designed to help homosexual activists legally obtain minority-class status. Historically, courts have awarded minority-class status to groups that:

have demonstrated a long history of discrimination;

have demonstrated that they are powerless as a community to help themselves; and

have demonstrated an immutable characteristic such as race or gender (i.e., are born that way).

In the 1990s, homosexual activists believed that if they could convince the courts that they were “born gay” they would acquire protected-class status and could then legally challenge anti-sodomy laws in the United States.

Dr. Hamer

Dean Hamer played an enormous role in this effort. In fact, on April 3, 1994, the The Washington Times reported that while Hamer was testifying against Colorado’s Amendment 2 – which sought to keep men who have sex with men from winning minority-class status – Sen. Robert C. Smith, R-N.H., knew of Hamer’s motives and accused the doctor of “actively pursuing a gay agenda.”

Immediately after Hamer’s “gay gene” study was published in 1993, a media explosion ensued. Hamer’s results, however, were a fraud. The title of an article appearing on page 25 of the July 10, 1995, edition of the pro-gay magazine New York Native explains:

“Gay Gene” Research Doesn’t Hold Under Scrutiny, Chicago Tribune’s John Crewdson Uncovers Possible Scientific Misconduct by NCI Researcher.

What is at the heart of evil in our world, and how do we lessen its power in our own lives? Check out David Kupelian’s newest book, “How Evil Works: Understanding and Overcoming the Destructive Forces That Are Transforming America”

The article begins:

In addition to the political and social firestorm Hamer’s research has ignited, he has also been criticized by numerous scientists for not performing what seems to be an obvious control experiment: examining the genes of heterosexual brothers.

The omission of a control group in a scientific experiment is significant, because it essentially renders the experiment inconclusive. Why would a supposedly professional researcher like Hamer conduct an experiment in such an unacceptable and unprofessional fashion?

According to the article, another researcher who worked on the project claimed that although Hamer conducted the experiment correctly by including a control variable, the results he obtained did not lead to the conclusion he was hoping to find: that some men are “born gay.” Hamer therefore did not release the information related to the control group and published pseudo-scientific results. All went well for Hamer until a junior researcher on his team exposed his scheme. The article continues:

Even worse for Hamer, the National Institute of Health’s Office of Research Integrity is now investigating his “gay gene” research, according to Crewdson. The inquiry concerns allegations that Hamer was selective about which data he chose to report (i.e., that he ignored data that didn’t support his contention that homosexuality is genetically determined). The data manipulation was reported to NIH’s integrity office by a junior researcher who performed research crucial to Hamer’s claimed discovery, according to Crewdson.

Crewdson’s revelations turned out to be true. A November 1995 edition of Scientific American confirmed that Hamer was “being charged with research improprieties and was under investigation by the National Institute of Health’s Federal Office of Research Integrity.” Although the NIH never released the results of the inquiry, Hamer was shortly thereafter transferred to another section. In addition to lying about his results, he had done his “gay gene” research under a grant to work on Kaposi’s sarcoma, a skin cancer that inordinately afflicts men who have sex with men.

Upon learning that Hamer’s “gay gene” study was a hoax, one might assume that if other researchers were to attempt to replicate his experiment, including his control group, they would fail to obtain the pseudo-scientific result that there is a “gay gene.” This is exactly the case. The New York Native article continues:

“… [A]t least one lab that has tried hard to replicate his findings has been unsuccessful.

“’Only one independent laboratory has reported attempting such a replication, and it has found no evidence to support Hamer,’ Crewdson reported. ‘We can’t reproduce Hamer’s data,’ said George Ebers, a neurogeneticist from the University of Western Ontario, who has searched unsuccessfully for a Hamer-style genetic link to homosexuality in more than 50 pairs of gay Canadian brothers. In fact, Ebers found the genetic markers cited by Hamer in ‘exactly half of his brother pairs’ according to Crewdson – precisely what the laws of chance would predict, if the ‘markers had no significance.’”

The fact that Hamer’s study cannot be replicated confirms reports that Hamer lied about his results. In 1998, another group of researchers (Sanders, et al.) tried to replicate Hamer’s study as well; they also failed to find a genetic connection to homosexuality.

Then, in the Aug. 6, 1999, edition of Science, George Rice and George Ebers published a review of Hamer’s study to go along with their previous attempts to replicate his findings. The scientists stated that the results of Hamer’s study “did not support an X-linked gene underlying male homosexuality.” They found that the brothers observed by the Hamer group were no more likely to share the Xq28 markers than would be expected by mere chance.

By this time, Hamer had already conceded that his pseudo-scientific study did not support a genetic cause for homosexuality, in the Jan. 30, 1998, edition of the Washington Blade. He also conceded that homosexuality is “culturally transmitted, not inherited,” and that “there is not a single master gene that makes people gay. … I don’t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay,” he said.

Editor’s Note: Ryan Sorba has established conservative clubs on college campuses in Massachusetts and eight in Southern California, working as a field representative for the Campus Leadership Program at the Leadership Institute. He is the author of the forthcoming book The ‘Born Gay’ Hoax and can be contacted for speaking engagements at: rsorba@youngconservativesofcalifornia.com This article was originally published in WorldNetDaily, Friday, June 4, 2010. This article is reprinted by permission.

Share