There Are No Homosexuals

We often identify ourselves and others by the things we do or like doing. "He's a golfer." "She's a bowler." "I'm a truck driver." "She's an accountant." Children are often asked what they want to be when they grow up. Some may say, "I want to be a fireman". Others say, "I want to be a movie star". In ages gone by, a child might say, "I want to be president."

Forever ago, an episode of The Partridge Family consisted of the eldest child, David, being left in charge while the mother was away. The other children resented his authority and tried to make his job miserable. In an effort to frustrate him, his siblings hatched a plan. The two youngest children asked him for advice about what to be when they grow up. David encouraged them saying, "you can be anything you want to be." They responded, "we want to be Black." Hilarity ensued.

Of course, we understand the difference between being a particular vocation or having a particular hobby on the one hand and being a particular race on the other. The former has its basis in what we like and what we do. The latter is irrevocably rooted in our biological nature.

But we still talk about them both in the same way. "I am White." "I am an artist." It's no wonder we do the same thing when discussing homosexuality. We identify people according to their sexual behavior and desires by calling them homosexuals and heterosexuals. We then proceed in our discussion as if we have identified them by their biological nature, forgetting even to consider whether we are talking about growing up to be a fireman or growing up to be Black.

The heterosexuality of human beings is intrinsic to our nature. It is an obvious, irrefutable, biological fact of our species. One aspect of the definition of being human is heterosexuality. Each of our bodies is designed to fit together and to function in union with a body of the opposite sex.

Now, this fact does not prevent us from trying to find sexual satisfaction from all other things in the world, whether living or inanimate. But human desire is not always in sync with reality. Sex with a four-legged animal or a motorized device, or desire for it, does not change one into a four-legged animal or a motorized device. A human remains human regardless of his behavior. Human beings are heterosexual.

However, it is not technically incorrect to say that someone 'is gay'. But it's important to understand the only thing this can mean is that he has chosen to identify with homosexual activity in the same way a golfer identifies himself as one who is active in that sport.

But, if I were willing to risk validating the concept of 'hate speech', I might accuse of 'hate speech' those who say a person is 'born gay'. Essentially, such an assertion denies the humanity of those who engage in homosexual acts. One would be labeling another as inhuman because of their sexual behavior. I, on the other hand, insist that those who identify themselves as homosexuals are, in fact, human beings. By virtue of their humanity, and in spite of their behavior, it is impossible for them to have been 'born gay'.

Some who have correctly asserted that "homosexuality is a choice" have been asked, "when did you chose to be heterosexual?" This question intentionally confuses the two different ways in which we understand 'being'. But identity as homosexual has desire and behavior as its only basis. In contrast, identity as heterosexual has physical reality as its basis, which is then reinforced by desire and behavior. The answer to the question is, "I didn't need to choose to be heterosexual because I am comfortable with my sexuality. I accept who I really am."

CA Schools Promote Gender Confusion

Calif. School Tells Elementary Students There Are More Than 2 Gender ‘Options’

The trainer also told the children that this diversity applies to human beings as well. It is this rationale — that gender is pliable and that there are “more than two options” — that has some people frustrated.

There are moral implications for all this, but more central to what is being taught are common sense and biological facts. When you bring evolution into the discussion, you are talking about biology. Humans are not clown fish. In the context of human biology, there are only two genders. It‘s also worth pointing out that neither of them is an ’option’. We don’t get to choose our gender. Technology may someday allow the choice, but for now, we are stuck with what we’re born with. Cosmetic surgery doesn’t change the reality. That is the plain and simple biological fact. Teachers and whoever else is behind teaching this nonsense to children should be held publicly accountable for such drivel.

Hispanic Christian Democrats Demonstrate Against "Gay Marriage"

Wolves in Sheep's Clothing

What about communists? Should they be welcomed into the conservative fold as well? GOProud claims to be a conservative group while promoting the cultural acceptance and normalization of gender confusion and homosexual acts.

CPAC’s Culture Club

“The issue is not that GOProud works on only four of the five traditional items on the conservative agenda — rather, it omits — because it actively opposes — one part of the core,” according to the official boycott letter that was sent to CPAC chairman David Keene in late November, signed by Cannon, Gary Bauer (president of American Values), Brian Brown (president of the National Organization of Marriage), and Mathew Staver (president of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University’s law school). “It is no more acceptable as a participant at CPAC than a group that said it embraced the ‘traditional conservative agenda’ but actively worked for higher taxes and greater governmental control of the economy,” the letter continues.
[...]
Last fall, Barron all but “wrote Jim DeMint out of the conservative movement,” as Cannon tells it. In the heat of the midterm campaigns, GOProud joined liberals in attacking DeMint over comments he made about religious freedom and education — comments that bore no connection to any kind of legislative initiative. Barron has also said (on MSNBC, again) that DeMint — who’s now considered a Tea Party kingmaker — “has given up the ability to lead on any issues conservatives care about.”
[...]
This point was at the core of the November boycott letter: “We believe that, in general, the conservative movement is strengthened by the presence within it of organizations that give priority to particular, even single, issues. It is not necessary for each group within a political movement to embrace the fullness of a detailed and defined philosophy. But it is necessary for each group within any coherent movement not to stand in diametrical opposition to one or more of its core principles. It is our conviction that the institution of marriage and the family qualify — historically, philosophically and empirically — as such core principles. An organization committed to the ultimate abandonment of the legal and social meaning of marriage by definition disqualifies itself from recognition as a partner in the conservative cause.”
[...]
In the final analysis, GOProud may be doing conservatism a real service. The organization is helping a movement and party discern how to deal in a principled and prudent way with fundamental, personal issues in the political realm — in the contentious public square of a fallen world.

I have to respond to one point that is not central to the article, but is critical to GOProud's agenda:

GOProud presents itself as a victim. “The reason the boycotters applied a litmus test to us is because we were born gay,” its executive director, Jimmy LaSalvia, told the New York Times, where the controversy was featured this weekend.

Human beings are not gay. Human beings are, by definition, heterosexual. It's an obvious biological fact. That reality doesn't prevent us humans from participating in homosexual acts. But our identity as human beings is permanent and irrefutably heterosexual.

Gender Confusion Enforced by State of Georgia

Hope for Every Man

For those not aware, Keeton was threatened with expulsion from Augusta State University for refusing to submit to a re-education program run by state-employed university officials.
[...]
According to state officials, the principal “problem” was Keeton’s assertion that free will plays a role in homosexual conduct.
[...]
It is unclear how Boortz arrives at the conclusion that someone would find the phrase “You can change” to be more traumatic than the phrase “You cannot change.” Human beings have always been comforted by the idea that they have some control over their fate. To suggest that homosexuals are somehow emotionally traumatized by ideas that are found comforting by others is to suggest a high degree of emotional volatility. The idea is not only condescending but lacks any basis in reality.
[...]
The State of Georgia is attempting to do no less than force a student to articulate a position that has been empirically falsified; namely, that the genetic influence upon homosexuality is so complete as to nullify free will. Their motivation is predicated upon a second falsehood; namely, that the first falsehood promotes self-esteem.
[...]
Jesus did not come into the world to establish government programs that teach people there is nothing wrong with them and that they lack the ability to change. He came into this world to save sinners. But His offer is available only to those willing to acknowledge their sin and willing to change. And He gives us the power to change even when talk show hosts tell us we cannot.

We live in a world that hates God – so much so that it nailed Him to a cross. But Hope was resurrected and is there for every man today. And that is our greatest source of comfort in a world that preaches hopelessness.

Gender Confusion Doublespeak

Gender Benders Wage War On Sports

Kye Allums, a shooting guard on the George Washington University women's basketball team, has decided that she is a he. Changing her name from "Kay-Kay," Allums is believed to be the first Division I college basketball player to go public about being a "transgender" person.

The obvious question is whether Allums would still be able to compete. You can't have men playing in a women's basketball program, and it's more than awkward to have a man showering with the women in the locker room. Spurred by a track-and-field controversy four years ago, NCAA rules prohibit sexual reassignment surgery or hormone treatments for athletes to retain their eligibility. Allums, a junior, has pledged to forego those steps while she retains her eligibility for college basketball.

But in the meantime, in the midst of a culture that doesn't dare utter a discouraging word about gender denial and genital self-mutilation, Allums is listed on the GWU website as a male member of the women's basketball team. All the press reports swoon about how "he" -- who remains a woman in every biological way -- is handling this so bravely as a role model: "I'm trying to be an example for other people to not be afraid of who they are."

So let's get this straight (so to speak). A woman expects to be an example to others of one who is not afraid to be who she is. She intends to do this by pretending to not be a woman. Her statement is ridiculously irrational. In fact, one might call it 'hysterical'. Far worse is the absence of any challenge to it. Apparently, her bizarre, deluded assertion is being condoned and accommodated by the GW sports program and whatever media is reporting on her denial of who she is. As a result, she gets no help to learn to become comfortable with her sexuality. In addition, she is a role-model, but one that encourages others who are sexually confused to embrace their confusion and deny their gender rather than to overcome whatever trauma led to their fear.

I'm reminded of Romans 1:18-32, but also of G.K. Chesterton's The Oracle of the Dog wherein Chesterton's recurring character Father Brown says, "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense and can't see things as they are."

Legislation from the Bench is No Less Than Tyranny

Judge Vaughn Walker overturned California's Proposition 8 banning "same-sex marriage". Frank Turek breaks down the judge's fantastical assertions and hypocritical abandonment of law.

Top 10 gay marriage false 'facts'

When one judge overturned the will of more than seven million Californians last week in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, he listed 80 supposed "findings of fact" (FF) as evidence that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Many of those 80 findings are not facts at all. They're lies or distortions.

Before we address the top ten false "facts" asserted by Judge Vaughn Walker, there is one real fact in his opinion that defeats the entire case for his opinion. Here it is:


"The evidence at trial shows that marriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples."

Since that fact is unquestionably true, how can Judge Walker honestly declare that Proposition 8 violates the Fourteenth Amendment? Certainly no one in 1868 intended the Fourteenth Amendment to redefine marriage. Only the most tyrannical form of judicial activism can get Judge Walker to his conclusion.

Second, Prop. 8 doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment because every person in America already has equal marriage rights. We're all playing by the same rules — we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone "equal protection of the laws" because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone — every adult person has the same right to marry.

What about homosexuals? That leads us to Judge Walker's first false "fact."

1. "Sexual orientation is fundamental to a person's identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group." (FF 44) This is the most important of the false facts because Walker's entire case collapses without it. The "fact" is false because it ignores the difference between desires and behavior.

Having certain sexual desires — whether you were "born" with them or acquired them sometime in life — does not mean that you are being discriminated against if the law doesn't allow the behavior you desire. Good laws discriminate against behavior. They do not discriminate against people. If Walker's false "fact" was a real fact, we'd have to redefine marriage to include not just same-sex couples, but also relatives, multiple partners, children or any other sexual relationship people desire. After all, those are "sexual orientations" too.

In other words, there should be no legal class of "gay" or "straight," just a legal class called "person." And it doesn't matter whether persons desire sex with the same or opposite sex, or whether they desire sex with children, parents, multiple partners or farm animals. What matters is whether the behavior desired is something the country should prohibit, permit or promote. And that's a job for the people, not judges.

2. "California has no interest in asking gays and lesbians to change their sexual orientation or in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in California." (FF 47) Other than helping them avoid disease and live longer, absolutely no reason. Statistics show that health problems are higher and life spans shorter for homosexuals. This has touched me personally (and perhaps someone you know as well) — a childhood friend of mine died from AIDS at the age of 36. How is it wise public policy to endorse behavior that leads to such tragic results? That's exactly what same-sex marriage does — it endorses homosexual behavior, which results in serious health problems and shorter life spans. Permitting unhealthy behavior is one thing, but endorsing it is quite another.

But won't same-sex marriage help reduce gay health issues? Not likely. See Judge Walker's next false fact.

3. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital unions." (FF 48) What does "successful" mean? It has nothing to do with children, according to Judge Walker. In his "the stork brings children" universe, marriage is merely about coupling; procreation is just incidental to it. He thinks a "successful" marriage is merely about commitment, but he can't even support that case.

In another instance of special pleading, Judge Walker ignores the evidence that at least half of committed homosexual relationships are open as even the New York Times reported. (Other studies found even higher rates of promiscuity and infidelity.) This is so well known it's a travesty that Judge Walker claims exactly the opposite is true. The Times reported, "None of this is news in the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage." Maybe Judge Walker was worried too, and that's why he didn't bother mentioning this real fact with his false facts.

4. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages." (FF 55) Judge Walker cites just four years of data from Massachusetts to make that sweeping conclusion about the most important relationship in human civilization. The truth is that evidence from other countries over a much longer period shows a mutually reinforcing relationship between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy. And the disastrous results of 40 years of liberalized divorce laws show how monumentally important marriage laws are to the health of marriages, children, and the nation.

5. "Proposition 8 does not affect the First Amendment rights of those opposed to marriage for same-sex couples." (FF 62) It's too bad Judge Walker didn't look to evidence from Massachusetts for this false fact. If he had he would have seen that court-imposed same-sex marriage has severely affected First Amendment rights. Same-sex marriage may not affect heterosexual marriage behavior quickly, but it certainly affects the free exercise of religion very quickly.

Parents in Massachusetts now have no right to know when their children are being taught about homosexuality in grades as low as kindergarten, neither can they opt their kids out (one parent was even jailed overnight for protesting this). Businesses are now forced to give benefits to same-sex couples regardless of any moral or religious objection the business owner may have. The government also ordered Catholic Charities to give children to homosexuals wanting to adopt. As a result, Catholic Charities closed their adoption agency rather than submit to an immoral order. Unfortunately, children are again the victims of the morality that comes with same-sex marriage.

"But you can't legislate morality!" some say. Nonsense. Not only do all laws legislate morality, sometimes immorality is imposed by judges against the will of the people and in violation of religious rights. There is no neutral ground here. Either we will have freedom of religion and conscience, or we will be forced to adhere to the whims of judges who declare that their own distorted view of morality supersedes our rights — rights that our founders declared self-evident.

Think I'm overreacting? If this decision survives and nullifies all democratically decided laws in the 45 states that preserve natural marriage, religious rights violations in Massachusetts will go nationwide. In fact, it's poised to happen already at the federal level. President Obama recently appointed gay activist Chai Feldblum to the EEOC. Speaking of the inevitable conflict between religious rights and so-called gay rights, Feldblum said, "I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win."

6. "No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or any other method, change his or her sexual orientation." (FF 46) I guess thousands of ex-gays just don't exist in Judge Walker's special-pleading universe. Neither does renowned Columbia University psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Spitzer, who concluded that some highly motivated individuals can change their orientation from homosexual to heterosexual through reorientation therapy.

This is significant because Spitzer is no propagandist for the religious right. Quite the contrary — a self-described "Jewish atheist," Spitzer has been a hero to homosexual activists since 1973 when he helped get homosexuality declassified as a mental disorder. Recently, however, they've turned on him because he reported the truth.

Dr. Spitzer said that his 2003 study "has been criticized severely by many people, particularly gay activists, who apparently, feel quite threatened by it. They have the feeling that in order to get their civil rights, it's helpful to them if they can present the view that once you're a homosexual you can never change."

When asked whether the American Psychiatric Association should now change its position statements that say orientation cannot be changed, Dr. Spitzer said, "I think they should, [but] they will not be....There's a gay activist group that's very strong and very vocal and is recognized officially by the American Psychiatric Association. There's nobody to give the other viewpoint. There may be a few who believe it but they won't talk."

Dr. Spitzer then acknowledged explicitly that politics often trump the scientific facts at organizations like the APA (an organization cited to bolster Judge Walker's conclusion). He also said that the APA should stop applying a double standard by discouraging reorientation therapy, while actively encouraging gay-affirmative therapy that's intended to confirm and solidify a homosexual identity. Good point by Dr. Spitzer. After all, if people can be talked into it, then why can't they be talked out of it?

Sexual orientation isn't like race either. You'll find many former homosexuals, but you'll never find a former African American.

Of course Walker's "fact" even if true is irrelevant anyway. Marriage does not need to be redefined just because people can't change their sexual desires. Otherwise a legal "marriage" relationship must be created for every particular sexual desire.

7. "The gender of a child's parent is not a factor in a child's adjustment." (FF 70) Incredibly, Judge Walker says that this conclusion "is accepted beyond serious debate." Citing a study by the politicized APA, Walker never admits that not enough research has been done to evaluate the well being of children living with homosexual parents. And he ignored evidence presented by the defense that contradicted his "fact."

But does one really need a study to know that Walker is wrong? Was your father different as a parent than your mother? To say no is laughable. In fact, even Rodney Dangerfield could expose this false fact. "No respect at all — when I was a baby, I was breast fed by my father!"

Later in the opinion, Walker makes the unbelievable assertion that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals." Who sez? The imperial Judge Walker.

Questions for the Judge: Why do you assert that men and women are interchangeable as parents but not as sex partners? After all, if gender really is irrelevant to marriage as you maintain — if men and women are interchangeable — then why argue for same-sex marriage at all? Why not just tell homosexuals, "Gender is irrelevant to marriage, so instead of making a fuss, why not just go ahead and marry someone from the opposite sex"?

Why not? Because when it comes to their own personal gratification, homosexual activists like Judge Walker clearly recognize the big difference between the sexes. But when it comes to the more important priority of raising children, they say there is no difference between the sexes. Children are just going to have to take a backseat to their sexual desires. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse sums up the attitude of homosexual activists well. She writes: "[Homosexual] adults are entitled to have what they want. Children have to take what we give them."

8. "Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians." (FF 77) Really? Do religious beliefs that drunkenness is sinful or inferior to sobriety harm alcoholics? No, those beliefs help such people by telling them the truth about destructive behavior instead of enabling them with liberal fantasyland talk about how all behaviors and lifestyles are equal.

9. "Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex relationships." (FF 68) This is not meant to be offensive, but what if certain relationships really are more valuable to society than others? Clearly, the procreative committed relationship of a man and a woman is more valuable than any other relationship in society because it is necessary for society's very survival. To comprehend the impact of this, you just need to consider two questions.


(1) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in natural marriage? Our country would thrive with a drastic reduction in numerous social problems including illegitimacy, crime, welfare, and abortion.

(2) What would happen to society if everyone lived faithfully in same-sex marriage? Society wouldn't thrive because it wouldn't even survive. It would end the human race!


This is not to say that such a law would cause this, but merely to point out that certain relationships are more valuable to a society than others. The truth is that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are not the same, can never be the same, and will never yield the same benefits to individuals or society. No law can change that fact; only deceive people into thinking so.

If this point offends you, then you have a problem with reality, not me. I didn't make up the facts of nature. I'm just admitting them — something Judge Walker and many same-sex marriage supporters seem unwilling to do.

10. "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." (Conclusion) The real fact is that Judge Walker fails to provide any "rational basis" for overturning Proposition 8 — no rational basis from the Constitution or common sense. While lecturing the people of California that their "private moral views" cannot be used to make their laws, Judge Walker has simply imposed his own "private moral view" that same-sex marriage must be sanctioned. That is objectively immoral and unconstitutional itself.

He claims that the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage "exists as an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage. That time has passed." If that's true, that's not for him or any judge to decide. The people of California have said that time has not passed.

Disagree? Then you have the burden of persuading your fellow citizens to pass a constitutional amendment sanctioning same-sex marriage. That's what the amendment process is for! When judges short-circuit that process, we are no longer a free people who govern ourselves.

A "Defense of Marriage" Amendment is Gay

The proposal to add an amendment to the United States Constitution is driven by a desire to protect marriage because it is the foundation of society and necessary for its continued existence. Note that I am careful NOT to say marriage is merely the foundation of our society, as if marriage were an American institution. The life of all human society depends on husbands and wives committed to life-long union.

A Constitutional amendment defining marriage appropriately might not be the worst thing to ever happen. However, it would be a violation of the Conservative principles, particularly that of limited government, that have served to make the United States of America history's strongest most prosperous nation and to enable the U.S.A. to export desire for liberty, as well as its reality, around the world.

Conservatives, like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and others, rightly understood that people can only possess liberty when the government is restricted as our Constitution was designed to do. So-called 'Liberals' disagree. Communists, Atheists, Homosexuals, and others, have repeatedly applied methods to use the government, both in legal and illegal ways, to force tyrannical, unconstitutional policies onto our people.

I'm not at all comfortable with government at any level requiring me to be licensed in order to marry the woman of my dreams. When a marriage covenant is enacted between a man, a woman, and God, an oath has been taken. Two people are married. What has government to do with it? Who is some bureaucrat to tell me, my wife, and my God whether or not we are really married and our vow is legitimate?

It does occur to me that, in its appropriate role to protect us from each other when necessary, some level of government may need to know who is married in order to prevent and/or punish bigamy, for example. But, can you see that allowing marriage to be defined by government gives it too much power over our personal lives?

Because of its profound significance, defense of marriage is not only good, but also necessary! But, like flying planes into buildings full of innocent Muslim civilians in order to defeat Islamic Fascists, to propose a Constitutional amendment defining marriage is to adopt and condone the tactics of the tyrannical homosexual agenda.