Born Gay Homosexual / Homosexual Agenda Propaganda Exposed!
…The “born gay” hoax was invented in 1985 by Marshall Kirk and Dr. Hunter Madsen. Marshall Kirk graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University in 1980 majoring in Psychology and went on to become a writer and researcher in neuropsychiatry. Dr. Hunter Madsen earned a PhD in politics from Harvard University in 1985, then went on to become an expert on public persuasion tactics, social marketing, and has designed commercial marketing on Madison Avenue. He has also served as a consultant to pro-sodomy media campaigns across America.
1985, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen co-authored an article entitled “The Gay Agenda” in a pro-sodomy magazine called Christopher Street. In short, the article emphasized the strategic importance of shifting the central issue in the debate over “homosexuality” away from sodomy and toward a sexual pseudo-identity called “gay.” The goal of The Gay Agenda was to force opponents of sodomy 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. “The Gay Agenda” also briefly outlined the strategy that would eventually be used to convince the public that individuals are “born gay.”
Initially, there was no enthusiasm for “The Gay Agenda” within the pro-sodomy movement. In fact, many activists considered the proposed strategy degrading because they viewed “rights related to sexuality as analogous to the constitutional rights to association, expression, or religion.”[1]
Initially, there were strong reservations against adopting the strategy. However, these initial reservations would not last for long.
In 1986 the pro-sodomy movement lost Bowers v. Hardwick, the United States Supreme Court case which upheld the rights of individual states to criminalize sodomy. The loss was devastating. Desperate, angry, and galvanized pro-sodomy activists learned that if they could make a compelling case that they were “born gay,” they could 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. It must be noted however, that 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
The legalization of sodomy by way of “Minority Status” is the secret to understanding why pro-sodomy activists adopted the strategy outlined in “The Gay Agenda” in the late 1980s and began to promote the Ulrichsian claim that people are “born gay.”
Wasting little time, Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Madsen writing under the pseudonym Erastes Pill) published a follow-up to “The Gay Agenda” entitled The Overhauling of Straight America. This article, which appeared in the pro-sodomy publication Guide in November of 1987, outlined a point-by-point strategy that could be used to convince “straight America” that men and women who develop same-sex attractions “are born gay.”
In the following year, 1988, a “War Conference” of 175 leading pro-sodomy 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 newly conceived “gay” movement. At this “War Conference” pro-sodomy activists adopted the identity politic strategy outlined in “The Gay Agenda” and “The Overhauling of Straight America”. The “born gay” hoax was born.
Subsequently, in 1989, Marshal Kirk and Hunter Madsen expanded their article “The Overhauling of Straight America ” into a book entitled “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gays in the 90s”. In this deliberately deceitful agenda for America Kirk and Madsen write that they intend to “get tough” on straights. They further write, “…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 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.)”[2]
Here, the authors admit that human sexuality “seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors,” yet they urge readers to abandon the truth for “practical purposes,” i.e. furthering “The Gay Agenda.” The propagandists could not have been clearer about their plan to deceive Americans. The “Gay” Agenda, its cumulative post-luminaries, and efforts to employ the tactics outlined in these documents are what I refer to as the “born gay” hoax. The following excerpts from “After the Ball” will exemplify the manipulative tactics Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen enticed pro-sodomy activists to employ.
“The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays…To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally we would have the straight to register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream…”[3]
“The masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself…the imagery of sex should be downplayed…”[4]
“…gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector…”[5]
“…make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower its guard…”[6]
“…replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt…”[7]
“Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible…” “The principal behind this advice is simple: almost all behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances.”[8]
Unfortunately, this social learning principle has proven itself time and time again throughout history, as various inhumane and outrageous behaviors have become commonplace and ordinary. The authors continue.
“Constant talk builds the impression that public opinion is at least divided on the subject…”[9]
Madsen and Pill (Kirk) explain their scheme in greater depth when they write:
“Where we talk is important. The visual media, film and television, are plainly the most powerful image-makers in Western civilization. The average American household watches over seven hours of TV daily. Those hours open up a gateway into the private world of straights, through which a Trojan horse might be passed. As far as desensitization is concerned, the medium is the message–of normalcy. So far, gay Hollywood has provided our best covert weapon in the battle to desensitize the mainstream.”[10]
“Not so many years ago, all of these statements would have been unbelievably offensive to most Americans, even if they contained no reference to ‘homosexuality,’ precisely because they all advocate coercive tampering with peoples most private domain, their thoughts, opinions, and beliefs. Kirk and Madsen call it ‘transforming the social values of straight America…’”[1 Let’s look at the mechanics of their strategy for ‘transforming’ society into what they feel would be a more acceptable form. The authors continue:
“Would a desensitizing campaign of open and sustained talk about gay issues reach every rabid opponent of homosexuality? Of course not! While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First, we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretations of Biblical teachings, and exposing hatred and inconsistency. Second, we can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated backwaters, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology. Against the mighty pull of institutional Religion one must set the mightier draw of Science & Public Opinion (the shield and sword of that accursed “secular humanism”). Such an unholy alliance has worked well against churches before on such topics as divorce and abortion. With enough open talk about the prevalence and acceptability of homosexuality, that alliance can work again here.”[12]
“…The campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society. Yes, yes, we know – this trick is so old it creaks.”[13]
“…It will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified.”[14]
“…We intend to make anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types…”[15]
“Each sign will tap patriotic sentiment; each message will drill a seemingly agreeable position into mainstream heads…”[16]
“The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America…the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern [sic] ministers drooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; menacing punks, thugs and convicts…Nazi concentration camps…”[17]
This behavior-modification mentality, combined with the isolation of “straights” and others as groups or classes who assume the status of dehumanized targets of one sort or another continues, undisturbed in intensity.
“These images (of anyone opposed to homosexual behavior) should be combined with those of their gay victims by a method propagandists call the ‘bracket technique.’ For example, for a few seconds an unctuous beady-eyed Southern preacher is seen pounding the pulpit in rage about ‘those sick, abominable creatures.’ While his tirade continues over the soundtrack, the picture switches to pathetic photos of gays who look decent, harmless, and likable; and then we cut back to the poisonous face of the preacher, and so forth. The contrast speaks for itself. The effect is devastating.”[18]
A group called Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) actually used this technique in an advertising campaign in the fall of 1995 against Pat Robertson, Jesse Helms, and Jerry Falwell. As reported in the San Francisco Examiner, Sunday, November 12, 1995… “a new television ad campaign [portrays scenes of] a teenage girl contemplating suicide with a handgun, [and] a young man being beaten by a gang as his attackers shout slurs…interspersed with actual clips of the Rev. Pat Robertson and other conservatives deploring homosexuality. Most stations turned down the ads, but they ran in Tulsa, and Washington D.C. A print version of the ad (much less emotionally effective) was run in USA Today, November 21, 1995.”
It is absolutely appalling to hear the tactics promoted by Marshall Kirk (Mckusick) and Hunter Madsen. The pro-sodomy activists who have employed these techniques have nothing to be proud of. These soi-disant (self-styled) propagandistic tactics and even the verbiage in which they are couched represent a twisted and fascist, deceitful and degrading approach to the winning of American public opinion.
In specialized press pro-sodomy activists speak candidly about the movement’s practical purposes for promoting the idea that people are “born gay.” In doing so, they admit that public “born gay” rhetoric is fabricated propaganda, contrived and carried out for specific political ends; mainly, the overturning of Bowers v. Hardwick and the normalization of sodomy.
Dr. Lillian Faderman, who has won the Monette/Horwitz Award from the pro-sodomy 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 further states, “The narrow categories of identity politics are obviously deceptive.” It becomes obvious later in the article that Dr. Faderman sees a political threat from the truth, from the fluidity of human 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’?[19]
Dr. John DeCecco is a psychologist, Director of the Center for Research and Education in Sexuality at San Francisco State University, and Editor of The Journal of Homosexuality. Dr. DeCecco 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” and immutable characteristic idea is just “gay and lesbian politics” and is aimed at achieving “gay” rights.[20]
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 bases 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?”[21]
Female homosexual 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.”[22]
Jan Clausen, female homosexual 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, Clausen 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.” [23]
Female homosexuals Lyne Harne and Elaine Miller explain their feelings regarding the “born gay” hoax:
“There’s nothing natural in lesbianism. Its a positive choice, and a political one.”[24]
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.” [25]
The National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) is one of the homosexual activist organizations that pressured the American Psychiatric Association to reject homosexual reparative therapy. The NCLR claims that the “gay” identity is innate and unchangeable. JoAnne Loulan is one of the 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 in the spirit of Ulrichs, Kirk, and Madsen argued that the so-called “gay” person was endowed with a fixed, innate, and unchangeable, “sexual orientation” and commanded the American Psychiatric Association to halt all forms of reparative therapy for all people, including those desperately looking for help. She actually wrote an article for Frontiers Magazine arguing that sexual orientation is fluid, not fixed.[26]
Kate Kendall and Joanne Loulan stood before the American Psychiatric Association with straight faces declaring reparative therapy to be the dangerous equivalent of pouring bleach on a black person’s skin to make them white. Then, one of these self-proclaimed “gays” went out and changed her own so-called “sexual orientation” 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. Is it possible, for us to continue to trust these activists when they say that they are “born gay?”
Those who have been tricked by the propaganda 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 Gay Agenda was sold to the American public by pro-sodomy propagandists. The carefully calculated lies of these propagandists are blatant, and have been admitted in numerous pro-sodomy publications. It is obvious however, that “born gay” propagandists from Kirk and Madsen on, keep the fact of sexual fluidity secret from the straight community for political reasons. Pro-sodomy activists however, as evidenced by their own articles, talk about the “born gay” hoax and the realities of sexual choice regularly amongst themselves.
[1] The Advocate, 3-24-92 p.62 quotation (Pat) mine
[2] Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the
Gay’s in the 90s, p.184
[3] Ibid p.7
[4] Ibid p.8
[5] Ibid.p.8
[6] Ibid p.8
[7] Ibid p.10
[8] Ibid p. 7
[9] Ibid, p.8
[10] Ibid. p.8
[11] Ibid. p.14
[12] Ibid.p.9
[13] Ibid.p.9
[14] Ibid. p.10
[15] Ibid. p.10
[16] Ibid p.11
[17] Ibid. p.10
[18] Ibid. p.13-14
[19] The Advocate, 9-5-95, p.43
[20] If You Seduce A Straight Person You Can Make Them Gay, John DeCecco, pg. 17-18
[21] Queer by Choice: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Politics of Identity, By Dr. Vera Whisman; New York: Routlege, 1996 p.132
[22] Off Our Backs, Oct. 1996, p.22
[23] Apples and Oranges, Jan Clausen?
[24] Lambda Book Report, Oct. 1996, p.11, “Commenting on All the Rage: Reasserting Radical Lesbian Feminism”
[25] Girlfriends, May/June, 1996, p. 40
[26] Frontiers, 4-19-96, pg. 31
…Kirk’s and Madsen’s Homosexual Agenda scripted hate tactic is called “Jamming”, by vilifying all those who dissent from the homosexual bigoted script.
This article was found at: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=927_1345510160 Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=927_1345510160#6Fp3sOhwicmF4ETl.99
This article is by www.liveleak.com
