The Gay-Gene Hoax
A guy called Ryan Sorba spoke about the so-called “Gay-Gene”.
He began with the factual history of the homosexual movement from its beginnings in the 1800s. He showed that until the mid-1900s the concept of “homosexual” did not even exist – that even its practitioners thought of it as aberration of normalcy – and that among men it had nearly always also been associated in some way with pederasty (sex with young boys).
He then described the modern homosexual propaganda movement, which blossomed in the 1980s, and how the “born that way” strategy was a central part of the plan to proselytize America. It was conceived by two Harvard graduates, Marshall Kirk, a researcher in neuropsychiatry, and Hunter Madsen, a PhD in politics and expert on public persuasion tactics, who wrote “After the Ball” and other articles. Interestingly, the “born that way” strategy was largely rejected by the movement when it was first proposed. But it soon caught on and – along with the strategy of demonization of Christian critics – became a centerpiece of the larger campaign which continues in full force to this day.
The more overwhelming cause of homosexuality, as he points out, involves severe issues with parents and sexual abuse at a young age.
As often happens at these kinds of speeches, it appeared that nearly all of the homosexual activists had never heard these arguments before. They were clearly affected by them. You could see the confusion (and a little anger) in their eyes as their ideological world was being taken apart. Plus, they were so used to dealing with this issue in an emotional and illogical way that they are rhetorically crippled when forced to deal on a logical and factual basis.
Here you can download the PDF of the book called The “Born Gay” Hoax if you’re interested.
This is probably the one of the most rational arguments against the Gay-Gene/born that way theory that I have read. In the article (by the way you can hear his speech if you go to the first link) he says the following…
…the coining of terms by activists has played a central role in the movement to normalize same‐gender sexual activity by subtly influencing public opinion via the lexicon. Historically, Steyn explains, moral concern for sexual activity between two persons of the same gender was identified as sodomy, an act. One can either think of sodomy as acceptable or unacceptable; either way, it is an act that someone chooses. Then, Steyn explains that in the late nineteenth century, the act was redescribed as a condition of certain persons, and it was termed “homosexuality.” Next (only a few decades ago) “homosexuality” was upgraded again, this time referring to a person’s very identity, so that now we identify people as being “gay,” or “straight,” or somewhere “in between.” Now the term describes who a person is. It has become as fundamental to ones identity as race. Steyn explains, “Each formulation raises the stakes: One can object to and even criminalize an act; one is obligated to be sympathetic toward a condition; but once it’s a full fledged 24/7 identity, like being Hispanic or Inuit, anything less than wholehearted acceptance gets you marked down as a bigot.”
A must read if you are struggling with this issue.
