BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

MANIPULATION OF SOCIETY BY HOMOSEXUALS

Homosexual activists have a straightforward strategy to manipulate society to force it to accept and adapt it to their agenda. This tactic consists of outrageous propaganda, often obligingly conveyed by a biased media, and restriction of public debate on the issue.

Propaganda
The homosexual propaganda machine attempts to confuse the debate by advancing deliberate misrepresentations of fact. For example:

· although making up to at most 1½ - 3% of the population, homosexual activists pretend they represent 10% of the population.

· They pretend they are "born that way," despite a lack of scientific evidence to support this position. The evidence that thousands of homosexuals/lesbians have been successfully treated and have escaped their homosexual inclinations would certainly indicate otherwise.

· Activists pretend that they suffer discrimination as a minority group (See "The Truth About Hate Crimes," p. 15). Many judges (who apparently believe that they have superior insight and knowledge on the subject) repeatedly support this homosexual distortion of fact in their decisions. Columnist George Jonas stated in an article appearing in the National Post (October 16, 2000) about our politically activist judges:

… His [Trudeau's} repatriated constitution, has turned a relatively respectable judiciary into a seething army of Frankenstein monsters who lurch around making law without regard to the original purpose of the legislation.

· Homosexual activists pretend that millions of people support them by way of grossly inflating the numbers present at their "Gay" Pride Parades. As a case in point, at the Gay Pride Parade in Toronto in June 2000, the media trumpeted that 750,000 to 1,000,000 marchers and spectators were present along the 3.3 km parade route. In fact, the actual figure was nearer to 86,000 (1/5 of the size claimed), calculated by the numbers of spectators on both sides of the street and at intersections for the length of the parade itself. Moreover, many, if not most, of the spectators were not supporters, but were watching the parade solely as spectators of the outlandish actions by the parade participants.

· Homosexuals use the obliging media to place a "spin" on any adverse court decisions. For example, in 1995 in the Supreme Court decision of Nesbit and Egan, the media did not clarify the exceedingly important point that the court had concluded that marriage was the foundation of society because of its unique capacity to provide a secure place give birth to and raise children and, that, consequently, it was not discrimination to give special recognition and benefits to legally married couples. (See Reality, July/August, 1995, p. 1) A similar dishonest analysis was made by some of the media in the recent Surrey School Board case (See Reality, September/October, 2000, p. 1). In the Vancouver Sun, of September 22nd, 2000, reporter Paula Brook stated in her article, "Here's Who Really Won the Books Battle," that the School Board had lost and the homosexuals had won! She gave a convoluted explanation for this peculiar conclusion, even though Mr. Justice Mackenzie had clearly stated in his decision, on behalf of the unanimous court, that the School Board had the legal authority to ban homosexual books from the curriculum.

The purpose of all this deliberate misrepresentation of the facts is to create the illusion that the homosexual cause is an unstoppable force. It is not.

Restrictions on Public Debate

Homosexual activists seek to stifle opposition to their demands by attempting to suppress free and open debate on the issue. In this endeavour, they are ably assisted by the human rights activists who run the kangaroo courts of the Human Rights Commissions, which prefer to provide protection of homosexual propaganda at the expense of freedom of opinion, expression and religion in Canada.

Moreover, homosexual activists are intensely lobbying to have the offense of hate propaganda (S.318 of the Criminal Code) widened to include themselves as an "identifiable group," for protection so as to prevent anyone from "communicating statements in any public place," that may incite "hatred." The word "hatred," we know, is interpreted by homosexual activists to mean any expression of opinion that is contrary to their own propaganda. Should they be successful in obtaining this amendment to the Criminal Code, public debate on the issue will be enormously stifled - which, after all, is the purpose of such an amendment.

The Results of Homosexual Propaganda and Suppression of Debate on the Issue

The most successful achievement of the homosexual movement has already been the curtailing of debate on the issue and homosexuals' largely unobstructed, free-wheeling promotion of their propaganda through the obliging media. This has resulted in shifting the debate from their sexual behaviour (which is the only common thread among them) to their supposed "identity," thus forcing those raising objections to be perceived as attacking their so-called civil rights, rather than attacking their risky and very unhealthy sexual practices.

This promotion of dangerous homosexual practices as being socially and legally acceptable can only lead to the breaking of other social taboos and a redefinition of other harmful behaviour. It pushes the envelope for the normalization of other forms of sexuality - paedophilia included - and with it a concomitant lowering of the age of consent. This dramatic shift of values will have deep ramifications for all in society.

This is not merely a hypothetical argument. Included in the homosexual newspaper, Xtra West, last June, was a column by Stan Persky, a well-known homosexual political commentator and regular columnist for the Vancouver SUN. He stated:

… teenagers are often people whose sexual preferences are as yet very undetermined. If homosexuality is 'legitimated' through talk, it's as likely as sunrise that some young people are going to try out a perfectly natural, legitimate sexual preference that promises to be fun and meaningful.

… Since both we and the homophobes both know this, why don't we just admit it? Especially since it's a perfectly good idea to try things out, as long as you exercise some practical and emotional caution.

… Instead of dancing around the 'promotion' issue, why not argue for it? The answer to the histrionic question of the anti-promoters, 'But what if they try it?' is so what?

Although his viewpoint is not yet mainstream in the homosexual community, it is not an isolated one. Journalist Gerald Hannon took a similar position in the July 8, 1994, issue of Xtra, in which he equated sex with children to coaching a children's hockey team. He stated:

… I could never understand how children's hockey differed from an organized child-sex ring. Both involved children and adults. Both involved strenuous physical activity (adult coaches taking the role of the adult lover). Both involved danger. Both involved pleasure. Yet, we approve of children's hockey and deplore child-sex rings.

Further, last March, the Little Sisters Bookstore, a lesbian bookstore located in Vancouver, argued before the Supreme Court of Canada that since pornography is an essential part of homosexual/lesbian sexuality, pornographic books, which portray such sexuality, should not be prohibited from entering the country by customs officials. The court has reserved its decision in this case. In short, homosexuals are pushing the envelope to force society to accommodate their deviant and unhealthy sexual practices.

BACK TO TABLE OF CONTENTS