The infamous homosexual activist and Zoologist, Alfred Kinsey, claimed in his 1948 book that some 10% of the US population was homosexual. That figure was shown to be way off the mark. Nevertheless, after being shown to be wrong, homosexual activist deliberately use Kinsey's number knowing it was wildly incorrect rather than using vastly more accurate estimates showing the percentage to be much lower, as low as 1.7%.
Why did the homosexual activists do that? The activist in the video is rationalizing and deliberately quickly understating the real false-hearted, deceptive reason. They did it because the larger the number, the more it would give the rest of Americans the false impression that such a large percentage of Americans were being wrongly discriminated against.
Now, you may say to yourself, wrongful discrimination is wrong no matter how large the group being wrongfully discriminated against. Well, you have to know more than that about the homosexual activists.
They were also at the time falsely claiming that homosexuality is in-born, that there is a homosexual gene, that homosexuality is not fluid but fixed at conception (quite ironic since Kinsey had made clear in his 1948 book that it is not fixed at all).
When taking the barrage of false-propaganda all at once, the pattern of blatant lying (that's knowingly telling untruths) becomes abundantly clear. Large parts of the American population were being duped and still are.
Note: The 3.4 is lumping: Gallup study: 3.4 percent of US adults are LGBT
Now, consider the Regnerus study where he studied the outcomes of children with a parent who had engaged in homosex. The same homosexual activists went ballistic against his study for what reason? They attacked it based upon the idea that Regnerus had not confined his study to homosexuals who have been lifelong homosexuals as both parents. How ironic and revealing and telling it all is.
If it suited their Movement to lie that the figure is 10%, they did it. If it suited their Movement to lie that homosexuality is not mutable, changeable, they did that. If it suits their Movement to ignore their own previous lies and then insist that Regnerus not include former homosexuals or bisexuals, they do that.
You should be made aware that Mark Regnerus made clear the limitations of his study due to sample size. There just aren't enough lifelong-homosexual couples who have raised children from birth to adulthood to nail down the statistics as rising to consensus proof of cause and effect. Homosexuals steeped in statistics used in the Social Sciences know that, but many of them remain conspicuously silent about it. Mark made clear the differences between correlation, statistical significance, and proven cause and effect. Despite all of that, he was still vigorously attacked but ended up being vindicated by his university.
Are they still telling lies? Of course they are. Concerning California SB 1172, they are lying about the research and data on both sides. They're trying their damnedest to ignore that there are homosexually raped boys who develop unwanted same-sex attraction as a result and that some such boys and men have received great benefit from being treated by authentic Reparative Therapists. They want to block such boys right now in California and then across the whole country and finally the whole world. It is the slippery slope plainly unfolding further before your very eyes.
Already, the pedophiles (homosexual and heterosexual; though homosexuals are much likelier to be pedophiles than are heterosexuals; it's telling) are clamoring for the same "rights" the homosexual movement has clamored for and also based upon deceptive, lying tactics.
Many of the homosexual activists are even now insisting that they will never seek a lowering or complete removal of age of consent laws. I believe they won't do that until they believe their position has been legally solidified. I'm old enough to have seen the homosexual activists' clear pattern of deliberate lies. I believe that pathological lying comes with the addiction. Some are just more cunning than others, but homosexual addiction (among other things, homosexuality includes dopamine addiction; the more active, the more addicted) has grabbed some otherwise very high-IQ individuals.
What the homosexual activists want is to continue duping people. Don't be duped.
Don't fall for the falsehood that the American Psychological Association and American Psychiatric Association haven't been co-opted by homosexuals who deliberately received doctorates in psychology and medical degrees specializing in Psychiatry so they could more effectively spread lies and ignore the evidence and block further research that would further expose their lies.
First, the Task Force made several conclusions about the safety and efficacy of SOCE [Sexual Orientation Change Efforts] that was not supported by the scientific literature. Essentially, they faulted the research on SOCE based on certain methodological flaws, yet cited studies with similar flaws to support their own pre-conceived conclusions for gay-affirmative psychotherapy. In fact, a partiality to promote gay-affirmative psychotherapy , a specific form of counseling that encourages same-sex attracted persons to accept and embrace homosexuality, and is opposed to SOCE, was evident throughout the report. They went onto recommend the use of gay-affirmative psychotherapies without applying the same overly critical and rigid standards as they demand of SOCE.
A second flaw of the report was the way the Task Force was assembled. One of the Task Force's principle rationales for the creation of their report was that advocates who opposed SOCE and those who promoted SOCE asked for such a report. However, when it came to assembling the Task Force, advocates who were pre-opposed to SOCE were actually chosen to be members of the Task Force, while no proponents of SOCE were selected. It would seem logical that the committee be composed of a diverse panel of psychologists and research experts to ensure a fair and objective review of the evidence. But in fact, all six members of the Task Force were either gay themselves or proponents of gay-affirming psychotherapy.
A third critical flaw of the report, one that is particularly relevant to the topic of this article, is the section on children and adolescence. The Task Force recommended that clinicians provide "information and education" to homosexually-orientated children to support them and that their parents, "be provided accurate information about sexual orientation." Absent, however, was any mention that clinicians discuss, and parents be taught, the known high-risk dangers associated with many aspects of homosexual practices, especially the fact that gay men are at high risk for acquiring HIV/AIDS.
Source: California's Ban on Self-Determination, by Christopher Doyle
The (Complete) Lack of a Scientific Basis for Banning Sexual-Orientation Change Efforts with Minors, by Christopher Rosik, Ph.D.
Don't fall for their lies that anyone who doesn't accept homosexuality as healthy has an irrational fear that homosexuality causes, among other things, many documented rectal problems that would not otherwise occur. Don't use the term homophobe at anyone who is clearly rational. Anal intercourse causes damage and that damage allows for other harm/diseases to occur. That's far from the only damage too.
Don't fall for their lies that anyone who doesn't accept homosexuality as healthy is a bigot akin to a racist. Black people are truly born Black. Old people don't yet have the means to reverse aging. People don't choose the families or nationalities of origin into which they are born. People who believe in the most moral creed have been severely persecuted in history and many still are being persecuted, including by the homosexual-activist liars. People don't choose whether or not they are born female.
Homosexuality though is mutable, and lies to the contrary won't alter that fact. It is also damaging for a whole host of reasons. That doesn't say that people should not have compassion toward those who are afflicted. They should. It doesn't say that there aren't hermaphrodites. Hermaphrodites too though can condition their attractions by choice.
This is only the tip of the iceberg of the issues. There are many, many more posts on this and other sites about it and that give the truth rather than lies of the homosexual activists.
The worst thing you can do is close your mind and simply accept and ignorantly regurgitate the lies of the Homosexual Movement.
Stand up against California SB 1172 for one. Stand up for homosexually abused boys having the right to see an authentic Reparative Therapist. Don't accept the lies about Reparative Therapy (RT) either.
RT does not include coercive punishment in any form whatsoever. It works though by reconditioning the mind via first explaining the wrong directional thinking, the lack of knowledge, the lack of proper coping skills, that led/leads to homosexuality, and then explains the proper way of thinking. It then trains the client in that thinking via practice. The new thinking, the right thinking, then becomes more and more established and the old way fades and fades and fades. Good! It also helps with all addictions, and homosex becomes a huge addiction for many who "experiment" with it one too many times.
We thank Andre Bekker and Jason Salamone for many of the links used in this article.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)