752 Rupert Murdoch vs. Gay bullies; Gay Marriage campaign is like China's Cultural Revolution

Rupert Murdoch vs. Gay bullies; Gay Marriage campaign is like China's
Cultural Revolution

Newsletter published on 5 April 2015

(1) Rupert Murdoch: Gay bullies tried to take over St Patrick's Day Parade
(2) Parade refused to let Gays & Lesbians march under their own banner;
sponsors pull out
(3) St Patricks: de Blasio refused to march; Heineken also withdrew
sponsorship
(4) Purge of Gay-Marriage Opponents
(5) Indiana pizzeria, against catering Gay weddings, shuts down over
threats; supporters donate $
(6) Boys Scouts affiliate in New York hires openly gay camp leader
(7) Boys Scouts offcially disallows leaders who are "open and avowed
homosexuals"
(8) Pro-gay marriage signals seen in U.S. Supreme Court action
(9) Purim book for children features LGBT characters
(10) 'Marriage Equality' is Destroying 'Traditional Marriage' & that's
good - Carina Kolodny
(11) Gay activists admit that their goal is the destruction of the Family
(12) Masha Gessen: We fight for Gay Marriage, but we lie about what we
are going to do with Marriage when we get there
(13) Gays and pedophiles can be cured, rabbi tells Royal Commission
(14) Homosexuality: Innate Or Acquired?
(15) Searching for Gayness in Nature: "Even the birds and the bees do it"
(16) Gay Marriage campaign is like China's Cultural Revolution

(1) Rupert Murdoch: Gay bullies tried to take over St Patrick's Day Parade

"Guinness pulls out of religious parade bullied by gay orgs who try to
take it over"

https://twitter.com/rupertmurdoch/status/445547340813070336

Rupert Murdoch Verified account @rupertmurdoch 17 Mar 2014

Where will this end? Guinness pulls out of religious parade bullied by
gay orgs who try to take it over. Hope all Irish boycott the stuff

(2) St Patrick parade refused to let Gays & Lesbians march under their
own banner; sponsors pull out

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andy-mcsmiths-diary-rupert-murdoch-takes-on-the-gay-bullies-over-guinness-boycott-of-saint-patricks-day-parade-9198078.html

Andy McSmith's Diary: Rupert Murdoch takes on the gay 'bullies' over
Guinness boycott of New York Saint Patrick's Day parade

ANDY MCSMITH

Monday 17 March 2014

Rupert Murdoch seems to have had one of his funny turns as he awoke on
the morning of Saint Patrick’s Day. The Ancient Order of Hibernians, who
for many years have organised the annual march through New York, have
again refused to let gays and lesbians march under their own banner, on
the grounds that to do so would offend their Catholic heritage.

The Mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, has consequently refused to join
the march. And now Guinness, normally a generous sponsor of the event,
has withdrawn its support. This was too much for Murdoch, who tweeted:
“Where will this end? Guinness pulls out of religious parade bullied by
gay orgs who try to take it over. Hope all Irish boycott the stuff.”

I can fully understand that the old boy does not like gay organisations,
especially ones that bully – Murdoch being the sort of proprietor who
would never allow any publications he owned to bully anyone - but
telling the Irish not to drink Guinness on St Patrick’s Day suggests is
hubristic, even for him. [...]

Guinness pulls out of NY St. Patrick's day parade over exclusion of gay
groups

(3) St Patricks: de Blasio refused to march; Heineken also withdrew
sponsorship

http://www.afr.com/p/business/marketing_media/boycott_guinness_murdoch_gets_his_MZDE9KB2FJ2F0K92V2dVZL

'Boycott Guinness': Murdoch gets his Irish up over Paddy's Day parade

PUBLISHED: 18 Mar 2014 06:02:24 | UPDATED: 21 Mar 2014 00:09:16PRINT
EDITION: 18 Mar 2014

BY John Kehoe

"Where will this end? Guinness pulls out of religious parade bullied by
gay orgs who try to take it over. Hope all Irish boycott the stuff,"
Rupert Murdoch tweeted on Monday. Photo: Peter Mathew

John Kehoe Washington

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch has called for Irish drinkers to boycott the
country's iconic national stout, Guinness, on St Patrick's Day.

In a broadside at the brewer's decision to withdraw sponsorship of a St
Patrick's Day event in New York over the non-participation of gays, Mr
Murdoch took to Twitter to urge drinkers to put down their Guinness
pints in protest.

Guinness on Sunday announced it had pulled out of sponsoring the 253rd
annual New York City St Patrick's day parade, because gays and lesbians
were banned from marching openly.

Australian-raised Mr Murdoch, who lives in New York, used a Twitter
posting on Monday to denounce Guinness.

"Where will this end? Guinness pulls out of religious parade bullied by
gay orgs who try to take it over. Hope all Irish boycott the stuff," Mr
Murdoch tweeted.

St Patrick's Day is a cultural and religious holiday celebrated annually
on March 17, the death date of the famous patron saint of Ireland, St
Patrick.

Stonewall Inn, a popular watering hole for New York's gay community, had
threatened to stop selling Guinness because of the sponsorship. Gay and
lesbian groups have been pressuring the parade's organisers for years to
allow them to participate openly in the march along Fifth Avenue.

Guinness said in a statement it had a strong history of supporting
diversity and being an advocate of equality for all.

"We were hopeful that the policy of exclusion would be reversed for this
year's parade," a spokesman for the brewery's parent company, Diageo,
said in a statement.

"As this has not come to pass, Guinness has withdrawn its participation."

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, whom Mr Murdoch has criticised over
education policy, will not march in the parade.

Heineken has also withdrawn sponsorship. [...]

(4) Purge of Gay-Marriage Opponents

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/the-purge-of-gay-marriage-heretics-begins/14901

The purge of gay-marriage heretics begins

Sean Collins

US correspondent

The ousting of Brendan Eich from Mozilla sets a dangerous precedent.

8 April 2014

Refuse to renounce your opposition to gay marriage, and you will be
hounded out of your career and public life. That's the lesson of Brendan
Eich's ousting at software company Mozilla.

After Eich was appointed CEO in late March, some Mozilla employees and
software developers took to the internet to demand his resignation.
Dating website OK Cupid called for a boycott of Mozilla, referring to
opponents of gay marriage as 'our enemies'. At issue was a $1,000
donation Eich had made in 2008 in support of Proposition 8, the ballot
measure to ban gay marriages in California (which passed but was later
struck down by a court).

There was no question that Eich, the technical guru behind JavaScript
and the Firefox browser, was qualified for a senior-management role.
There were no reports of Eich being biased towards colleagues during his
tenure since co-founding the Mozilla Corporation in 2005. In a blog post
written shortly after his appointment as CEO, he expressed the aim of
making Mozilla 'a place of equality and welcome for all', and requested
'the time to "show, not tell"; and in the meantime express my sorrow at
having caused pain'. But Eich did not issue an apology for a donation
made six years prior, nor did he recant his views on gay marriage. And,
because of his failure to do so, he remained unacceptable to his
opponents, who demanded he disappear.

The move to force out Eich appeared so intolerant, so driven by
vengeance, that even some in favour of gay marriage sought to distance
themselves from it. To his credit, Andrew Sullivan, the so-called
'father' of same-sex marriage, wrote: 'Will he now be forced to walk
through the streets in shame? Why not the stocks? The whole episode
disgusts me - as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and
diverse society.'

But there were plenty who rejoiced at Eich's downfall. 'Eich's forced
resignation from Mozilla shows a huge turning point in the acceptance of
gay equality and rights. Not only is it no longer cool to be anti-gay,
but it could cost you your job', says Leanne Pittsford, the founder of
Lesbians Who Teach, in the New York Times. Yes, that's right, Pittsford
believes that getting an executive sacked represents 'acceptance' and
social progress. Christian Rudder, the founder and president of OK
Cupid, revealed that the real victory in taking Eich's scalp was the
threatening message it sent to others: 'My co-founders and I were
conflicted about making an example of any one person. But we wanted to
show the many would-be Eichs out there that when you make life harder or
worse for other people, when you give your money and your time to make
others miserable, you will be called to account by your business partners.'

Such celebrations of intolerance must have made the heroes of free
speech, from Locke to Orwell, spin in their graves. For decades,
liberals and the left were at the forefront of the battle for free
speech. They also highlighted the dangers of witch-hunting and
McCarthyism, which showed that intolerance was more than the denial of
formal, First Amendment-style rights and could include socially enforced
intolerance. But, as the Eich case shows, the identity-politics left of
today leads the inquisition and persecution of those they disagree with.
This is deeply antithetical to the principles of a free society, and
there's nothing progressive or liberal about it. [...]

Sean Collins is a writer based in New York. Visit his blog, The American
Situation.

(5) Indiana pizzeria, against catering Gay weddings, shuts down over
threats; supporters donate $

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2015/04/04/Indiana-pizzeria-against-catering-gay-weddings-collects-over-800000-in-donations/5971428180150/

Indiana pizzeria against catering gay weddings collects over $800,000 in
donations

The pizzeria first came under fire after its owner described
homosexuality as a "choice" and his daughter said they would refuse to
cater a same-sex wedding.

By Fred Lambert

April 4, 2015 at 6:25 PM

INDIANAPOLIS, April 4 (UPI) -- Over $800,000 has been donated to an
Indiana pizzeria that came under fire following comments by its owners
about refusing to cater same-sex weddings due to their religious beliefs.

The owner of Memories Pizza in Walkerton, Ind., Kevin O'Connor, 61,
closed his shop in the wake of several threatening phone calls and
social media posts labeling his business as discriminatory following the
comments, which were made earlier this week.

"If a gay couple was to come and they wanted us to bring pizzas to their
wedding, we'd have to say no," Crystal O'Connor, who co-owns Memories
Pizza, told ABC 57.

"That's a lifestyle that you choose," Kevin O'Connor added. "I choose to
be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. You can't beat me over
the head with something they choose to be."

A flurry of protest quickly erupted on Yelp and Facebook against the
pizzeria, and after a drop in business the O'Connors told reporters they
feared the pizzeria was ruined.

"I hope your business goes under for your inability to see that
Christianity is a religion based on the belief that you should 'love thy
neighbor,'" one Yelp reviewer wrote.

Since then a GoFundMe page set up by staffer's from Dana Loesch's
conservative talk show, The Blaze, has raised $842,592 from 29,166
donors in just two days time. The stated purpose of the page is to
"relieve the financial loss endured by the proprietors' stand for faith."

Lawrence Jones, an opinion contributor on Loesch's show, wrote in a
statement on the page that "the family may never even reopen the doors
to their restaurant as the death threats and vicious online reviews
continue to pour in from the arbiters of 'tolerance.' ... So we set up a
GoFundMe page with the modest goal of $25,000. The intent was to help
the family stave off the burdensome cost of having the media parked out
front, activists tearing them down, and no customers coming in."

The O'Connors made the initial comments in relation to Indiana's equally
controversial Senate Bill 101 -- known as the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act -- which critics say allows businesses to cite religious
beliefs as a valid defense for discriminatory practices.

The law, which passed late last month 40-10, resulted in massive
nationwide protest, leading to corporate boycotts and denouncements from
business leaders such as Apple CEO Tim Cook and the president of the
National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), which is headquartered
in Indianapolis.

The Indiana state legislature revised the bill earlier this week to
include language that Gov. Mike Pence said would "not create a license
to discriminate or to deny services to any individual."

(7) Boys Scouts offcially disallows leaders who are "open and avowed
homosexuals"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America

  The BSA prohibits "open and avowed" gay and lesbian adults from
participation. The BSA takes a similar prohibitive stance toward both
children and adults who are atheist and agnostic, citing its "Duty to
God" principle.[35][36][37][38]

In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale that
Boy Scouts, and all private organizations, have the constitutionally
protected right under the First Amendment of freedom of association to
set membership standards.[39] In 2004, the BSA adopted a new policy
statement, including a "Youth Leadership" policy that disallowed members
to continue in leadership positions in the event they were to hold
themselves out as "open and avowed homosexuals."[40]

At the Scouts annual meeting in April 2012, a leader from the Northeast
presented a resolution that "would allow individual units to accept gays
as adult leaders".[41][42] However in July 2012, at the culmination of a
review started in 2010, an 11-person committee convened by the BSA
reached a "unanimous consensus" recommending retaining the current
policy.[43][44] Intel,[45] UPS,[46] and Merck[47][48] cut financial ties
with the BSA over the policy decision. [...]

This page was last modified on 4 April 2015, at 06:20.

(8) Pro-gay marriage signals seen in U.S. Supreme Court action

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/09/us-usa-court-gaymarriage-idUSKBN0LD23Y20150209

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON Mon Feb 9, 2015 4:19pm EST

Two bride figurines are seen during a rally in response to the
California Supreme Court's ruling regarding Proposition 8 in Hollywood,
California May 26, 2009. REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni

Two bride figurines are seen during a rally in response to the
California Supreme Court's ruling regarding Proposition 8 in Hollywood,
California May 26, 2009.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court's move on Monday to allow
gay marriage to proceed in Alabama is the strongest signal yet that the
justices are likely to rule in June that no state can restrict marriage
to only heterosexual couples.

Of the nine justices, only two - conservatives Clarence Thomas and
Antonin Scalia - dissented from the court's refusal to block gay
weddings from starting in Alabama. Gay marriage is now legal in 37 states.

Thomas acknowledged in a dissenting opinion that the court's move to
allow gay marriages to go ahead "may well be seen as a signal of the
court's intended resolution" as it considers cases from four other
states on whether same-sex marriage bans are permitted under the U.S.
Constitution. Although only two justices publicly dissented, the court
order did not reveal whether any other justices voted to grant the stay.

Oral arguments in the cases, which are expected to result in a
definitive nationwide ruling on the matter, are due in April with a
decision expected by the end of June.

Gay rights groups shared Thomas' view.

Sarah Warbelow, Human Rights Campaign's legal director, said the
justices' action on Alabama "has telegraphed there is virtually zero
risk that they will issue an anti-equality ruling this summer."

The group also told same-sex couples in the 13 states where gay marriage
is still banned to "start your wedding plans now."

Thomas' words echoed Scalia's 2013 dissent from the court's decision to
invalidate a federal law that denied benefits to same-sex couples.
Scalia predicted that the language of Justice Anthony Kennedy's opinion
in that case would give judges a green light to strike down state gay
marriage bans. That's exactly what happened.

At the time of that ruling, only 12 of the 50 states permitted gay
marriage. That number has now hit 37, with federal judges playing the
central role in paving the way for gay marriage in 23 of the 25 states
where it has become legal since then.

As Thomas noted in his dissent, the court's normal practice would have
been to put the Alabama case on hold until it had decided the cases
involving the same-sex marriage bans in Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and
Michigan.

One of the factors the court considers when deciding whether to put a
hold on a lower-court ruling is the "likelihood of success" for the
petitioners if the case were to be appealed.

The court in recent months has denied similar stay requests from other
states, most recently Florida, thus allowing gay marriage to go ahead
even while litigation continues.

Alabama's case was different as it was the first application to be made
after the high court's announcement in January to take the four cases
and settle the matter once and for all.

(This version of the story adds Kentucky to list of four states in
paragraph)

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

(9) Purim book for children features LGBT characters

http://www.deliberation.info/purim-embraces-diversity/

Purim Embraces Diversity

Purim Children Book Goes Lesbian

by Ariadna Theokopoulos on March 11, 2014

The Jewish religious holiday of Purim is around the corner. The Jewish
children are receiving 'The Purim Superhero', a children story book as a
gift from the PJ Library. It's the first Jewish children's book with
LGBT characters.

Elizabeth Kushner, the author of 'The Purim Superhero', is a lesbian
Jewish mother who lives in Vancouver, Canada with her spouse Lise and
daughter. She wrote the book in enter picture book contest held by
Keshet, a Jewish lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
organization - and won the contest.

The book was published by Kar-Ben publishing last year. It's based on
the story of a Jewish boy who turns to his two fathers for advice after
his Hebrew school classmates tell him he cannot dress up as an alien for
Purim.

The PJ Library first decided to donate the book to Jewish families on a
request basis only - in order not to offend the Orthodox (Torah) Jewish
families which still hang-on to the "outdated" belief that homosexual
activity is against the Moses Law (Torah). But after a furious campaign
by the Jewish LGBT groups and the same sex couples with children, the PJ
Library decided to send The Purim Superhero to all.

"As a proud Jewish mother and a proud lesbian, I aim to surround my
children with a rich Jewish life. LGBT families are in synagogues. We
are in Day Schools. We are in Jewish summer camps and Hebrew schools.
Wouldn't it be wonderful for the children you serve with PJ Library to
see us in a book too," Naomi Sunshine wrote to PJ Library, The Jewish
Week, March 6, 2014.

The American conservatives, reform and reconstructionist Jewish
communities all recognize same-sex marriage and allow openly gay and
lesbians to be ordained as rabbis. A 2013 survey carried out by Israel
lobby group, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) found that 71% of
American Jews support same-sex marriage being legalized in America.

Purim (lot) or lottery used by Haman to choose the date for the massacre
of Jews living in Persia - is one of the three most important Jewish
religious holidays (the other being Passover and Chanukah). Purim is
usually celebrated in the month of March (Adar 15) each year. According
to Book of Esther (Magillat in Hebrew)), the Crypto-Jew Queen of Persia,
Esther, pleaded to her husband, King Ahasuerus (who did not know that
his wife was Jewish), to save Jews living in province of Shushan, who
were declared 'disloyal' by King's prime minister Haman. With the
blessings from the King, Queen Esther and her adopted father, Mordechai,
armed the Jews, who killed Haman and his family and carried out
slaughter of over 75,000 Persian (Goyim) civilians. Haman's entire
estate was given to Esther and Mordrchai replaced Haman as country's new
prime minister.

It is not a coincident that American Jewish extremist, Dr. Baruch
Goldstein, founder of Jewish Defense League (JDL), chose Purim 1994, to
murder 40 Muslim worshippers inside Hebron mosque - or Bush ordering the
killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Muslims and Christians (Goyim)
on Purim 2003 (March 18-19, 2003).

This year Purim begins the evening of March 15 and ends at sundown March 16.

(10) 'Marriage Equality' is Destroying 'Traditional Marriage' & that's
good - Carina Kolodny

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/4823812

TheHuffingtonPost.com

Marriage Equality Is Destroying 'Traditional Marriage,' and Why That's a
Good Thing (An Open Letter)

Carina Kolodny

02/20/14 12:35 PM ET

To the enemies of marriage equality:

I definitely never lied. I am much smarter than that. I didn't
perpetuate a fallacy; I just continually failed to correct it.

When your chest inflated and your eyes grew wider and you declared that
"gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage," I let somebody else
tell you that you were wrong.

And when that somebody else -- exhausted from having to defend their
very personhood, tired from battling for their constitutional right to
equality, drained from being persecuted by small men inflating their
arrogant chests -- said to you, "No, marriage equality will not change
traditional marriage," I didn't have the heart to correct them.

For years and years I've strategically bit my tongue.

Had I not, I would have sided with you. I would have agreed with you.
Marriage equality will, in time, fundamentally destroy "traditional
marriage," and I, for one, will dance on its grave.

It's not a terribly difficult conclusion to draw.

As same-sex couples marry, they will be forced to re-imagine many tenets
of your "traditional marriage." In doing so, they will face a series of
complicated questions:

     * Should one of us change our last name? And if so, who?

     * Should we have kids? Do we want to have kids? How do we want to
have kids? Whose last name do our kids take?

     * How about housework, work-work, childcare? How do we assign these
roles equitably? How do we cultivate a partnership that honors each of
our professional and personal ambitions?

As questions continually arise, heterosexual couples will take notice --
and be forced to address how much "traditional marriage" is built on
gender roles and perpetuates a nauseating inequality that has no place
in 2014.

This will eventually lead to an upswing in heterosexual women who do not
take their husbands' names -- after all, are they not just as autonomous
and their families just as significant as their LGBTQ counterparts?

Many same-sex couples won't want to have children, and since they'll
feel less pressure to do what's normative, they won't. An increase in
same-sex couples leading happy lives without children will empower
heterosexual couples to see that not especially wanting children is a
perfectly acceptable reason not to have them. This is fantastic news,
because despite your ridiculous claims, children best thrive in families
where they're wanted.

On the other hand, many same-sex couples will want to have children, and
many will choose to adopt. As same-sex couples with adopted children
build beautiful families, more heterosexual couples will realize the
merits of adoption, and in time, women will not be shamed or limited by
those "ticking biological clocks."

Same-sex couples will split marital responsibilities and roles
differently based solely on circumstance, desire and skill. With a
multitude of workable models, heterosexual couples will feel empowered
to figure out what's right for them instead of being pigeonholed by what
was entrenched by their great-great-great grandparents.

So yes, I told a white lie while soldiering on toward this inevitable
outcome. I bit my lip in favor of dignity and equality -- not just for
the LGBTQ community but for heterosexual women. I have done nothing for
which I am ashamed.

You, on the other hand, told one whopper of a lie. You've been fighting
in the name of "traditional marriage" -- appealing to some misplaced and
backwards nostalgia while blatantly ignoring the traditions and cultural
context in which the institution of marriage was originally conceived.

"Traditional marriage" was not about sanctity or God or even
procreation. "Traditional marriage" was a property agreement that was
entered into by two men.

This country adopted the English law of coverture, which meant
"traditional marriage" was a transfer of a woman's legal rights from her
father to her husband. Traditionally, women abandoned their father's
name and adopted their husband's for no sentimental reason but because
their personhood had been passed in a legal transaction from one man to
another (much like the name on a deed changes when a piece of land is
bought or sold).

When you advocate for "traditional marriage," you are not advocating for
loving partnerships between men and women exclusively -- you are
advocating for a model that has nothing to do with love or mutual
benefit but revolves around the assumption that women are a commodity to
be bought and sold.

I believe that marriage equality will stomp out the remaining misogyny
that you call "tradition." And that's a win, not just for the LGBTQ
community but for heterosexual women and the heterosexual men who see
them as equals.

If that still frightens and upsets you, then at least be honest abut
your true concerns.

You're not really fearful for the welfare of children or the "sanctity"
of marriage -- you are afraid of a world that sees men and women
equally. No more and no less.

Sincerely, Carina

(11) Gay activists admit that their goal is the destruction of the Family

http://www.destroyzionism.com/2014/02/27/subversive-jewess-carina-kolodny-want-destroy-traditional-marriage/

Subversive Jewess Carina Kolodny: “I want to destroy traditional marriage”

Posted by Streicher's Ghost

At Huffington Post, Jewish author Carina Kolodny admits that homosexual
“marriage” – which she euphemistically calls “marriage equality” – is
part of the destruction of traditional, ie. meaningful, marriage, and
she thinks it’s a good thing. Kolodny’s excuse is that marriage has
“misogynistic” roots, but she’s just another Jew at work breaking down
the traditional institutions, structures and norms of her host civilization.

Homosexual Jewish activist Masha Gessen also admitted that her purpose
is the destruction of the family.

(12) Masha Gessen: We fight for Gay Marriage, but we lie about what we
are going to do with Marriage when we get there

http://www.destroyzionism.com/2013/04/19/homosexual-activist-masha-gessen-admits-her-true-purpose-is-to-destroy-marriage/

Homosexual activist Masha Gessen admits her true purpose is to destroy
marriage

Posted by Streicher's Ghost

The hideous Jewish journalist and lesbian activist Masha Gessen admitted
on her radio show that her purpose is not only to allow homosexual
“marriage”, but to destroy marriage as an institution:

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to
marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the
institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage
generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage
when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is
not going to change, and that is a lie.”

“The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change.
And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part
in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in
mind when I came out thirty years ago.”

(13) Gays and pedophiles can be cured, rabbi tells Royal Commission

   KATHERINE TOWERS

   The Australian

   February 14, 2015 12:00AM

THE spiritual head of the ultra-Orthodox Yeshivah community in
Melbourne, who attacked sexual---abuse victims for speaking out to
non-Jewish authorities, claimed yesterday that gays and pedophiles could
be "cured" with time and therapy.

Under intense questioning at the Royal Commission into Institutional
Responses to Child Sexual Abuse over the alleged cover-up of pedophile
activity, Rabbi Zvi Telsner said pedophiles and homosexuals could change
their "way of life".

"There is a certain belief that if someone, for example, after 20 or 25
years, has not committed any offences and all of this time had gone to
therapy, there would be a good possibility that the person may have been
able to change his way of life," he told the commission. "I'm saying
through therapy and through counselling, and if you see that over the
last 20-odd years the person has been able to control themselves being
amongst children, the possibility (is) that he is in control of himself.

"I would say the same thing could happen to someone who was gay, I would
suspect."

The claim came only days after another senior rabbi, Yosef Feldman,
resigned from the board of Sydney's Yeshiva centre after saying he did
not know it was illegal for a man to touch a child's genitals.

In further explosive evidence to the commission yesterday, one of
Australia's leading rabbis, Meir Klugwant, admitted sending a text
message to The Australian Jewish News during last week's evidence by
Zephaniah Wak, the father of an abuse victim. [...]

(14) Homosexuality: Innate Or Acquired?

by Nicholas Dykes

http://nicholasdykes.com/dialogues/homosexuality-innate-or-acquired/

"You were going to describe some reservations you have about the modern
view of homosexuality," said John.

Dr Smith took a deep breath and briefly drummed his fingers on the arm
of his chair.

"Yes. But, to begin with, I must stress that I'm far from being an
expert in this area. I've only ever read about the subject, I've never
had a homosexual client, at least, not one I knew about. Second, I'm
pretty open-minded about it. I'm certainly not antagonistic towards
homosexuals. Live and let live has always been my motto.

"That said, I do have reservations about the modern view that
homosexuality is a normal human variation. To me, both as a scientist
and as an ordinary heterosexual male, it seems self-evident that it is
not normal. The trouble is, its normality has become the politically
correct view, and you can get into trouble nowadays for expressing
opposing views. In some contexts, it's become almost heretical to
criticize the received wisdom.

"Anyhow, my first reservation concerns the fact that homosexuality is a
highly complex subject, with many different facets. It's not one single
thing, with one single explanation, or one single cause.

"For instance, it's clear enough that there are different kinds of
homosexuality. I can think immediately of half a dozen. There are
environmental, hedonistic, fashionable, cultural and adolescent
varieties, and that's not to speak of the physiological or psychological
issues which may form the core of the matter.

"The environmental forms are obvious enough. We are sexual beings, it's
part of our nature, and the sexual impulse doesn't cease in the absence
of the opposite sex. Rather, the remaining sex, deprived of its natural
expression, may seek solace with its own kind. Thus homosexuality and
lesbianism have never been unknown in celibate male and female religious
orders, in monasteries or convents, in harems, single sex military
units, male-only naval vessels, prisoner-of-war camps, ordinary prisons,
single-sex boarding schools, and so on. Are these occurrences normal? Of
course not. It is precisely the abnormal circumstances which create the
potential for homosexual activity.

"Constraints on ordinary male/female unions can also bring about
homosexuality. It has always been commonplace throughout the Muslim
world, for example, due to strictly enforced religious barriers between
the sexes and men being allowed four wives, which creates a shortage of
women.

"Hedonistic versions have been known throughout history as well. They
stem from ignoring the mental and emotional aspects of sex and regarding
sexual pleasure as purely physical, so that it doesn't particularly
matter how the pleasure is obtained. Libertines have often been
notorious for indiscriminate affairs with either sex.

"Fashions too, have sometimes led to homosexual activity. Having a
lesbian affair was once all the rage in some circles in New York, or so
I've been told, and certainly sophisticates in London, Paris, Peking and
elsewhere have indulged in same-sex dalliances across the centuries.

"The Ancient Greeks were famous, of course, or infamous if you prefer,
for encouraging young men to have love affairs with prepubescent boys,
but I read somewhere that there was an underlying practicality involved:
birth control.

"Homosexuality can besides happen out of curiosity, 'I wonder what it's
like' sort of thing. It can also occur during adolescence, when sexual
feelings and emotions are developing, bodies are changing, hormones are
firing off all over the pace, and same sex 'crushes' can come about.
Intense friendships are common during adolescence and, sometimes,
particularly when combined with curiosity, can lead to experiments with
homosexual or lesbian sex.

"Further, girls have been known to 'play marriage' and 'practice' on one
another. Casanova mentions it in the Venice of his day and I've been
informed it sometimes occurs in all-girl boarding schools.

"Youthful rebelliousness, the desire to shock, is another possible
cause, as is sheer naughtiness, the flouting of taboos. However, such
things tend to be short-lived and of little significance, though tastes
acquired when young, amongst other things, can contribute to the
phenomenon of bisexuality.

"Turning back to adults, an ignorant or insensitive husband can also
drive a woman into the arms of one of her own kind. I've been told
lesbian love can be very tender and sensual. A woman who has known
little or no pleasure with a boorish husband, yet finds it with another
woman, might readily come to believe that she is 'in fact' a lesbian.

"Anyway, to conclude here, it is plain enough that you cannot declare
something to be normal when you could be talking about many different
phenomena."

John frowned.

"But in most of the instances you've mentioned it's been largely a
question of experimentation, or 'for want of anything better,' hasn't
it? It's been surrogate sex, not a true homosexuality. It might not have
happened if circumstances had been different. Nowadays, though, when
people talk about homosexuality, they're referring to sexual
orientation, something you're born with. That's what they mean by
normal; that it's a natural occurrence, a human variation, leading to an
alternative lifestyle."

"Yes, I'm just getting to that," answered Dr Smith. "You see, my second
reservation concerns evolution. In evolutionary terms, the idea of
homosexuality being normal simply cannot be correct. No mammalian
species could survive if the male and female roles were in any way
optional. And, in point of fact, evolution made sure that male was
attracted to female and vice versa. Plainly then, from a biological
point of view, homosexuality is an aberration, it is not normal. Even
homosexuals themselves acknowledge this when they refer to the rest of
us as straight.

"Nonetheless, I'm fully prepared to accept that some people may be born
that way. I mean, there's a disorder of some sort, often several, for
virtually every biological system and aspect of the human body, from the
hair on our heads to our toenails, and everything in between. Problems
certainly occur in reproductive organs and in the physiological systems
which control them. So it's perfectly possible that homosexuality, and I
include lesbianism, may in some cases be explained physiologically - the
person in question is just wired up differently. That said, I'm
personally convinced that such cases would be rare, as rare as
hermaphroditism is, for instance.

"But the bottom line when talking about possible physiological
explanations for homosexuality is that human diseases and disorders are
not the norm. The vast majority of people are normal and healthy.
Illness and physiological defects are the abnormal."

"What about genetics?" John interrupted. "Haven't scientists now
demonstrated a genetic basis for homosexuality?"

"Some think they have, yes, and I freely accept it as a possibility in
some cases. But, to me, thinking in evolutionary terms, the genetic
explanation doesn't make any long term sense. Since true homosexuals
don't normally breed, the gene would vanish in a single generation. Even
if the defective gene reappeared regularly, it would disappear just as
quickly each time. Isn't that a rather obvious flaw in the genetic
hypothesis?"

"Artificial insemination would overcome it though," observed John. "That
would perpetuate the gene."

"True. But the word 'artificial' makes my case. It's not normal!"

"Yes, of course," John grinned, then became serious again. "What about
those anthropological or sociological studies I've heard about which
state that there is always a percentage of homosexuals in every society?"

"Well, like you, I've heard about them, but no more than that. I'd need
to read them, find out about the authors, and study the methods used.
Some reports rather strongly suggested exaggeration to me, or jumping to
conclusions, or perhaps even wishful thinking. For example, an
anthropologist I did read found just one homosexual in a tribe of many
thousands in South America. That's a minuscule percentage. Yet I've
heard mention of supposedly scientific findings that ten percent or more
of men are homosexual. Well, purely on the basis of my own experience of
clinical practice I'd never accept that as factual. I simply do not
believe it. I'd want to check the methodology minutely and I'm pretty
sure I'd find faults in it."

The two men, older and younger, counsellor and client, fell silent for a
minute or two.

"But how do you explain homosexuality then?" asked John eventually. "I
mean, it may only effect a minority, but it's not exactly rare is it? If
you reject genetics, what does cause it?"

"Well, as I said at the outset, I haven't studied the matter closely.
Nevertheless, from my admittedly limited reading and experience, I'm
convinced that the older, no longer fashionable view, is the correct
one, that homosexuality is usually psychological in origin.

"It's true that zoologists have observed homosexual behaviour in some
animal species, but not in the exclusive sense you find among humans. It
would fly in the face of evolution if it occurred. By exclusive, I mean
the homosexual who turns his or her back on the opposite sex, and who is
revolted by, or impervious to, the prospect of normal sexual intercourse
and relationships, and avoids them on a lifetime basis.

"So, what makes the difference between the homosexual play of some
animals and the exclusive human homosexual? In my opinion, it is the
mind, with its long, slow development, its dependence on choice, its
potential for osmotic or unconscious learning, and the unperceived
influence of the subconscious on personal choices.

"Another factor is emotional sensitivity. It's my belief that
homosexuals are extra-sensitive people, that's why there are, relatively
speaking, so many in the arts.

"Anyhow, there are many factors which might, or could, derail normal
sexual development in a sensitive person: fears based on childish
misunderstandings about sex; fear of the opposite sex's mysterious
genitals; an overbearing mother or father; shocking childhood encounters
or traumas, such as sexual abuse; even revenge for real or imagined
adult wrongdoings of a nonsexual kind. All these can, or could, play a
part in turning what would otherwise have been a normal person into a
homosexual. Self-esteem problems are yet another factor, such as fear of
proving sexually incompetent, or the belief that one is ugly or undesirable.

"My own conclusion is, therefore, that while it may be an inborn
phenomenon in some people, most exclusive homosexuality is a
psychological issue, one which could be resolved, or cured if you
prefer, by psychotherapy, if the person really wanted and was prepared
to make the effort. Consequently, I'm confident that, in the majority of
cases, homosexuality is a chosen path. You're not born a homosexual, you
become one."

"Not a popular point of view today."

"No. But it seems like common sense to me," Dr Smith replied, smiling.
"However, the view of homosexuality as a natural orientation - that
people are just born that way - has become more or less standard
nowadays and I suspect that some young people are being led, or misled,
down a path they had no need to follow. Fleeting attractions during
puberty, combined perhaps with an unsuitable or unhappy environment -
such as a single-sex boarding school or a broken home - could cause
young people influenced by modern ideas to assume they are homosexual.
Couple that perhaps with possible nervousness about the opposite sex and
the sexual act - plus the fact that homosexuality is the easy way out in
such contexts - and a totally unnecessary homosexual episode, or a
lifetime of homosexuality may ensue.

"All that said, let me reiterate that I, personally, am not antagonistic
towards homosexuals. I am completely tolerant of them. I say 'tolerant'
because I don't know any. But I certainly don't want to see them mocked
or mistreated or persecuted. Not at all, live and let live. Just don't
try and tell me their way of life is normal. It isn't."

"It's quite a relief to hear you talk like this," said John. "I think
you've pretty much said what I have felt, but have never put into words.
That business about political correctness really struck a chord. I had a
friend at school who thought he was gay because he loved working out
with weights and admired the other guys' bodies in the gym. I told him
not to be such an ass. If you want to be Mr Universe, muscley bodies are
what you admire. But his head was full of what he'd heard or read about
being born gay so he wouldn't listen. Fortunately for him, he was
seduced by a buxom blonde at his sister's 21st birthday party and became
the most incredibly enthusiastic stud overnight. And of course he had
the body for it."

Dr Smith joined in John's laughter.

"My sister, who's a writer," Dr Smith went on shortly; "and very fussy
about the precise use of words, can't stand people using the word 'gay'
to mean homosexual. 'Gay' used to mean carefree enjoyment, she says. It
was one of the most expressive and pleasing words in the English
language. 'It's a tragedy that the word has been expropriated by a
minority who have no particular reason to call themselves 'gay,' she
said to me last time I saw her. 'If you mean homosexual, say homosexual.
Using a euphemism doesn't change anything.' She thinks we should all
revert to using 'gay' in its old sense, to describe jollity or innocent
fun, and start talking again about going to gay parties and having a gay
old time. 'Let's get our word back,' she said."

"My father would agree with that!" John grinned.

"Well, it may not be too late. But, whatever, to me, using the word
'gay' to describe homosexuals does seem to support the psychological
case I've been making. Euphemisms are employed when people wish to avoid
awkward subjects; or want to deflect attention; or seek to disguise
their meaning, or don't want to confront the truth about things. All of
which issues are psychological at root."

(15) Searching for Gayness in Nature: "Even the birds and the bees do it"

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/just_how_natural_is_homosexuality/13918

HOW NATURAL IS HOMOSEXUALITY?
The anti-human undertones of searching for gayness in nature.

CRAIG FAIRNINGTON

Spiked online

13 AUGUST 2013

‘Homosexuality is found in over 450 species; homophobia is found in only
one. Which one seems unnatural now?’

Spend long enough on social media, internet forums, or real-world Pride
marches and you’re likely to come across the above meme in some form or
another. Faced with opponents who denounce homosexuality as unnatural,
it provides a pithy rejoinder to end an argument. It goes something like
this: You think being gay is wrong because it’s against nature? Well,
guess what? Even the birds and the bees do it.

This argument and its basis – the naturalness of homosexuality – have
become the key motif of the gay-rights movement. Indeed, such is its
prevalence that it now often dominates political discussion and popular
culture. From the well-worn example of Lady Gaga’s ‘Born This Way’, to
the plaintive ‘I can’t change’ from the chorus of Macklemore’s pro-gay
marriage song, ‘Same Love’, to a recent Australian TV advert in which a
mother-to-be is informed at her ultrasound that she’s ‘having a
lesbian’, the message is clear - you can’t help being gay.

Even many of those who find homosexuality immoral, or oppose gay
marriage, accept that homosexuality is innate. The Catholic Church’s
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published Persona Humana in
1975, which acknowledges that homosexuals possess ‘some kind of innate
instinct’. Later statements from the Catholic Church steer clear of this
phrasing, but still acknowledge ‘deep-seated’ homosexual tendencies.
Among religious supporters of gay rights, the same logic holds. For
example, the Bishop of Salisbury wrote recently in support of gay
marriage, saying that it did not detract from heterosexual marriage
‘unless we think that homosexuality is a choice rather than the given
identity of a minority of people’.

The desire to prove that homosexuality is natural spurs great interest
in scientific research into the area. Simon Le Vay’s 1991 paper, which
demonstrated differences in brain structure between homosexual and
heterosexual men, was seen by many to prove that being gay wasn’t a
choice, an interpretation Le Vay himself rejected. In 1993, another
academic paper brought us the ‘gay gene’, an idea that has prompted
ferocious arguments ever since. And little wonder: any study which looks
at what might cause homosexuality is jumped on and discussed by the
media as possible proof of the inalienability of being gay, even when
the research itself is more reticent in its conclusions. The gay gene
has gone somewhat out of fashion, but pre-natal hormones, birth order,
epigenetics, evolutionary theories and MRI scans are all just part of
the arsenal which is brought to bear on the thorny and elusive question
of why there are homosexuals.

So the message is clear: nature makes homosexuals (though we’re not
quite sure how, yet), so denying homosexuals rights is wrong. The
pervasiveness of this message throughout our culture means that even
those who remain ‘enemies’ on issues such as gay marriage can generally
be won over to the idea of gayness being innate. So, all in all, it’s
been a victory for gay-rights proponents.

All good, right? Well, maybe not. The first issue is the massive amount
of ground that the naturalness argument concedes to the opponents of gay
rights. It is understandable to want to rebut the ‘being gay isn’t
natural’ argument, but the way many gay-rights campaigners have chosen
to do so commits the exact same error as their opponents: the mistaken
idea that morality has anything to do with what’s natural. Change the
subject of the opening quote above to, say, cannibalism, and the idea
that we should look to nature and animals as a guide to what humans
should be doing becomes obviously absurd. Being gay’s unnatural? So what?

Of course, the naturalness of homosexuality isn’t the only reason
gay-rights campaigners think it’s okay. But it’s clearly the idea that
has the most cultural purchase today. The idea that people should be
free to organise their lives as they see fit is often sacrificed at the
altar of the argument: ‘they can’t help it.’

The dominance of the naturalness argument means that those who undermine
it are at strong risk of censure. Sex and the City star Cynthia Nixon
was criticised and described as ‘incredibly irresponsible’ for daring to
suggest that she, personally, had chosen to be gay. ‘Glad to be Gay’
singer Tom Robinson faced anger and accusations of betrayal when he fell
in love and married a woman in the early 1980s. We tie ourselves in
knots trying to explain away those who ‘change teams’, having spent most
of their lives happily heterosexual or homosexual. We provide them with
excuses: perhaps they were naturally bisexual all along, or gay but in
denial? Anything to avoid having to suggest that there might be an
element of choice in sexuality.

Perhaps gay-rights campaigners are right to be worried. Look back at
that quote from the Bishop of Salisbury: he is saying that gay marriage
is okay ‘unless we think that homosexuality is a choice’. Well, thanks,
bishop: rights for gays unless they actually want to be gay. This is the
attitude the pro-gay naturalness argument seeks to cosy up to; and, in
the process, it tries to make homosexual behaviour less threatening to
social mores. Gays are to be objects of pity rather than of hatred. This
was particularly important when fighting Section 28 (the Eighties law
against promoting homosexuality) to assure those fearful of
homosexuality that being taught about it couldn’t possibly lead to
someone choosing to be gay.

Gone is the idea that the capacity to choose to be gay might be
something positive, that it’s good that people no longer have to live in
a way that is restricted by crude biological and social roles if they
don’t want to. Rather than try to create a society in which people are
free to love who they want, the naturalness argument has only served to
create more boxes in which to place people, to define their roles.
You’re straight, she’s a lesbian, he’s bisexual – and woe betide those
who wander off the narrow path ascribed to them, lest they undermine the
rights so precariously won.

The ‘born this way’ argument completely erases the human social world.
It ignores the fact that homosexual behaviour has taken on many forms
throughout history and through different societies. It downplays our
ability to control our own lives, or our ability to reshape our society.
It views people (ironically, gays in particular) as unthinking beasts,
slaves to their nature-given desires. And, as such, it chimes with the
deterministic temper of our times. It suggests that we are fated to be
who we are, that we have no capacity for self-determination.

For a young person experiencing homosexual desire for the first time, to
want to blame it on nature is perhaps understandable in the face of a
society in which being gay can still carry risks and condemnation. But
to make that reaction to fear a cornerstone of a rights movement is
wrongheaded - it is our duty to demand something more; to try to shape a
society in which people can and do experience their sexuality as choices
freely made, rather than burdens foisted upon them.

To point at a ‘gay’ animal as proof that being gay is okay is demeaning.
It takes a whole gamut of profoundly human emotion and experience, it
takes the love one can have for another person of the same sex, and
reduces it to the level of a rutting beast. What’s positive about that?

Craig Fairnington is online resources manager of the Institute of Ideas.
Follow him on Twitter: @craigfair

Contact Nick nick@nicholasdykes.com

(16) Gay Marriage campaign is like China's Cultural Revolution

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/Gay_marriages_echoes_of_the_Cultural_Revolution/13760

Gay Marriage’s Echoes Of The Cultural Revolution

SEAN COLLINS

Politicians publicly renouncing their former beliefs, the youth raging
against the elderly... the SSM campaign has eerie echoes of history.

SPIKED

1 JULY 2013

The campaign for gay marriage in the US is starting to resemble the
Cultural Revolution in Mao’s China. Politicians denouncing their own
prior beliefs, people hounding others to recant, the young being upheld
as morally superior to the ‘backward’ older generation… it all feels
worryingly familiar.

According to the new orthodoxy, we will not have a gay-marriage debate,
because you don’t argue with bigotry and homophobia. The most prominent
supporters of same-sex marriage (SSM) in the US today - establishment
voices from the New York Times to Democratic Party politicians - do not
engage with views from the other side; they dismiss them as hateful.
Pro-SSM campaigners are trying to make expressions of support for
traditional marriage, or the questioning of full marriage rights for
gays, appear as beyond the pale as Jim Crow and Holocaust denial.

With its decisions last week, the US Supreme Court added its
considerable weight to the movement to silence those who uphold the
historical understanding of marriage. In striking down the 1996 Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA), the Court’s 5-4 majority divined that the only
motive for the act was a ‘bare… desire to harm a politically unpopular
group’. In other words, in passing this act Congress was driven by
irrational hostility to gays, nothing more.

In its written opinion, the majority does not even consider the
arguments provided by the law’s proponents. As Justice Antonin Scalia
noted in his dissent, to do so would have made it ‘harder to maintain
the illusion of the act’s supporters as unhinged members of [a]
wild-eyed lynch mob’. Like the campaigners, the Supreme Court is now
arguing that any defence of the traditional view of marriage is
inherently malicious.

In addition to quashing dissent, what makes the gay-marriage campaign a
dark kind of Cultural Revolution is its white-washing and distortion of
history. SSM advocates face an obstacle in their attempt to make
‘traditional marriage equals bigotry’ an unquestioned dogma: it flies in
the face of the historical record and experience. It was not so long ago
that many reasonable people espoused a conventional view of marriage,
and in no way could they be said to be animated by hatred towards gays.
And so today’s gay-marriage campaigners are forced, like Maoists of the
past, to rewrite history to have it conform with today’s new party line.

What makes the gay marriage campaign a dark kind of Cultural Revolution
is its white-washing and distortion of history

For example, in 1996, DOMA was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan
majority (342 members of the House and 85 Senators), and signed by a
Democratic president (Bill Clinton). And at the time, only about a
quarter of Americans polled were in favour of gay marriage. Yet today,
the Supreme Court and gay-marriage campaigners are effectively saying
the country was stricken with a mass outbreak of gay-hating madness at
the time.

Politicians over the past year or so have felt compelled to recant their
prior beliefs regarding marriage. Most famously, President Barack Obama
announced in May 2012 that his view ‘evolved’ into support for SSM. Now,
Democratic Party leaders hope no one dwells on their jettisoning of
recently held positions. When the Supreme Court decided to strike down
DOMA as a violation of the Constitution, Bill and Hillary Clinton hailed
its move, conveniently omitting that Bill himself signed it into law,
and that both praised the act at the time and years after. Today, the
line pushed by Obama and the Clintons amounts to: if you hold the
position I did a few months ago, you are an inhumane bigot. For all
Obama’s talk about ‘evolving’, it’s actually a very abrupt and radical
about-turn that he and others are advocating.

This is not considered a matter of individual conscience. No, for the
past year Democrats have come under tremendous pressure to get with the
programme. The Huffington Post has been on a crusade to name and shame
those who do not fall in step. And in a ritual-like process, on an
almost daily basis over the past year politician after politician has
announced that they have seen the light and have renounced their former
bigotry. Demonstrating a remarkable obedience to the new line, all but
three Democratic Party senators have embraced same-sex marriage. But
even that’s not enough, apparently: as the Guardian asks of the three
holdouts, ‘Why won’t they toe the party line?’.

Aside from the lemming-like conformism, there’s another aspect to the
gay-marriage conversion process that is creepily reminiscent of the
Cultural Revolution: the appeal to the young as a font of purity and
wisdom. All the time we are told we must kowtow to young people’s views
on gay marriage above those held by the older generation. Politicians
from Obama to Republican Senator Rob Portman tell us that their children
led them to change their positions.

More generally, the turn to youth as the source of moral authority is
another way of shutting down discussion; it’s about saying ‘young people
are overwhelmingly in favour, it’s only a matter of time, it is futile
to resist, you are going against history, etc’. On many topics, we might
say young people are misguided, that they are too inexperienced or
immature to know what’s right, and that their views are likely to change
as they grow up. But with same-sex marriage, we’re all supposed to bow
down to the youth, and nod along as they lecture their elders about what
unenlightened relics they all are.

The media drumbeat is that most Americans now support same-sex marriage,
and that its realisation nationally, especially after the Supreme Court
decisions, is ‘inevitable’. But this line itself is part of the
campaign’s propaganda strategy, and the media have willingly gone along
with it. Two weeks ago, a Pew survey found that media stories supportive
of SSM outnumbered those opposed by a five to one – a ratio a state
media controller might be proud of. Momentum in society towards
acceptance of gay marriage is undoubtedly increasing, but in the midst
of the rush to make it a fait accompli, it is worth pointing out that 35
of the 50 states have bans on gay marriage, and polls show that about 40
to 45 per cent nationally remain opposed.

Reasonable people can disagree on the substantive question of whether
marriage law should include gay and lesbian couples. But our Cultural
Revolutionaries don’t see any reasonable opponents. Instead of
recognising that this is a complicated and relatively new issue, with
various constituencies having legitimate concerns and the public
essentially divided, the gay marriage campaigners tell us it is all very
simple – either you jump on the train of history, or you’re a bigot.

Many hope that the eventual outcome will be a pragmatic accommodation
from both sides, and a more live-and-let-live attitude. But when you see
people dishonestly scrambling to revise history, and elevating youth
above the older generations to try to eradicate any remnant of the past,
you get the sense that gay marriage is not a typical issue, and its
proponents might not rest until we all recant our supposed historical
bigotry.

Sean Collins is a writer based in New York. Visit his blog, The American
Situation.