By Alisa Craddock
An article in last week's Time Magazine highlighted one of the more recent efforts of homosexuals to gain acceptance for homosexuality. The article is entitled "Yep, They're Gay," by John Cloud, and concerns rams that exhibit same sex behavior. The story of the "gay" sheep isn't new, it's the recent involvement by PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) who were under the mistaken impression that researchers were killing the "gay" sheep so they could study their brains to see if they could learn how to turn them "straight" (which, as it turns out, is not what the researchers were doing after all, if you even buy into the idea of "gay" sheep in the first place). This article follows on the heels of a Times Online article concerning an exhibit at the Natural History Museum at Oslo, Norway featuring "gay" animals and a New York Times article about orphaned male elephants raping and killing rhinos.
I have anticipated with a sense of dread the long-expected push by homosexuals to advance their agenda under the friendly banner of a Democrat controlled Congress. With the number of sissy RINOs we've got in Congress who are "in bed" with the Donkeys, I feel it's only a matter of time before what little progress was made in the last Congress is repealed. Though the Dems were not so far successful using the lobbying reform bill in silencing grass-roots conservatives from participating in their government, the homofascists among us are eagerly anticipating legislation that will effectively nullify the First Amendment. Their objectives include a [transsexual]-inclusive Employment Non-Discrimination Act, overturning the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy, and most of all, the coveted hate crimes law which will be used to silence all criticism of the homosexual lifestyle while they force-feed it to you at work and your children in school as "tolerance" training. I expect the RINOs to roll over for that one.
Homosexuals have already been very successful in forcing schools and businesses to adopt policies that protect them from criticism, even when they make an issue of provoking such criticism through actions and behavior most people don't wish to have shoved in their faces at work or at school. When a homosexual talks about feeling "safe", it rarely means safe from abuse, since most people aren't interested in harassing or abusing homosexuals just doing their jobs or attending their classes. No, "safe" in these circumstances means "safe" to be out, safe to promote one's gay point of view and goals without suffering the criticism of others who see through the propaganda or who find their behavior immoral. Safe means enforcing universal acceptance of homosexuality as a lifestyle, a culture, and perhaps as a genetic "variety" of the species homo sapiens.
That propaganda has been carefully cultivated, and is easily revealed for what it is: a well crafted strategy of marketing. In his article "Selling Homosexuality to America" published in the Regent University Law Review, Paul Rondeau describes in detail the ingenious means by which homosexuality was marketed and sold to America, how they have called the shots in determining how the debate is framed, and the means that are used to silence opposition. (A nice [short] review of his article by Matt Kaufman is available entitled "Selling Homosexuality" and provides a synopsis of some of the salient points of the Rondeau piece.) One of the most effective methods the homosexual movement has employed is that of demonizing those who object morally to the spread of homosexuality and the enforced acceptance of it. This is by design, as Kaufman points out, and is outlined in Kirk and Madsen's book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer It's Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's. "Jam homohatred [i.e., opposition to homosexuality] by linking it to Nazi horror"…treat detractors like "Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered," "hysterical backwoods preachers," and "menacing punks," and remind people often of the "Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed." In addition to demonizing all those who balk at the normalization of homosexuality, gays were to be portrayed as "pillars of the community."
I have found most of my contacts with gay activists to be well-immersed, whether knowingly or not, in the Kirk and Madsen method, though most are not so "rational". Now, knowing all of this, I am naturally skeptical when I read anything "proving" a homosexual claim, so when an irate Canadian reader wrote to me recently out of the blue (I haven't posted a column since a week after the US elections) concerning some of my "uniformed" [sic] opinions regarding homosexuality and the "gay" agenda, and sent me the story about the Oslo exhibit, there were no surprises. It was very typical of the kind of emails I have gotten in the past, telling me how hateful I am, how sorry he feels for me and any children I might have, how I have the blood of dead gay children on my hands, and wishing I would die before I can harm any more children with my hateful ideas. It seemed he was desperately, frustratingly trying to evoke a hateful response from me. I nevertheless gave my usual calm, reasoned response, which always, unfortunately, elicits from these guys the kind of reaction you would expect from Beelzebub when you throw holy water on his face and intone "THE POWER OF CHRIST COMPELS YOU!!"
It is disturbing how consistent the peculiar perverseness of thought processes is, and not just from homosexuals, but from others who have been immersed in this subjective kind of group-think. "Diabolical disorientation" is the phrase some in the Church have used to describe the mental and spiritual state of much of the world. In his homily in Denver, Colorado in 1993, John Paul II remarked that "Vast sectors of society are confused about what is right and what is wrong, and are at the mercy of those with the power to ``create'' opinion and impose it on others." This is being accomplished through our schools, whose "education" policies, where social and civic issues are concerned, long ago switched to the Soviet model, which is mass behavioral engineering. Ergo, "diversity" policies, hate crimes legislation that targets "hate speech", misuse of sexual harassment laws to enforce acceptance of institutionally protected deviance in the school and workplace, "safe" schools programs, and so forth, all designed to teach you what you have to think to be acceptable in this brave new global culture.
That is the great gift of Communism to our world. In order to impose such a system, you must destroy the distinction between right and wrong so that you can redefine each according to a new model that serves the interests of the ruling elite. It is the antithesis of charity, when everyone is afraid to speak the truth for fear of punishment—in our case, fear of the loss of livelihood is the weapon of choice for subduing the moral outrage and popular dissent. In its extreme form (under Stalin), neighbor reported on neighbor and a thoughtless word, a careless act such as covering the newsprint image of a prominent Soviet leader became offenses punishable by 10 years in prison. Are we headed down a similar road now?
Though I want to make clear I am not laying the responsibility for our current state of moral chaos at the feet of homosexuals, who are mere pawns in the globalist schemes of our invisible elite, nevertheless the attempt of "gay" activists (whose militant efforts are nothing short of fascist, viciously anarchist, and utterly self-serving) to disguise moral anarchy as "reason" and "tolerance" has become increasingly desperate as more people become aware of the terrible consequences of homosexuality, both to the individuals who practice it, and the society upon which it takes hold. Ordinarily I would not have written about my "hate" mail, but this most recent correspondent sent me the article about the Oslo exhibit concerning homosexuality in animals, and I think it merits some comment.
The article was presented to me as "proof" against the assertions by those opposed to the "gay" agenda that it is "against nature". This is the latest "rationalization" used by "gay" activists to support tolerance of homosexuality—that homosexuality is indeed found in nature, and is therefore not against nature, but is quite natural. (It used to be a "gift from God" or a "higher form of love", but that's another story.) In our secular humanist world, we are just another animal among the animals, which has become the rationalization for a great many atrocities, such as abortion, infanticide, assisted suicide, some outrageous forms of genetic research—its all part of the population control agenda, and so is the world's utilization of homosexuality to promote "sterile" sex. I have, in fact, had a gay activist tell me that homosexuality was "nature's way" of controlling population. I don't know if it's nature's way, but in 1969 Planned Parenthood advocated the encouragement of homosexuality as one of the methods of controlling human population. (1969, Frederick Jaffe, Vice-President of Planned Parenthood-World Population. "Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the U.S." contained a memo to Population Council president Bernard Berelson, with examples of methods to reduce U.S. population, which included encouraging increased homosexuality, in addition to using fertility control agents in water supply, encouraging women to work outside the home, making abortion and sterilization available on demand, and ensuring that contraception be made available and accessible to all.)
There were no pictures posted with this Times Online article, but the author made reference to a 1999 book entitled Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, by Bruce Bagemihl, Ph.D. (Illustrated by John Megahan), which has a great many pictures, the most graphic of which were drawings. The photographs were, more often than not, less revealing of what was going on, compared with the drawings. (In other words, if the author didn't tell you it was two males in the picture, you wouldn't be able to tell, nor was the evidence of the activity conclusive from the photos).
The only real "exuberance" I found was the exuberance of yet another gay activist excited at the thought of anyone or anything else engaging in unconventional sex, and racing to a questionable scientific conclusion about it. I am not qualified to evaluate the quality of Dr. Bagemihl's research to determine how many of his conclusions, as with the outcome-based research of so many gay activist/scientists (or those who write about their research), might indicate a predetermined result for any or all evidence of erotic relationships between same sex pairs, but I am skeptical, having noted the blatantly unscientific means by which homosexuality was demedicalized in the first place, the continued reliance on the roundly discredited research of Alfred Kinsey, and other non-reproducible studies as "authoritative" research, not to mention the self-serving conclusions of "gay" historians about historical figures who they claim (on desperately imaginative evidence) were "gay" (another tactic advised by Kirk and Madsen. The dead ones can't argue…). Dr. Bagemihl himself said that he researched and wrote this book because "the implications for humans are enormous", and indeed they are, for his work on animal homosexuality was used in the Lawrence v. Texas case to defend homosexual sodomy as natural.
But for the sake of argument, let's say Dr. Bagemihl is completely objective and dispassionate, and that his conclusions are scientifically valid. SO WHAT! Animals steal each others' food and lodgings. Animals kill and eat each others young. Some animals kill their mates. Some rape the females in their colonies or others'. And most animals with a biological urge to mate, or to establish a pecking order, and driven by instinct rather than rational thought, will masturbate or "hump' or fawn on others of their species, or even other species, regardless of sex. I remember when I was about 12, I was playing on my hands and knees with a young neighbor on the grass, and her cross-breed, female collie came up, wrapped her forelegs around my waist and started humping on me—Ah ha! Cross-species lesbianism! What would Dr. Bagemihl conclude about that? More to the point, is this behavior humans should use to rationalize their own?
Even if the complex relationships Bagemihl describes really do exist, and I am willing to concede that they might, what exactly does it prove? That homosexuals are born that way? No. It doesn't. It doesn't even prove that animals were "born that way." Animal behavior is certainly not a model for human behavior, and animal behavior is not made more like human behavior by imprinting human motivations upon it. But most of all, we are not animals. We are human beings with free will, made in the image and likeness of our Creator. Oh, you don't believe in God? Fine, but explain this: If we are nothing more than animals, then why do our civilizations always collapse when we begin to act like animals? Civilization is, by its very nature, a rejection of animality. Human civilization, in fact, requires us to reject it. It requires morality (including sexual morality) for growth and sustainability.
No one has a problem understanding that human beings are different than animals when it comes to such things as stealing or killing. When these things happen, we recognize that there has been a breakdown somewhere. We recognize and embrace the wisdom of our forebears who taught us that our persons and property are inviolable. Yet when it comes to sexual issues, we put it into a separate class. We discard their time-tested wisdom, calling it male chauvinism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry, religious fanaticism, or fascism. But don't you think sexual morals came about the same way other morals did? They are either commandments of God (with consequences for disobeying them) or the result of trial and error (with consequences for ignoring them).
As for the "gay" sheep? Dr. N. E. Whitehead (biochemist and author of My Genes Made Me Do It) offered a much more plausible explanation for the rams' behavior a few years ago in an article entitled "Is ram behaviour evidence of "natural" homosexuality?" , an objective, scientific explanation without all the self-serving conclusions found in so many observations by homosexuals with an agenda.
Compare Dr. Whitehead's observations about same sex behavior of animals to these offered by Dr. Petter Brockmann, the scientific advisor of the Oslo exhibit, about the behavior of bonobos, a chimpanzee-like species of ape with a matriarchal society that uses frequent, brief sexual stimulation to diffuse tensions and create social bonds:
"Their whole life revolves around sex," Brockman explains. "They will throw themselves into group sex and gender doesn't seem to be relevant. Even children will give a helping hand."
I shudder to think of this as a model of the gay "family", but it does starkly show the tendency of the writer to impose human, sex and sexuality-obsessed, gay motivations on animal behavior, and I find his enthusiasm over it is disturbing. I would question whether the "children" were motivated by sexual desire or social behavior specific to bonobos, but I suspect it would take a more objective viewpoint than Brockmann's to determine that.
But there is another factor to consider in all of this. When it comes to deviant sex, animal behavior does not hold a candle to human behavior, as author Dennis Prager once pointed out:
"Human sexuality, especially male sexuality, is polymorphous, or utterly wild (far more so than animal sexuality). Men have had sex with women and with men; with little girls and young boys; with a single partner and in large groups; with total strangers and immediate family members; and with a variety of domesticated animals. They have achieved orgasm with inanimate objects such as leather, shoes, and other pieces of clothing, through urinating and defecating on each other…by dressing in women's garments; by watching other human beings being tortured; by fondling children of either sex; by listening to a woman's disembodied voice (e.g., "phone sex"); and, of course, by looking at pictures of bodies or parts of bodies. There is little, animate or inanimate, that has not excited some men to orgasm."
So using animal homosexuality as some sort of validation ultimately becomes a validation for all forms of sexual expression among humans, because if sexual behavior that is not directly related to the formation and building up of family can be called "natural" then all behavior which is sexually gratifying can be classified as "natural". Do we really want to go down that road? It has long been understood and oft quoted (and I've witnessed the evidence) that the gay agenda is about "legitimizing all forms of sexual expression at any age." This is the inevitable outcome of this line of thinking.
So, yes, maybe birds and bees do it, scarab beetles do it, sheep and goats do it, whales and dolphins do it. It means nothing. Animals are animals and people are people. Animals are not really expected to control themselves, but free people must control themselves if they want to avoid being controlled. Beyond a lifelong love of wildlife and an academic interest in their behavior, I see little value in this research for application to human behavior and culture. They have their own social behaviors and their own survival strategies, and it's not really relevant to human interaction. No rational person would attempt to pretend that it is.
(Though, for some reason, I did rather fancy the story about the rampaging ELEPHANTS raping and murdering the R[H]INOS. There's something peculiarly gratifying in that idea…)
Alisa Craddock is a columnist and activist in the culture war, a convert to Catholicism, and describes herself as a Christian Libertarian. In addition to Enter Stage Right, her columns have been published on Alain's Newsletter and Out2 News. She may be contacted at monalisa_monday at hushmail.com.