reading this today

bodice ripper

http://pfox.org/Homosexuals_Opposed_to_Pride_Extremism.html


Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism

Canadian John McKeller is a well-known homosexual and leader of HOPE (Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism). His remarks follow:

Let me assure you, even as a young, radical college student, I had no time for the clubby, leftist lemmings who comprised the early gay activists. They were dull, they were depressing, they always looked and acted as if they were born to be offended and victimized, they could never discourse for more than 5 minutes without hitting some tiresome barrier of resentment or ideology. So basically, I just avoided and ignored them because they had nothing to say to me or for me. Neither I, nor those I gravitate towards as friends or associates, wear the mantle of victimhood particularly well. If I'm harassed or discriminated against, I get more satisfaction from dealing directly with the problem myself. That's what builds character and prepares one for the roadblocks of life that everybody faces - not just gays and lesbians - everybody.

Occasionally, someone will try to tweak me by saying, 'come on John, if it weren't for the activists, you couldn't write or speak as you do'. Well, alleluia baby! And if it weren't for the Suffragettes, I probably wouldn't be here today either. Any successful movement must have a beginning and an end, and must focus on worthwhile goals. In 1967, Pierre Trudeau supposedly liberated us when he said "the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation". Subsequently, matters of privacy and discrimination were laudably and necessarily dealt with in the early 1970's. But today, the bedrooms of the nation are in everybody's faces. Today, it's all about benefits, privileges, social engineering, nihilism and redefining normalcy.

Today, it's all about blurring every distinction between personal and political issues and vigorously stifling any attempts at discussion or debate. Believe me, my life would be much simpler if I didn't have to contend with all of this. But how can I sit still when my public image is embarrassingly represented by a small but vociferous clique of radicals bent on making the whole world their closet? How can I sit still when the mainsteam media constantly lives unequivocal support to the lies, myths, distortions and propaganda of modern gay activism? How can I sit still when my freedoms are being threatened and the traditions and institutions of my country are being compromised?

So I formed HOPE (Homosexuals Opposed to Pride Extremism) to give a voice to gays and lesbians who choose to live with dignity and discretion, who don't wake up every day looking for discrimination under the bed, and who don't go running to the governments, the courts or the human rights commissions for a lifetime of therapeutic preferences.

The 19th century writer, Oscar Wilde, is revered by many in the gay and lesbian community but, believe me, if he were alive now, he'd be totally exasperated with the whining, hysterical malcontents who dominate today's gay lobby. The unhappy truth is that homosexuality will never be fully accepted by the heterosexual majority who are obeying the dictates not of 'bigoted' society or religion, but of procreative nature. Whatever society teaches or doesn't teach about homosexuality, no gay or lesbian, surrounded overwhelmingly by heterosexuals, will feel at home in his or her sexual and emotional world, even in the most tolerant of cultures.

At a young age we learn the rituals of deceit, impersonation and appearance, and anyone who believes political, social or even cultural revolution will change this fundamentally is denying reality. Yet, this alienation and desperation deepens our artistic insight and allows us to create civilization. Look at such historical icons as Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Tchaikovsky, Somerset Maugham, Gore Vidal - who were homosexual and who undoubtedly experienced hardship and repression. But look what they gave to the world. Look how they advanced the cultural heritage. They were too creative, cultivated and cosmopolitan to be concerned with the trivialities of sexual pride, queer studies, diversity and whatever other pop-culture banality dominates our modern landscape.

To my radical brothers and sisters, sexual orientation is not only a lifestyle, but a religion and a career. It's their whole identity. How absurd and how sad. From the exalted creativity of the Renaissance, to the vulgarity of Gay Pride, we've managed to dumb ourselves down to the level of barnyard animals. We've also managed to overpoliticize and polarize viewpoints, labelling people pro-gay or anti-gay with little room between.

As an openly gay male, I have no problem conceding that heterosexuality is and always will be the great human norm. But I'm sick and tired of a media culture that faciley equates homosexuality with heterosexuality and asks no deep questions about human psychology beyond the superficial liberal-vs-conservative, freedom-vs-oppression dichotomy. And I'm sick and tired of the sentimental, feel-good, liberal propaganda that conceals and denies the blatant Roman Empire decadence and compulsive, tunnel- vision promiscuity of so many gay men's lives.

In 1998, I was invited to write an op-ed piece for the Ottawa Citizen in which I criticised the extremism and excesses of Gay Pride. Now I don't really expect everyone to agree with my outspoken opinions and I certainly welcome challenge, confrontation and opposition. But the very day the article appeared, the self-annointed leaders of the gay community demanded a meeting with the publisher and editor of the newspaper and demanded to know why they printed my essay. What a joke! What a hissy fit! They could easily shut me up by smartening up, but they are so blinded by their fanaticism that they don't realize that every time they resort to these Stalinist tactics, they make me look good. They give me credibility and justification.

Another egregious example of media bias is the ever partial-reporting of the Matthew Sheppard murder. For sure, this was a brutal and barbaric crime and I'd be happy to see his killers fry. But I'm also disturbed at the canonization of Matthew as the patron saint of hate crimes. His sexual proclivity was cruising for "rough trade", which means he was attracted to his assailants precisely because they were scuzzy punks whose look and manner vitually screamed trouble. He doesn't deserve to burn in hell as Fred Phelps constantly rages. But rational public discourse about his destructive behavior could help save lives - especially among gay youth. So shame on the media for placing political correctness ahead of safety and responsibility.

Now if you happen to be the mayor of any municipality, don't even think about not issuing an official proclamation for gay pride, unless you want to find yourself in front of a human rights tribunal. I realize that Kelowna has managed to dodge this bullet for the time being, but there will be other years, other events and other mayors, and who knows what the future will bring. But this relentless effort toward mass education and forced compliance cannot be achieved without fascist obliteration of all individual freedoms.

One could fairly and legitimately ask, who annointed HOPE or John McKellar to speak on behalf of any segment of the gay and lesbian community. A more pertinent question would be, 'who authorized lobby groups, such as GALE BC, to bring their self-serving agenda and their cultural angst into the schools?' And how thoroughly have these activists been qualified and scrutinized? HOPE is non-partisan, non-sectarian, unattached to all intents and purposes, and seeks not to indoctrinate or reform, but to comment, criticize and inform. I have often expressed the unfortunate, but undeniable truth, that the number of times one was called '******' in the schoolyard is directly proportionate to the stridency of one's activism. So, special interest groups, such as GALE BC, are comprised mostly of wounded and resentful individuals who should be receiving counselling and compassion, rather than trying to dispense it.

You don't need gay activists to teach young people love and respect for one another. And you certainly don't want young, impressionable minds forever inculcated with a victim and entitlement mentality. When you fancy yourself an oppressed minority - particularly one that is based on a basic human drive and compulsion - you become obsessed with increasing your numbers and mainsteaming your behaviour.

You try to evoke guilt and intimidation by incessantly reiterating banal epithets, such as 'hate', 'homophobia', 'intolerance', 'teen suicide' and 'self-esteem'. You quickly discover that the optimum way to ensure future supporters to your cause and ideology is through the minds of the young. You skillfully master the techniques of invoking sympathy, hiding the truth and presenting a sanitized portrait of gay life.

Introducing kindergarten and grade one students to alternative behaviours and lifestyles is psychological pedophilia. You don't have to engage solely in physical contact to molest a child. You can diddle with their minds and their emotions. And this is exactly what some of my radical brothers and sisters are up to. And this is exactly what a disheartening majority of educators, school trustees and teachers unions endorse.

Spare me the tolerance and compassion bunkum. Just leave the kids alone and let them enjoy their short period of innocence and sexual latency. Then when they approach puberty, balance the pop-culture bombardment with messages of abstinence, discipline and self-control. Don't just assume that all teens are out-of-control hormone factories and that all you can do is shrug your shoulders and throw condoms at them.

Listen, I'll donate $100 to their favorite charity if anyone can show me a scientific study that proves condoms prevent the transmission of HIV. And the fabricated slogan 'safe-sex' is dangerous, misleading and designed to preserve lifestyle, not life. HOPE recommends that Dr Jeffrey Satinover's lucid and scholarly book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, be compulsory reading at the secondary school level. But over and above everything, tell the truth and present the facts. Stop presenting young gay men as pretty 'St Sebastians', martyred by benighted homophobes and the big bad authorities, and instead, reflect on Oscar Wilde's hedonistic Dorian Gray, confronting his spiritual failures in his corroding portrait.

One of the most hauntingly memorable days of my life - which I recall as if it were yesterday - occurred in 1981 during a conversation with a friend, whose cousin was a physician in New York City. My friend told me there was a mysterious 'gay cancer' running through the homosexual community in Manhatten, which was spread by anal sex, which produced lesions on the skin, which weakened the immune system by destroying white blood cells and which was 100% fatal.

Let me assure you that as young, naive and perpetually horny as I was, that single conversation was all that was needed to put enough fear into me to forever alter my sexual activities. The phrase 'safe-sex' had not yet been coined, but believe me, I was practising it! But it was with great dismay that I watched the ravages of AIDS spread like wildfire and it was with great contempt that I observed how the activists carved careers for themselves, making a political circus out of this disease and trampling on the rights of the majority. Here we were confronted with the most easily preventible, difficult to acquire, behaviourally caused, fatal disease in the history of humankind - and look how the gay leadership responded to it.

To them, it was more important to change the name of this disease, which was originally called GRID (gay related immune deficiency), to the 'less homophobic' AIDS. To them it was more important to fight for the rights and the protection of those who suffer from this disease than to fight for the health and safety of the entire population. To them it was more important to canonize the victims of this disease with commemorative walls, memorial quilts, vigils and galas than to condemn the behaviour that resulted in their death. To them, it was more important to distibute condoms than to declare a moratorium on promiscuous anal sex. Shame.

I can recall numerous times sharing with friends my bewilderment and frustration over why traditional public health measures for combating epidemics were not deployed against AIDS. Sixty years ago, those afflicted with tuberculosis had their homes quarantined and fifty years ago, public swimming pools were closed during the polio epidemic. Throught the sexual revolution of the 1960's and 1970's, there was stringent and systematic follow-up for all those infected with gonorrhea, syphilis and herpes. But at a National AIDS Conference in Denver Colorado in 1983, gay leaders declared, 'we oppose any legislative attempts to close private clubs or bathhouses...we should never forget that we live in a homophobic society and that homophobia is the major threat to our health'.

This childishly self-serving attitude sealed the fate of the gay communities still free of the virus. Wth less than 2000 cases nationwide, drastic measures...the declaration of a health emergency in the affected areas, the closing of the bathhouses, testing among those at risk, contact tracing to warn those in the path of the infection... might have stemmed the tide of the epidemic and eventually saved tens of thousands of lives. Yet, gay leaders remained adamantly opposed to these measures because of the perceived stigmatization of the gay lifestyle.

So, as I observed the inexorable spread of AIDS and the effects of the gay left to control, weaken and obstruct the measures to combat it, I could easily extrapolate the numbers who were going to die. By doubling the 2000 existing cases every six months for the next ten years, I was able to calculate (accurately in hindsight) that by 1994 there would be 200,000 people - mostly gay men, mostly in the bloom of youth - who were going to die for an idea of liberation. And there wasn't a damn thing I or anyone else could do about it! Sure, Ronald Reagan may have been unconcerned and uncommunicative about AIDS, but as my aforementioned sister in solidarity, Camille Paglia, has stated, 'the delusional arrogance of the gay lobby unleashed the 20th Centuries second holocaust'.

So where are we in 2003? Well, we still have 20-year-olds, who weren't even born when AIDS first appeared in North America, becoming infected with HIV. We continue to introduce new, potent and costly anti-HIV drugs, none of which destroy the virus, but which give gay males a false confidence, which leads to high-risk behaviour. We have an increasing number of gay websites, phonelines and classifieds promoting the growing desire for 'bareback sex' and 'extreme sex'. And even at the Annual Global Conference on AIDS, the nightlife is more noteworthy than the daytime activities. The discos are packed with gay doctors, nurses, activists and researchers shamelessly cruising one another, and likewise, the bathhouses do land-office business. So, in spite of the solemnity and tragedy in dealing with a wasteful and fatal disease, the hedonistic, promiscuous, sex-carnival atmosphere never lets up.

Of course, it's no accident or coincidence that the major sponsors of World AIDS Day and the ubiquitous Walk For AIDS are the international pharmaceutical companies and the condom manufacturers. And it's neither callous nor cynical to point out that there are big bucks to be made from each new AIDS patient. But in North America, this is still a gay male disease, and while present sufferers deserve comfort and care, there needs to be far more emphasis placed on prevention than on cure.

My activist brothers and sisters, along with their ever-willing accomplices in media and academia, relentlessly drum into the public psyche that homosexuality is 'not a
choice', because no-one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. First of all, there is an element of choice in all behaviour. Secondly, despite media fanfare and trendy hypotheses, there is no conclusive scientific evidence as to the biological, genetic, psychological and social influences on sexual orientation. The modern change in opinion concerning homosexuality, though presented as scientific advance, is contradicted rather than supported by science. Once again, we have a transformation in public morals consistent with widespread abandonment of the Judeo-Christian ethics upon which our civilization is based. Though hailed as 'progress', it is really a reversion to ancient pagan practices supported by a counter- culture restatement of gnostic moral relativism.

The average person comprehends neither the complexities of good scientific research nor the extent to which politics has corrupted the scientific process. For instance, it was strictly politics and nary a speck of science that motivated the
American Psychiatric Association in 1973 to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. So, that begs the question, do I consider myself mentally ill? Perhaps by the time I finish here today, some of you may think so. Seriously though, we are all born incomplete and vulnerable to compulsive and addictive behaviour. As I said previously with respect to 'pride', it's a constant struggle; you either control it or it controls you.

My friend and colleague in the trenches, Reverend Ken Campbell, has often publically said that when he was a college student, his natural inclination was to chase every skirt. That's because young males are constitutionally prone to libidinal excess. The overwhelming power of sexual gratification, makes it highly susceptible to becoming compulsive and addictive. But as human beings, we possess the intellect and the free will to exercise restraint. Until AIDS came along, male homosexuality had no inherent biological controls and so the use of the body seemed unlimited. Then came the Apocalypse: a complete systems breakdown of the body which lost its defences against nature. And the the ugliness and premature ageing of this wasteful disease were especially painful and grotesque in view of
gay men's historic idealization of youth and beauty.

Gay activists become particularly hysterical at the mention of sexual reversion therapy. Now it may be impractical to 'convert' totally from homosexuality to heterosexuality, but if counselling can allow a gay man to respond sexually to women, it should be encouraged and applauded, not lambasted or lampooned. If a gay male wants to marry and sire children, he shouldn't be harassed by gay activists accusing him of 'self-hatred'. Come on! Is gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not want to be gay? Or that a woman's power should not be ignored, especially in the context of raising children.

The difficulties in changing sexual orientation do not spring from its genetic innateness. Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However habit is refractory, once the sensory paths have been blazed and deepened by repetition - something that is also evident in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alchoholism or drug addiction.

The obscene contention made by most activists that constructive and rational opposition to sexual conduct is tantamount to anti-semitism or other forms of racism, is not only intellectually dishonest, but insultingly disrespectful to Blacks, Jews and other minorities. Discrimination against skin colour, ethnicity or religion is not wholly comparable to the complicated resistance of virtually all societies in history to open homosexuality, which involves thorny questions of morality and psychology. There has never been a gay leader remotely near the stature of Martin Luther King or Ghandi, both of whom drew upon the profound spiritual traditions of religion, to which gay political rhetoric has always been childishly hostile. Remember, it was the influence of the Quakers in 18th century Britian and the flamboyent, thunderous activism of Evangelicals in 19th century America that powered the abolitionist movement and led to the end of slavery.

No major world religion has ever endorsed homosexuality which can be openly practised only in peaceful, affluent and cosmopolitan times. Even in classical
antiquity, homosexuality was controversial, and despite the exaggerated claims of today's partisans, there was no place or period where it flourished in complete freedom from moral opprobrium. History shows that male homosexuality flourishes with urbanization, soon becomes predictably ritualized and always tends toward decadence. So my radical brothers and sisters should stop bitching about sincere Christians, Jews and Muslims who are merely exercising their constitutional right to free speech, and whose vast philosophical perspective easily triumphs over the provincialism and amorality of the gay world. Indeed, their position is far more
credible and honest than the tortuous casuistry of self-interested clerics who take the path of least resistance by creating their own church, tailor-made to affirm
their Rainbow philosophy.

The prominent recurring theme in the materials presented by gay advocates seems to revolve around the acceptance of same-sex families. This approach is clearly less controversial than attempting to discuss specific sexual practices and, of course, one can candy coat the agenda with cute titles and seemingly innocuous storynlines (such as Blue Dads... Green Dads... Pink Dads). But it is still an attempt to undermine the traditional family and to inure young, fresh minds to the current ethos that same-sex parenting is equivalent to opposite-sex parenting. Once you have effectively broken one of societies' taboos, others will fall away easily and rapidly. Children must not be used as guinea pigs for social engineering experiments.

Children need a biological mother and father. We know that this is not always possible, even in the context of opposite-sex marriage, but we don't solve the problem or alleviate the inconsistency by adding to it. Self-interested partisans will manufacture statistics to support their specious claims that children of same-sex marriages fare as well as those of opposite-sex marriages. However, the phenomenon of same-sex parenting doesn't have the longevity needed for such conclusive evidence, whereas the experience of single parent families has, not always, but often shown detriment to the development of the offspring.

So what about those gays and lesbians who really want to raise a family? Some of us have 'baby envy'; it's intrinsic to our species. Some of us feel
excluded and stigmatized. Too bad! Since when does everybody get everything they want? Laws are written for the good of all society and not for the individual, the special rights advocates or the legal radicals. The true libertarian recognizes that we are first of all social, interdependent beings - free, but also bound.

And because human community can only arise from some prevailing unity, society always has a natural and logical primacy over the individual. For the true libertarian, there is a connected stream of virtues, standards and institutions that must be distinguished and protected. And if we ignore the lessons of history and natural law, then everything becomes legal and everything becomes moral, and civilization descends into chaos.

Last December, I wrote an article for Ethics and Medics entitled, 'The Irony of Same-Sex Marriage'. And the irony that seems to be lost among most media and politicians is that for a long time the gay press has been replete with articles, letters and editorials sneering at the whole concept of gay marriage. Clearly, most of us don't want anything to do with it. Even lesbian icons, such as Jane Rule, stridently dis the entire notion. We neither need nor want the state in our bedrooms. We neither need nor want to be shackled by rules regulations or paperwork.

We've already won the same-sex benefits battle, so there's no longer concern over matters of pensions or estates. And other than the legal radicals, who hone their skills contesting these issues. the right to marry is being fought by a tiny minority, most of whom are already hitched, their youth gone, their kids growing or grown, and their parents shrinking before their very eyes. So for the sake of 'choice and diversity' for a few, a lot of time, energy and money that should be going to help the truly disenfranchised, is being wasted.

Ladies and gentlemen, real affliction out there is not 'homophobia', but rather, 'truthphobia'.

John McKellar
National Director, HOPE

nervous_twitch

TLDR.

Just kidding. In reality though, I believe this piece is a hotbed of such misinformed, personal belief, that it would take days to address each of John McKellar's concerns individually. I do respect him, however, for opening a potentially contentious dialogue.

Fundamentally, I take issue with his view of the generic gay activist. You can manipulate language to make your argument sound intelligent, but when you comply with the lazy generalisations of a broad media, you compromise the integrity of what you're trying to say. Not every activist is a screaming, rainbowed vocalist salivating at the thought of being offended or socially infringed. There are many of us (including myself) whose activism is truly about equality: I'd love nothing more than to desert the fight, but when your sexuality renders you a lesser person in the eyes of the law, it takes a very particular kind of coward to sit back and accept. I'm irreligious, and in that sense, I couldn't give a shiny sh1te about the term 'marriage' and whatever it entails: however, if legal 'marriage' means my commitment to a partner affords me the same rights as my heterosexual counterparts, you can be damn sure I'll do whatever I can to ensure I'm entitled to it.

Why? Because I didn't choose this. I can't control who I'm attracted to. It just is. And more importantly, it's not harming anybody. We are people who only want to get by like everybody else, and if your government puts you in a second-class category for who you fall in love it, there's a great injustice at play.

Pride, and particularly the parade, is disdained by a lot of gay and straight people alike. 'If you want to be accepted, why do you need a parade to advertise your difference?' 'Why are you making a big deal of being gay?' 'Where's the straight pride every year?' To be honest, for me, pride is not about being homosexual (although decades back I guess it was, when we were meant to be 'secret' about our behaviours and pride was the best way to be more transparent): pride is about everybody. It's about not being ashamed of everything you might ever have been marginalised for. It's about embracing difference in a community. It's also a good time for hetero and homo sexual environments to interact. Most of all, it's about enjoying the spectacle. Lots of gay people seem to be afraid that they will be seen as leather-wearing gimps or cross-dressing queens after the march; personally, I think that's an insecurity of the individual. Your family and friends know you, and you know yourself, so why bother worry? Ultimately, it's just a bit of craic. Relax and enjoy.

That only scrapes the beginning of the article, without any reference to AIDS/adoption etc. There's a lot in the piece I need to digest, and thank you bodice for sharing, but I'm genuinely disappointed to see a gay man propagating this kind of agenda.