Imagine you are sitting on public transport and opposite to you two men begin to kiss passionately and fondle each other's genitals You stand up and move to another seat. One of them withdraws his tongue out of the other man’s throat to shout after you, “Homophobic bitch!”, and releases his grip on on the other man's crutch to flip you his index finger. The other man follows with his own quip: “Get used to it, breeder”. This is not fiction. It happened to a young woman on a train I was traveling on not so long ago. I observed the terror and the tears on her face, as she looked down and visibly shrunk in her seat, cowered.
The men laughed and resumed their fondling, whilst the half dozen or so other passengers, including myself, pretended to not have seen or heard anything. I remember being frightened, and could not begin to imagine how the woman was feeling.
Welcome to a new world, a world where any phrase, question, minute shrug or other gesture you direct at homosexualists is very likely to be used as an excuse to label you a ‘homophobe’. The word ‘homophobia’ was invented in the mid-1960s by the homosexualist George Weinberg. Weinberg, a psychologist, describes the term thus:
Welcome to a new world, a world where any phrase, question, minute shrug or other gesture you direct at homosexualists is very likely to be used as an excuse to label you a ‘homophobe’. The word ‘homophobia’ was invented in the mid-1960s by the homosexualist George Weinberg. Weinberg, a psychologist, describes the term thus:
Homophobia is just that: a phobia. A morbid and irrational dread which prompts irrational behavior flight or the desire to destroy the stimulus for the phobia and anything reminiscent of it. Because human beings are the stimulus, a common homophobic reaction is brutality in many cases, as we all know. We also know its consequences. (Source: gaytoday.com)
And so, this would mean the woman in the train finding herself not a metre away from a couple of homosexuals luridly groping each other behaved irrationally by simply moving away from them ('behavior flight'?). It also means that she displayed an irrational 'morbid dread' of them by ‘brutally’ shrinking away from their callous and aggressive name-calling. I have no doubt that homosexual individuals have been abused and harmed, which is detestable and unacceptable. However, I learned of such terrible things mainly from the media; I have never witnessed instances where homosexuals have been harmed or abused. And I don't live a sheltered life, as demonstrated by the fact that, apart from what I described above, I witnessed a number of other instances where homosexuals were aggressive and foul-mouthed toward others. In addition, I and others have been bullied at work by a very ‘in-your-face’ homosexual man who was our manager over a significant period of time. So rather than the consequences Weinberg and other homosexualists 'know' of, I have witnessed consequences of behaviour by homosexuals which are never mentioned in their homosexuialist propaganda.
We should note also that the inventor of the term ‘homophobia’ said the following things about his discipline and other professionals: “[A] high point was getting a PhD in clinical psychology at Columbia and seeing how hidebound, unimaginative, inhumane and stupid my classmates and the professors were, with very few exceptions”; and, “…" the last things I placed in [my mother's] hands, as she lay dying of a brain tumour, was my book summing up my views on the doctors who said that anal intercourse was sick but had lived their whole lives with their heads up their ass". The attitude, if not the language, somehow reminds us of the attitude of our homosexuals in the train, don't you think so? Weinberg is also quoted as saying, “Of course, any answer to the question of how an illness develops, (and homophobia is an illness, no doubt about that) has to be incomplete. What worse illness can there be than acute conventionality. You should pray every night that you don't wake up with it” (Source: gaytoday.com, my emphasis).
Therefore, according to Weinberg if one does not like homosexuality for whatever reason, they are homophobic (that is, ill), and suffers from “acute conventionality”. . . Okay, we should be able to stop here with this silly definition, since it is fairly self-explanatory (if not creepy, if you ask me).
Let me now turn to the effects of this labeling. Any ‘straight’ person can be labelled a homophobe, and increasingly for little or no reason at all. Actually, queer theory tends to equate heterosexuality with homophobia. Which means all of us ('straights') are homophobes. I would propose that the irrationality about which Weinberg speaks of when he defines homophobia is there all right, but it is embodied in how the term is employed by homosexualists. In their 1989 book, After the ball: how America will conquer its fear and hatred of gays, the homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen made effective use of the label to help clarify the agenda for homosexualism. The label is central to ‘jamming’ anyone that questions their aims and methods. The fundamentals of their approach are plainly stated: “To one extent or another, the separability–and manipulability–of the verbal label is the basis for all the abstract principles underlying our proposed campaign”. And so they went ahead and laid down their strategies; here are some relevant extracts from their instructions:
We should note also that the inventor of the term ‘homophobia’ said the following things about his discipline and other professionals: “[A] high point was getting a PhD in clinical psychology at Columbia and seeing how hidebound, unimaginative, inhumane and stupid my classmates and the professors were, with very few exceptions”; and, “…" the last things I placed in [my mother's] hands, as she lay dying of a brain tumour, was my book summing up my views on the doctors who said that anal intercourse was sick but had lived their whole lives with their heads up their ass". The attitude, if not the language, somehow reminds us of the attitude of our homosexuals in the train, don't you think so? Weinberg is also quoted as saying, “Of course, any answer to the question of how an illness develops, (and homophobia is an illness, no doubt about that) has to be incomplete. What worse illness can there be than acute conventionality. You should pray every night that you don't wake up with it” (Source: gaytoday.com, my emphasis).
Therefore, according to Weinberg if one does not like homosexuality for whatever reason, they are homophobic (that is, ill), and suffers from “acute conventionality”. . . Okay, we should be able to stop here with this silly definition, since it is fairly self-explanatory (if not creepy, if you ask me).
Let me now turn to the effects of this labeling. Any ‘straight’ person can be labelled a homophobe, and increasingly for little or no reason at all. Actually, queer theory tends to equate heterosexuality with homophobia. Which means all of us ('straights') are homophobes. I would propose that the irrationality about which Weinberg speaks of when he defines homophobia is there all right, but it is embodied in how the term is employed by homosexualists. In their 1989 book, After the ball: how America will conquer its fear and hatred of gays, the homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen made effective use of the label to help clarify the agenda for homosexualism. The label is central to ‘jamming’ anyone that questions their aims and methods. The fundamentals of their approach are plainly stated: “To one extent or another, the separability–and manipulability–of the verbal label is the basis for all the abstract principles underlying our proposed campaign”. And so they went ahead and laid down their strategies; here are some relevant extracts from their instructions:
“Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of ‘Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,’ ‘hysterical backwoods preachers,’ ‘menacing punks,’ and a ‘tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed”…” In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable”...”our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof"
And the homosexualist strategies worked. We are at a point where,
· One cannot admit that homosexual sexual behaviour may disgust him, least she’s immediately labelled a homophobe because of it
· Parents cannot withdraw their children from school sex education programs which promote homosexuality without being labelled homophobes
· A Christian cannot even mention anything about homosexuality without being labelled a homophobe. Christianity itself is homophobia. Apparently, even if you practice non-religious spiritually, then this automatically makes you a homophobe
· One cannot oppose ‘gay marriage’ without being labelled a homophobe
· Unless one approves of homosexuality without reservations or qualms whatsoever, they are labelled homophobes
· No matter how dedicated one is to equal civic rights, if she hesitates just a little from acquiescing to the homosexualist propaganda, then he is labelled a homophobe
· If one questions the methodology and veracity of the many research papers produced over the past thirty years by homosexualist researchers, then they are labelled homophobes
· If one produces research which contradicts the homosexualist claims and ‘research’, then they are labelled homophobes
· If a court rules against one of the many, many homosexualist plaintiffs seeking judicial activism to change laws and sue individuals and entities, then the court is labelled homophobic
· If a politician dares to advocate on behalf of his anti-homosexualist constituency, then she’s labelled a homophobe
· If an ordinary person happens to critique a media article that supports homosexualism by posting a comment on a relevant website, then they are swamped with accusations of homophobia
· And so on…
[I will link examples as I get the time to expand on this].
Finally, let me spell something out as clearly as I can. I distinguish between people who advocate and live by a particular creed or lifestyle, and those who undertake aggressive activism to impose acceptance of such a lifestyle on the community, even when this clearly means destroying the fundamental institutions of society. Hence my use of the term ‘homosexualist’. Like everyone else, as citizens, homosexuals deserve all the civic rights I enjoy, and to live free from harm and discrimination. Whatever they do in private, whatever sexuality they choose to practice without harming others – their right to do so is perfectly fine with me, even though I personally do not agree with such a lifestyle. I accept and tolerate its existence, but I will not be forced to promote and celebrate it. And so, no matter how many times I am labelled a ‘homophobe’, I will never pray against conventionality; I will always pray for more of it. As far as I am concerned, Weinberg’s ‘homophobia’ is moral excrement which he and other homosexualists, like hysterical chimps in a zoo cage, throw at passers-by simply because they have the temerity to stop and look at them. Oh well, the good news is that this might be a sign of intelligence!
What are your experiences? Please drop me a line, and if relevant I would be happy to add them to the list above.
· One cannot admit that homosexual sexual behaviour may disgust him, least she’s immediately labelled a homophobe because of it
· Parents cannot withdraw their children from school sex education programs which promote homosexuality without being labelled homophobes
· A Christian cannot even mention anything about homosexuality without being labelled a homophobe. Christianity itself is homophobia. Apparently, even if you practice non-religious spiritually, then this automatically makes you a homophobe
· One cannot oppose ‘gay marriage’ without being labelled a homophobe
· Unless one approves of homosexuality without reservations or qualms whatsoever, they are labelled homophobes
· No matter how dedicated one is to equal civic rights, if she hesitates just a little from acquiescing to the homosexualist propaganda, then he is labelled a homophobe
· If one questions the methodology and veracity of the many research papers produced over the past thirty years by homosexualist researchers, then they are labelled homophobes
· If one produces research which contradicts the homosexualist claims and ‘research’, then they are labelled homophobes
· If a court rules against one of the many, many homosexualist plaintiffs seeking judicial activism to change laws and sue individuals and entities, then the court is labelled homophobic
· If a politician dares to advocate on behalf of his anti-homosexualist constituency, then she’s labelled a homophobe
· If an ordinary person happens to critique a media article that supports homosexualism by posting a comment on a relevant website, then they are swamped with accusations of homophobia
· And so on…
[I will link examples as I get the time to expand on this].
Finally, let me spell something out as clearly as I can. I distinguish between people who advocate and live by a particular creed or lifestyle, and those who undertake aggressive activism to impose acceptance of such a lifestyle on the community, even when this clearly means destroying the fundamental institutions of society. Hence my use of the term ‘homosexualist’. Like everyone else, as citizens, homosexuals deserve all the civic rights I enjoy, and to live free from harm and discrimination. Whatever they do in private, whatever sexuality they choose to practice without harming others – their right to do so is perfectly fine with me, even though I personally do not agree with such a lifestyle. I accept and tolerate its existence, but I will not be forced to promote and celebrate it. And so, no matter how many times I am labelled a ‘homophobe’, I will never pray against conventionality; I will always pray for more of it. As far as I am concerned, Weinberg’s ‘homophobia’ is moral excrement which he and other homosexualists, like hysterical chimps in a zoo cage, throw at passers-by simply because they have the temerity to stop and look at them. Oh well, the good news is that this might be a sign of intelligence!
What are your experiences? Please drop me a line, and if relevant I would be happy to add them to the list above.
RSS Feed