|PART ONE: THE "GAY" IDENTITY
"Gay" Is How You Act, Not Who You Are
In the behavior-based view of homosexuality which was dominant before the "gay" movement invented the sexual orientation theory, categories of sexual types made sense. If a man engaged in homosexuality, he was called a homosexual. If he molested boys he was called a pederast (pederasty is a form of pedophilia which involves sex between adult men and boys or adolescents). If he participated in what is called "rough trade" he was called a sadomasochist (one who derives sexual pleasure from inflicting and receiving pain). If he engaged in all three he was at once a homosexual, a pederast and a sadomasochist in the same way that one can at once be a carpenter, a plumber and an electrician — in other words, he was defined by his behavior. All people were assumed to be heterosexuals, each with the capacity to choose to participate in any possible form of sexual deviance. The sexual behavior model was a completely logical, consistent, and objective standard which any person with actual knowledge of the facts could apply.
Under sexual orientation theory, however, people are categorized based on the focus of their sexual desire. If the focus of their desire is always someone of the same gender they are called homosexual. If the focus of their desire is sometimes a man and sometimes a woman, they are called bisexual. If the focus of their desire is always someone of the opposite sex they are called heterosexual. So far the theory seems somewhat reasonable, but beyond this point it becomes absurdly unreasonable. There is very little logic, for example, to the way in which sexual orientations are categorized. A man's sexual desire to dress in women's clothing is called a sexual orientation (such a person is designated "transgendered"), but an adult's desire to engage in sex with children, or in sadomasochism, or in bestiality (sex with animals) or in various other well-known sexual behaviors is not. The only basis for this distinction seems to be political. Sexual orientation categories appear to be determined by whether their members belong to one of the "gay," "lesbian," "bisexual" or "transgendered" subgroups of the "gay" political movement.
One sometimes hears the argument that pedophilia and bestiality are not sexual orientations because they are against the law. This makes no sense at all. Would they suddenly become sexual orientations if they were legalized? Is homosexuality not an orientation in places where it is illegal? Scientific truth, which sexual orientation theory claims to be, does not depend on legal status. Furthermore, if sexual orientation is not based on behavior, but only on sexual desire, what difference does it make whether the behavior is legal or not? A private desire to have sex with children or animals (if it is never expressed or acted upon in any way) has exactly the same impact on society as the private unexpressed desire for homosexuality or normal heterosexual intercourse — none!
On the other hand, sadomasochism is not illegal. Why isn't the "gay" movement willing to classify sadomasochism as an "orientation" based on the criterion of sexual desires? The answer is that sadomasochism (like pedophilia and bestiality) is a behavior so unacceptable to most people that they would not go along with legitimizing it just because the people who do it might have been "born that way" or might have been influenced by biological factors. If the public were to decide in one case that the existence of an orientation should not automatically mean social acceptance for the behavior connected with it, they might apply the very same logic to the homosexual orientation. The "gay" movement cannot afford this kind of association. Society might decide that homosexual orientation is acceptable, but at the same time decide that homosexual behavior should be discouraged. Homosexualists would rather be illogical and count on the power of political correctness to discourage people from unmasking their deception.
It is apparent that sexual orientation theory is nothing but a political doctrine masquerading as scientific truth. Its goal is to foster the belief that homosexuality is a normal form of sexuality that occurs naturally in human beings. Homosexualists cleverly deceive many people by crafting their rhetoric so that this conclusion is assumed as a fact. For example, when one talks about various forms of bizarre sexual behavior which are common in the "gay" lifestyle, the response is, "Heterosexuals do that, too." This innocent-seeming retort hides a very subtle deception. It assumes as a fact the premise that homosexuality is a natural state of being, equal to and exclusive of heterosexuality, and that homosexuality is not itself deviance from a heterosexual norm. The statement implies that both homosexuals and heterosexuals enjoy a comparable status not defined by behavior, but that both groups indulge equally in various fetishes. In reality, homosexuality is just another form of sexual deviance practiced by heterosexuals, it is not the natural sexual expression of a "third sex" of human beings called homosexuals. In other words, all people are naturally heterosexual in design, but some engage (occasionally or all the time) in one or more types of sexual deviance: homosexuality, pedophilia, sadomasochism and so on. To accept without challenge the assertion that "heterosexuals do that, too" is to grant undeserved legitimacy to sexual orientation theory.
Deviance is a condition or a status that exists only in reference to a standard or norm. Homosexuality has always been called deviant because it deviates from the heterosexual norm. There is absolutely nothing wrong with labeling homosexuality deviant if you recognize that heterosexuality is the norm for human beings. Indeed, it is important for parents to use the term when they speak about homosexuality for the very reason that homosexualists don't want it to be used: it reminds us all that a standard exists by which to measure sexual behavior. The fact that the word has pejorative connotations shows that its meaning is rooted in the history of a society deeply committed to preserving the family and its corollary, heterosexual normalcy, and to discouraging behaviors which threaten it.
Homosexuality Cannot Be "Normal"
One of the most baffling questions about the homosexual issue is how so many people can blindly accept the notion that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality. This is especially puzzling considering that each one of us is either male or female, and that all of our sexual drives are tied in some way to our heterosexual reproductive functions. We talk about "raging hormones," "chemistry" and various biological "cycles" playing their roles in people's sex lives. Isn't it obvious that every one of these biological influences is linked to reproduction? Do people think it is merely a coincidence that a woman's sexual drive is linked to her menstrual cycle or that male orgasm occurs at the point of ejaculation of sperm? The links between drives, pleasure and reproduction helps to ensure the very survival of the human race. Certainly there is an overtly recreational aspect to our sexuality, but the self-evident purpose of sexual impulse and sexual pleasure, even in non-human species, lies in the biological mandate to perpetuate the race. For homosexuality to be normal, in the sense that heterosexuality is normal, it would have to serve some function in human procreation. Obviously it does not.
It has been suggested that homosexuality serves a reproduction-related function, as a built-in protection from overpopulation. However, as we are so often reminded by the "gay" movement, homosexuals have been with us since the beginning of civilization — through hundreds of centuries when underpopulation, not overpopulation, was the constant threat to human survival.
Despite much media hype about "gay" genes, no one has ever proved a biological cause for homosexuality. In every case, those who have claimed to have discovered proof have been discredited when their research has come under the scrutiny of non-"gay" scientists. Although the news media gives wide exposure to the initial claims of these researchers, reporters are less zealous about informing the general public that the original claims they heard of "gay" brain structures, "gay" genes and so on were later debunked. In nearly every case, the authors of these discredited studies have been unmasked as "gay" political activists. For example, after publishing his now thoroughly repudiated study on "gay" brains, researcher Simon Levay went on to open a school for "gay" studies. Dean Hamer, author of a widely heralded "gay" gene study, later became the object of an investigation of scientific fraud. Because of these incidents, many people have come to believe that the purpose of "gay" science is to produce propaganda rather than to further our knowledge about what causes homosexuality.
As demonstrated above, homosexuality is not "normal" in the sense that heterosexuality is normal, but that doesn't mean it has no biological cause. Further, proof of a biological cause would not necessarily imply that homosexuality occurs naturally in healthy humans. Physical deformities and congenital diseases are recognized as biologically caused defects in human beings. In the light of the fact that the human reproductive mandate is at the root of all human sexuality, any biological condition which could be demonstrated to promote homosexuality would have to be considered a defect at variance with the design of human beings. The facts lead to this conclusion whether one believes that humans are the creation of God or the product of evolution.
The theory of special creation, based on the Bible, states that men and women were created as heterosexual beings designed to live together in a covenant of marriage. They were commanded by God to shun all other sexual relationships under pain of His divine judgment. God would not have created a genetic condition which sabotaged His own design, nor would He have created an entire class of people with no choice but to engage in a behavior which He had condemned. On the contrary, the Bible specifically states that God gives each person free will and holds him accountable for his choices, even when temptation to do wrong may be heightened by biological factors which are beyond the person's control.
If the theory of evolution is true, any gene associated with homosexuality would tend to disappear from the gene pool in a relatively few generations, let alone the hundreds of thousands of generations which evolutionary theory requires for its time frame. Natural selection, which is the mechanism which makes evolution happen, favors only those factors which contribute to greater reproductive capacity (more offspring). Factors such as homosexuality, which make any given person less likely to reproduce, would logically be found in the gene pool with decreasing frequency. A person disinclined to have sexual relations with a member of the opposite sex would, over a lifespan, tend to produce fewer offspring than a person with heterosexual inclinations. If the "homosexual gene" were present, it would be passed to some of the offspring produced, and they in turn would produce fewer offspring than their heterosexual peers, and so on, tending ultimately to the extinction of the gene. In addition, we know that the lifespan of homosexuals (especially male homosexuals) is substantially shorter than that of their heterosexual counterparts due to the high rate of disease associated with homosexual practices. This would make a homosexual less able to contribute his genes to the next generation than someone who lived a long and reproductively active life. In short, if there ever were a genuine "homosexual gene" it would have become extinct long ago.
The continuing presence of homosexuals in society over the centuries may be better explained as the result of recruiting. Such a phenomenon is familiar to us as the way that religions and even fraternal organizations perpetuate themselves. None of the members of these social institutions are "born that way," although their sense of identity may be very closely tied to membership in their group. Like homosexuals in the "gay" community, the members of these institutions are unified by common beliefs, interests, pursuits, goals and a sense of belonging to something larger than themselves. Some organizations, such as religious cults, may be even more closely analogous to the "gay" community in that the members may share a very close bond fostered by an "us versus them" mentality. People who share an identity as "outcasts" because of their actions or beliefs are especially susceptible to such feelings.
The membership of religious and fraternal organizations waxes and wanes over time based on how effectively they attract and keep (recruit) new members. Likewise, the size of the "gay" community has apparently also fluctuated in history. The "gay" population was very large in sexually decadent Greece, Rome and pre-Nazi Germany prior to the collapse of each, but was relatively low in America prior to the 1960s. It is possible, but not likely, that the percentage of homosexuals in society has remained relatively constant and that homosexuals were simply reluctant to identify themselves in societies in which their behavior was frowned upon. However, many of these societies — including our own — actively prosecuted homosexuals criminally and thus record-keeping in the courts provides a rough indicator of the total number of homosexuals in the culture. Such records support the notion that the percentage of homosexuals in society remains quite small when the society does not condone homosexual behavior, thus limiting homosexuals' freedom to openly recruit new members. If homosexuality is not genetically transmitted, then a combination of environmental factors and homosexual recruitment is the most reasonable explanation for the persistent presence of homosexuals in human history, and for their greater or smaller numbers in different societies.
Leading psychologists who treat homosexuality theorize that homosexual tendencies often result from environmental influences in early childhood. These therapists characterize homosexuality as a "gender identity dysfunction" produced by a child's failure to "bond" with his same-sex parent or parental surrogate during a critical phase of early childhood when gender, identity is formed. They believe that certain factors (such as a rejecting or emotionally or physically absent parent) can cause a child to reject his own gender and to subconsciously identify himself as a member of the opposite gender; that of the more emotionally trustworthy opposite-sex parent. According to the theory, a person's false gender identification affects every aspect of his emotional life, including his sexuality. A person with a gender identity disorder knows he is male or female but subconsciously perceives himself to be a member of the opposite sex and thus subconsciously perceives members of the same sex as the appropriate objects of his sexual interest.
Many homosexual men, especially those with pronounced effeminate traits and mannerisms, have been successfully treated by therapists who subscribe to the theory of gender identity dysfunction. One treatment approach is called "reparative therapy." The theory of gender identity dysfunction can't explain all incidents of homosexuality, but it does explain why some homosexuals would sense that they were "born that way;" the development of their gender disorder (probably sometime before the age of three) would predate their earliest memories. We must distinguish here between the honest belief by some homosexuals that they were "born that way," and the "gay" movement's claim that all homosexuals are born "gay." The former, if the theory of gender identity disorder is true, is an honest but mistaken belief held by some but not all members of the "gay" community, the latter is a deliberate lie which is intended to mislead the general public and advance a political agenda.
An often unchallenged assumption of sexual orientation theory is that the fact of having been born "gay" justifies someone's homosexual behavior and limits society's right to regulate it. However, even if homosexuality were biologically based, society would still have both the right and the responsibility to regulate it. Society has an interest in regulating any behavior which affects the health, safety, welfare or morals of the community. Not even religious behavior, which enjoys the highest level of Constitutional protection in the United States under the First Amendment, is beyond state control when it conflicts with the basic needs of society. (The early Mormon religious practice of polygamy, for example, was held to be illegal in every State.)
We can understand why some people would accept the argument that a biological cause for homosexuality legitimizes homosexual behavior. Historically, it was commonly believed that homosexuality was nothing more than a choice arising from moral weakness, like the choice to steal someone else's property. Public policy against homosexuality was defended in part on the grounds that homosexuals could easily choose not to engage in homosexual behavior. After homosexualists successfully sold the idea that homosexuals are "born that way" and are responding to an instinctual homosexual drive, there were people who concluded that social condemnation of homosexual behavior was no longer justified.
We find two major problems with this conclusion. First, public attitudes and policies against homosexuality are not based on the reasons for being homosexual, but on the destructive effects of the "gay" lifestyle on society and on homosexuals themselves. Such harmful effects as the spread of disease; the weakening of the concept of the nurturing, procreative family; the proliferation of the notion of sex without commitment or social responsibility; and the relentless efforts to proselytize the young on the merits of this personally devastating lifestyle; all these justify social attitudes and policies which discourage or limit the spread of homosexuality.
Second, a behavior is not legitimized by the mere discovery that it has a biological cause. Remember that homosexuality is behavior-based; it is not like skin color. Even if the causes of homosexuality come from the realm of biology, its effects are felt in the realm of social life. There are other examples of behavioral phenomena that are thought to have biological origins, and we will look at how society deals with one of them.
The phenomenon of alcoholism provides a helpful analogy in understanding why a biological cause does not legitimize homosexual behavior. There are many strong similarities between these two behavior-based lifestyles. Both homosexuality and alcoholism are conditions which affect large numbers of people from all walks of life, conditions which have traditionally been condemned by Western society. Up until this century, both have been perceived as choices born of moral weakness; now genetic factors are being claimed as possible causes of each. Both involve powerful compulsive drives and strongly addictive behavior. Both pose grave health risks which dramatically reduce the life expectancy of members of the group. Both conditions are characterized by the active practice of specific behaviors, but individual members may continue to identify themselves as homosexuals or alcoholics even during periods of abstinence. Finally, there are many former practitioners of each lifestyle whose new purpose in life is to help others to escape that lifestyle and find freedom from its compulsive behavior.
When we compare homosexuality to alcoholism, we can conclude that society has as much right to discourage "gay" behavior as it has to discourage alcohol addiction, even if both are genetically based. No one suggests that alcoholism should be legitimized because it may have roots in a person's biological make-up. No one suggests that society, or family members, would suffer less from the consequences of alcoholic behavior if alcoholism were found to be genetic.
Debate over homosexuality usually centers on the question of whether or not it is a choice. To clear away the confusion on this issue, we must look closely at what it is that is being chosen. Homosexual activists often assert that they did not choose to be "gay," meaning that they did not choose to have homosexual desires, but only discovered such desires within themselves. Society's concern in the matter, however, is not whether one has homosexual desires, but whether one acts on those desires by engaging in homosexual behavior. Any consensual homosexual behavior, like all sexual behavior, clearly is a choice. In this sense, a homosexual's pursuit of the "gay" lifestyle is also a choice; it is a series of voluntary sexual encounters. As with any compulsive behavior, the overwhelming urge for gratification may make a homosexual feel that he has no choice, but he does. Here again we find the situation of the homosexual analogous to that of the alcoholic.
In the sense that a person trapped in homosexual behavior may protest that he did not choose to be "gay," the typical alcoholic did not choose to be a drunk. Yet, somewhere along the way, he wakes to the reality that he has become one. Each successive drinking binge involved a conscious choice to indulge himself. He didn't choose to be an alcoholic, he only chose to give in to his desires, one episode at a time. Later, when he began to want to escape from the alcoholic lifestyle he found it just wasn't that easy. The addiction to alcohol was overpowering. He certainly did not choose to become its slave. It always remained his choice, however, to stay trapped in his addiction or to fight his way back to health and wholeness.
It is important to reiterate that as far as society's interest goes, choice is relevant only in regards to the behavior that is chosen. As powerful as his addiction may be, an alcoholic cannot claim he has no choice. Neither can a homosexual, as thousands of ex-"gays" can attest.
Of all the special interest groups in this nation, only one defines itself by sexual preference: the "gay" community. The sole unifying characteristic of its members is the practice of homosexual sexual acts. What animates the "gay" community as a whole, if not every individual member, is an obsessive preoccupation with sexuality and eroticism (this is true of both male and female homosexuals but applies to males to a far greater degree). Such an assessment might seem overstated to those whose only knowledge of the "gay" movement comes from the mainstream media or casual familiarity with openly "gay" acquaintances. The public face of the "gay" community, however, is false; it is the product of public relations strategies and the careful suppression of unpleasant facts about life in the "gay" subculture. The face of "gay" life which reveals its behavioral component is far less benign.
One can get a glimpse behind the "gay" community's public mask by skimming through any of the hundreds of "gay" newspapers and other publications which are readily found in big-city public libraries and community centers across the nation. The typical "gay" publication has the outward appearance of most such free periodicals. Look inside, however, and you will find that most articles relate in some way to sexual activity or "gay" politics (that is, organized efforts to legitimize homosexual activity). Many articles discuss with an air of comfortable familiarity sexual behaviors which most people would find deviant and disturbing in the extreme. Frankly pornographic images are scattered throughout the typical publication; these sometimes include explicit depictions of sodomy, sadomasochism, and group sex. Many publications contain page after page of graphic advertisements for phone sex and escort services; some of these, expressly or by implication, offer teenagers for sex. Some publications contain ads for America's largest openly pederastic organization, NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association).
Homosexual publications give us a glimpse of the "gay" lifestyle and its obsessive sexual focus, but they do not tell the whole story. "Gay" editors know that their newspapers and magazines circulate, to a small extent, in the local community. Like the prison inmate who knows his phone calls are being monitored, "gay" editors reveal only what they believe cannot damage their political and social goals. Testimonies of those who have come out of the "gay" lifestyle (and some who remain trapped there) give us a better picture of the forces which drive and dominate homosexual practice.
The concept of sexual addiction helps to explain many aspects of the homosexual lifestyle. It is widely acknowledged today that sexual behavior is one of the areas of human behavior most susceptible to addiction (many of us know someone who is a heterosexual addict of pornography or extramarital sex). Central to the pattern of sexual addiction is the idea of sexual adventure, the pursuit of ever greater sexual excitement through experimentation with novel sexual behaviors. Since the nature of addiction is to demand higher and higher levels of participation by the addict, and since the quality of novelty eventually wears off, we can see in sexual addiction a built-in motivation to pursue ever more frequent, bizarre and aberrant behaviors. Many of these behaviors would be shock or shame-producing for the addict, thus increasing the emotional "jolt" as required by the escalating demands of addiction. The homosexual lifestyle fits easily into this description; it is a powerful addictive pattern, characterized by frequent, bizarre and intense forms of sexual gratification.
If such a model accurately represents the progressive nature of sexual addiction and explains how some people become deeply enmeshed in the "gay" lifestyle, it can also be extrapolated to our society. The desire for sexual excitement is a normal impulse in human beings; on the other hand, what constitutes sexual adventure is relative to a person's prior sexual experience and to his own moral limits and those of his society. For example, sexual adventure for the average American in the 1950s was undoubtedly far less exotic than what probably constitutes sexual adventure for the average person today.
It stands to reason that the more society normalizes sexual deviance, the more the average person will tend to view deviant behavior as an option. Further, the more common a sexually deviant behavior becomes, the less it will tend to satisfy the more sexually adventurous members of society, a group which now includes young people. What occurs then is a society-wide search for stronger stimuli, an inevitable self-perpetuating moral drift by society across the continuum of sexual deviance. This process accelerates as society cuts its moorings to the traditional heterosexual norm.
Most of the arguments against sexual deviance and for the heterosexual norm relate to society's need to protect marriage and the family. The institutionalization of sexual adventure within a society, accompanied by many forms of sexual behavior which degrade the individual and work against the principles of committed, selfless, loving family relationships, is a deathblow to that society's cohesion and health.
We will not take the opportunity, in this book, to discuss the details of "gay" sex practices. Frankly, we believe it is emotionally stressful to read descriptions of the behaviors which are routinely practiced in much of the "gay" community. It will suffice to point out that many practices which are considered normal among homosexuals do not fall inside the range of behaviors which an average person would consider acceptable, even under the heading of sexual adventure. Consequently, the concept of sexual adventure in the "gay" community lies at the extreme end of the range of sexual deviance. Many homosexuals at the fringes of the "gay"community practice forms of perversion which most people do not even know exist (and can be thankful that they don't). We have provided a list of resources at the end of this book for parents who wish (even after this warning) to learn more about what could await their child should he or she be recruited into the "gay" lifestyle, or fall into some other form of sexual addiction.
In defense of the assertion that homosexuality is a condition over which one has no control, homosexual activists often state that no-one would choose to be "gay." They strongly imply that if they themselves had had a choice, they would not have chosen to be homosexual. In other words, they tacitly admit that the homosexual lifestyle is not "gay," but miserable. Some have laid the blame for homosexuals' unhappiness (and the high rates of suicide, domestic violence, and drug and alcohol addiction in the "gay" community) upon society. They argue that society's disapproval of homosexuality is what causes pain in the lives of homosexuals, that the only solution to "gay" misery is for society to accept and affirm the homosexual lifestyle. Such a claim is less believable in light of the fact that many of the activists who make it, live and work in overwhelmingly "gay"-affirming communities. The best response to such an argument, however, comes from the ex-"gay" community. Men and women who have left the homosexual lifestyle report that their lives are happy and improved. These former "gays," many of whom now enjoy the pleasures and rewards of heterosexual marriage and child-rearing, offer themselves as living proof that homosexuals can change. Many ex-"gays" also warn that societal affirmation of the homosexual lifestyle hurts "gays" who want to fight to overcome their sexual addiction — by removing one of their strongest motivations to succeed: social disapproval of "gay" behavior (not to mention that such affirmation may actively discourage homosexuals from seeking help).
A logical explanation for the unhappiness which characterizes the homosexual lifestyle is that homosexuals are aware, at some level, that their behavior is physically and emotionally destructive. Rates of sexually transmitted disease, for example, are astronomically high in the "gay" community (especially among men) leading to a drastically reduced lifespan for both male and female homosexuals (an average life expectancy of 39 for males, 52 for females). And who can say what degree of psychological harm results from rejecting one's self-evident heterosexual design and engaging in behaviors that violate the obvious natural purpose and function of human sexuality? The subconscious mind acts as a powerful force in shaping one's emotions. No amount of self-deception or affirmation by others will make a person truly happy with his lifestyle if, subconsciously, he remains aware that his behavior is abnormal and harmful.
Sex with Children
Certainly not every homosexual is a pedophile as well, but many people who engage in homosexual behavior also pursue sexual relationships with children and youths. When confronted with this fact, spokesmen for the "gay" movement typically retort that "ninety-eight percent of child molestations are committed by heterosexual men." This statistic is a mainstay of "gay" rhetoric and is misleading for several reasons. As in the presentations of Alfred Kinsey, both the definitions and the criteria for classifying are closely controlled to favor a "gay"-positive result. The ninety-eight percent statistic is reached by a system of categorizing offenders by whether they identify themselves as heterosexual or homosexual, not by simply looking at the gender of the child and of the offender. Thus, a man who sexually molests a twelve-year-old boy is categorized as a heterosexual molester if the man is married or identifies himself as primarily heterosexual. In other words, the statistic is based on the assumptions of sexual orientation theory and not on the homosexual or heterosexual nature of the acts themselves. Such a process makes the statistic utterly meaningless as to the question of whether people who engage in homosexual behavior are more likely to molest or seduce children. Even if the assumptions of sexual orientation theory were true, a system which categorized offenders by sexual orientation based upon self-reporting could not be considered reliable. It is reasonable to believe that offenders with a homosexual "orientation" would tend to identify themselves as heterosexual simply to make themselves appear more normal to the authorities.
When they have used a behavioral definition of homosexuality, various studies have found that from twenty-five to forty percent of child molestations involved homosexual conduct. This statistic, when combined with the fact that homosexuals represent no more than two percent of the population, indicates a much higher per capita rate of pedophilic behavior in the "gay" community than occurs in society as a whole.
Another definitional problem in any discussion about sexual activity between adults and young people is the question of "consensual" sex. Most parents would say that, by definition, a child cannot "consent" to sexual relations with an adult, yet their children might not agree. Children and teens often do not complain to the authorities about sexual encounters, even forcible ones, they may have had with adults or older teens. Parents in Philadelphia were shocked several years ago when a predator who called himself "Fast Eddie" announced that he had AIDS, and, out of concern for his sexual partners, disclosed that he had seduced over two hundred boys in the area. What is significant in this story is that none of these boys had ever turned him in as a molester. They probably viewed themselves as free moral agents capable of consenting to sex with an adult. The real question is, how many "Fast Eddies" are prowling America's cities today, and how many of their juvenile victims never make the statistics? The fact is that homosexual pedophiles have always played a central role in the "gay" movement.
One of the original planks in the 1972 "gay rights" agenda (one which has never been renounced) is a call for the repeal of age-of-consent laws for children. The only openly pederastic (remember that pederasty is man-boy sex) organizations in the United States are run by and for homosexual men. Harry Hay, founder of the first major homosexual organization in the United States, the Mattachine Society, and an icon of the American "gay" movement, actively supports one of these organizations, the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Mainstream "gay" travel books advise homosexual men on how to procure boys for sex in foreign countries. Lesbian-oriented literature commonly describes scenes of adult women having sex with young girls. In recent years the "gay" movement has tried to publicly distance itself from advocates of adult-child sex, but homosexual pedophiles are as prominent as ever in the "gay" community and, thanks to the society-wide campaign of "gay" recruitment, more active than ever in seducing boys and girls into the "gay" lifestyle.