Normalizing, Part III: Change Is Possible

There’s so much more to cover about the lines that have already been crossed toward normalizing sexual perversion, I’m sure we’ll leave out plenty. But this third post is probably enough for now. (See Part I and Part II.)

For the sake of sanity, let’s start with this clip from Monty Python’s Life of Brian:

So, in 1979 the movie depicted the absurdity of a man suddenly deciding he was a woman, when it was clear to all those around him (who were supposed to be open-minded people of the first century AD) that, of course Stan can’t just “be” a woman; he doesn’t have a womb. He can’t have babies—and that isn’t even the fault of Roman oppression. It’s just a fact of life.

I’d say this basic fact was obvious common sense until about 2 minutes ago, historically speaking. A decade ago, during discussions about same-sex “marriage,” when activists were asked what would be the line that would not be crossed, the line that would be too far, pedophilia and transgenderism were both supposedly beyond the line. No one would ever accept those perversions. It was that recent that the term “transvestite” became politically incorrect and became “transgender,” about the same time T was added to LGB. (The term LGBT was used in the 90s, but not widely. By the way, the terms transgenerderism and transphobic are so new, automatic spell checks still highlight them to alert you that you don't have a word.) Many Ls and Gs still aren’t comfortable with that, since the point of their argument is that it matters to them which sex/gender they’re attracted to. Which sex you are, or which you’re attracted to, is not arbitrary or without meaning.

So now, when we have transgenderism being forced upon our school children, and we’re denigrated as vilely transphobic for stating the obvious, maybe we would be wise to step back and refuse a few already crossed lines before things get worse.

In June, the country’s biggest, and possibly most powerful, teachers’ union, the NEA, met and passed New Business Item 11, requiring that “all state and local affiliates encourage K-12 teachers to view a series of films called Creating Gender Inclusive Schools.” I viewed a two-minute sample. They talk mostly about colors and activity choices, which may be associated with gender, but which are totally cultural and often arbitrary, and have nothing to do with actually being male or female.  And then they slip in the idea that you don’t have to have gender imposed on you; you can just choose your gender.

Just as in the children’s music video I mentioned in Thursday’s post, this is a lie. Liking blue or black or pink or purple does not change whether you are male or female. Liking sports and physical activities when you’re a girl doesn’t mean you’re really a boy in the wrong body; it means you’re a girl who likes sports and physical activities. Liking arts, dance, music, literature, or other pursuits that require a certain aesthetic sensitivity when you’re a boy does not mean you’re really a girl in the wrong body; it means you’re a boy with an aesthetic sense.

These films are not designed, as claimed, to make all children “safe” in schools; they are designed to indoctrinate a radical ideology through lies told over and over, to impressionable children in a setting where they are expected to trust their authority figures.

Michelle Cretella
screen shot from this video

This does not make all children “safe.” This makes no children safe. The 99.97% who are not confused about whether they are male or female are told to reconsider, making them uncertain and confused. And the .03% who are confused about their sex are not given the help that will treat and help them overcome the confusion; they’re encouraged in it. And, against the advice of the American College of Pediatrics, which calls it child abuse, they may be surgically and medically altered in ways that will sterilize them and prevent them from ever living a normal life.

In a piece earlier this year, Ryan T. Anderson reminded us of the negative outcomes of this lie:

The most thorough follow-up of sex-reassigned people—extending over thirty years and conducted in Sweden, where the culture is strongly supportive of the transgendered—documents their lifelong mental unrest. Ten to fifteen years after surgical reassignment, the suicide rate of those who had undergone sex-reassignment surgery rose to twenty times that of comparable peers.

You don't lower the risk of suicide by sex-reassignment "therapy"; you increase the risk of suicide.

The concern about preventing suicide is also used as an argument for accepting homosexuality as normal. But we know now, because of several European countries that have long accepted and normalized homosexual behavior, societal acceptance doesn’t improve the long list[i] of mental and physical issues related to having LGBT issues.

If the underlying, and possibly causal, mental issues were addressed and treated, not only would the suicidal tendencies be addressed, but freedom to choose a normal lifestyle might also become more likely.

In Monday’s post, I pointed out that, while there are important differences in degree of evil between pedophilia and homosexuality, I remember—unlike Roaming Millennial and most of her generation—when it was commonly understood that homosexuality was a deviant perversion. Did the behavior change? No. The message that was inculcated through media and academia changed, with the purpose of changing people’s beliefs. That inculcation has been so successful that people of the millennial generation and younger aren’t even aware that they’ve been the target of activist indoctrination. They think their current understanding is simply the decent and compassionate response to scientific “fact.”

Let me be clear that I am in favor of both decency and compassion. I might, however, have a different idea of what that consists of.

I believe some things needed to change. People who mean no harm and do no harm to others should be respected, even if their choices are not what we might call moral. (A person who knowingly spreads HIV or any other sexually transmitted disease is guilty of doing harm, as is a person who gives in to a sexual attraction to children.) A person with same-sex attraction should not be hated for being different. They should be treated with kindness and respect—not because of their sexual orientation, but because of their being human. But tolerance does not require approval.

I approve of my church’s position toward same-sex attraction—which isn’t new or changed; this has always been the case, but has been made clearer and more accessible. A person with same-sex attraction is required to live according to the same moral commandments as everyone else, because God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34, Doctrine & Covenants 1:35, 2 Nephi 26:33).

Behavior matters. Thoughts lead to behavior, but in a civilized world we don’t prosecute or persecute thoughts we disagree with; we communicate—both ways. And persuade when we can.

One reason I approve of my church’s approach regarding behavior, not orientation, is because orientation can change. I’m sympathetic with those who don’t want same-sex attraction. They want to be rid of it. And they struggle, sometimes for years, sometimes not very successfully. They don’t get much help in today’s world, which includes even therapists who think the solution is to accept their condition and try to change the world to accommodate them, rather than help them find ways to change or avoid the unwholesome lifestyle and associated mental and physical illnesses.

I’m disturbed by parents who respond in extreme ways to a child’s announcement of same-sex attraction. Being angry at the child, punishing or ostracizing that young person—that is not the right approach. Even if the young person goes through a long period of appallingly unwholesome lifestyle choices, forcing them to change when the world is telling them they can’t is only going to make them feel unloved. They may already feel unloved.

One young person I know, feeling sympathy for gays—convinced that those she knows are all legally married to their monogamous exclusive partner (see heteromorphism in the last post)—believes the church ought to accept them, because she can’t accept the idea that they should go through life without ever experiencing love.

I understand the care and concern. And I don’t deny that some gay couples love each other. But there’s a huge difference between love and sex. Sex doesn’t express love outside marriage; the commitment must come first. This is just as true for heterosexuals. Have you ever known a gay person who waited until after marriage before having sex? Even since the change in the definition of marriage was forced upon us nationally by the Supreme Court?

If you’re going to encourage acceptance of same-sex “marriage” in order to allow a certain group of people to experience love, you’re saying they have no chance of change, and no chance of self-control. And you’re also putting them above others who never marry—or experience that type of love—for various reasons—a disability that interferes with a love life, a lack of opportunity, or some other life tragedy. Why change the world for homosexuals but not all other individuals?

If you’re being practical (and parents, family, and friends should be), a committed same-sex “marriage” relationship is a better situation than a non-exclusive relationship, or the more typical promiscuous gay lifestyle. But it still doesn’t give them as likely a chance of a healthy, happy life as leaving the lifestyle and possibly changing orientation to the point that a real marriage becomes a possibility—with God’s blessing.

I’m also disturbed by parents who reject church teachings in order to support a child’s homosexuality. That means you’ve bought into the lie that your child was born that way and has no ability to change—or even to refrain from engaging in illicit sexual acts with multiple sex partners. Why would that be moral for your homosexual child but not for your heterosexual child? Why are you suddenly so sure you are right and God—the definer of good—is wrong?

For help as a parent, or as someone with unwanted same-sex attraction, you might try Positive Approaches To Human Sexuality (https://www.pathinfo.org).

I believe we’re all better off with actual truth, rather than gut reactions—many of which are planted in us by a long-term indoctrination program that we haven’t been aware of or had control over.

Yes, be kind to everyone. But civility does not require agreeing with everyone or approving of everyone’s behavior.

Keep pedophiles far away from our children. But also keep indoctrinators of the entire LGBTIQ+ alphabet of treatable mental illnesses away from our children. Because their normalization indoctrination has already done harm to many and brought us dangerously close to allowing pedophiles access to our children.

---

[i] Homosexual conduct has consequences for mental health. There is a well-documented correlation between homosexuality and suicide and mental illness. See, e.g., Theo B. M. Sandfort, De Graaqf, Bilj, and Schable, “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders:  Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study,” 85 (Archives of General Psychiatry 85 (January 2001) (“The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders”); Richard Herrell, et al., “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality,” Archives of General Psychiatry 867 (October 1999) (“Same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures” and “is unlikely to be due solely to substance abuse or other psychiatric co-morbidity”); David M. Fergusson, et al., “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry 876 (October 1999) (“Findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associates being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder.”)  While some may argue that these findings are “caused by society oppression” (J Michael Bailey, “Homosexuality and Mental Illness,” Archives of General Psychiatry 883 and 884 October 1999), this is not the only possible explanation. The survey of findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study found a significant greater risk for psychiatric disorders among homosexuals, even though “the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality has long been and remains considerably more tolerant” than most of the world. Sandfort, et al, above, at 89. Other possible explanations include hypotheses that “homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness,” and that “increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation.”  J. Michael Bailey, above, at 884. Also, Sandfort et al., above, at 85-91.  (Youth are four times more likely to suffer major depression, also three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and over six times as likely to have attempted suicide. Additionally, this research originates in the Netherlands where homosexuality is much more mainstream and accepted.)  Substance abuse is an additional health concern of those in the homosexual lifestyle:  Timothy J. Dailey, “The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality” and associated notes, Family Research Council “The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists reports that lesbian women consume alcohol more frequently, and I larger amounts, than heterosexual women. Lesbians were at significantly greater risk than heterosexual women for both binge drinking (19.4 percent compared to 11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7 percent)….Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking.”

Normalizing Has Already Crossed a Line, Part II: Heteromorphism

In Monday’s post we talked about the attempt to normalize pedophilia, along with other sexual deviancies that have been normalized. There’s still so much, I don’t know if I’ll get it all in today’s post.

We’ll start with a little personal experience.

Last week we had our granddaughter, Little Political Sphere 1, visiting us for a sort of staycation. One of my favorite parts is getting to do story reading at bedtime. She was really slow getting ready for bed, though, because she was distracted by her tablet. So I confiscated it until she got her teeth brushed.

The tablet is a sturdy thing designed for kids, and only has access to things that are meant for kids. There are games, some of them interactive with other kids, and there’s some live-streaming that seems pretty silly to me, but she enjoys it. And there’s music.

I don't know if this is the brand,
but it looks about like this.
Image from Amazon

Anyway, while I was waiting for her, she set me up to watch a music video she thought I might like. When that was done, I went on to another that was suggested in the right margin. I recognized the name Taylor Swift and mostly enjoy her music, so I clicked on that one (not a song name I remember). The video that came up with it was an animated story.

Remember, this is aimed at young children. LPS1 is almost 9. We’re talking mid-elementary school-age, not middle school or higher. The animation was of children that looked her age.

There was a young boy who sees someone he knows along the sidewalk. His heart starts beating out beyond his chest, throbbing visibly. He’s embarrassed about how obvious it is, so he climbs a tree and takes a look from there. The other child he’s watching is reading a book while walking and tossing an apple up and down. Boy-in-tree’s heart bursts out of his chest and goes and replaces the apple. He must go get it back. So he sneaks up, reaches for it, accidentally gets the attention of the apple-tossing child. He’s awkwardly close, and even more embarrassed. But then their eyes lock, and suddenly his love is reciprocated.

If you’re assuming the apple-tossing child is a girl, you should still see how ridiculous this is. Boys this age think girls have cooties, and girls know this about boys too. This is years before they’re interested in falling in love with someone. So the story is a lie. Cute? Maybe, but a lie. A girl who is suddenly confronted by a boy who invades her personal space, whether or not she recognizes his crush on her, is going to go “Eww! Get away!”

But the apple-tossing child, who is the target of the tree-climbing boy’s heart throb, is a very cool looking boy. The kind who does well in sports and wears casually cool clothes, and is just cool without even thinking about it. This other boy, who was perfectly comfortable in his nine-year-old world, is not going to suddenly feel romantic love for this odd boy who has just invaded his space.

First, only 2% of the adult population is attracted to the same sex. Among nine-year-olds next to 0% are. They’re not romantically attracted to anyone at that age. Boys are, however, attracted to boys in another way at this age. They want to be around the boys they like, that they admire, that they share interests with. It’s about learning to develop friendships. Any hint that this attraction is sexual is a lie, and it’s harmful. Another harmful lie is that, if you’re this age and not interested in girls, and you prefer to be with boys, you ought to start worrying that you might be gay.

Media and societal lies of this sort don’t do what they purport to intend: they do not get people over their supposed prejudices. These lies don’t get to truth. They have nothing to do with truth.

I have a word for this type of lie: heteromorphism. Look at the word anthropomorphism, which means attributing characteristics of humans (Anthropos) to animals, to make them (morph) human-like. So heteromorphism means attributing characteristics of heterosexuals to homosexuals.

Are homosexuals and their relationships the same as heterosexuals and their relationships with just the gender substitution? That’s is becoming a common belief. And it’s tempting to believe.

I don’t have a wide range of acquaintance with homosexuals in my life. I’ve had my share of teachers and co-workers. But because most of my circle consists of working at home, going to church, relating to other families with growing or grown children, I don’t frequently interact with that 2% of the population. But there are friends of friends, and I’m sympathetic. There’s a tendency among us to assume that these are people pretty much like us. They find someone they are attracted to and want to spend their life with, and if we just get out of their way and let them live the way they want, isn’t that the decent thing to do?

If you read Monday’s post, I think you’ll see that’s the view of Roaming Millennial. That’s why she so clearly separated pedophiles from LGBTs. Because LGBTs are just like us except for some harmless quirky differences, but pedophiles are nothing like us.

Screen shot from Roaming Millennial's video blog

If that’s true, it will hold up to scrutiny.

Here’s some data:

·         A majority of male homosexuals (according to the CDC in 1997) have over 500 sexual partners in their lifetime. Among the first several hundred AIDS patients, their average was 1100.[i]

·         Homosexual males average 22 sexual partners per year (almost two new partners per month).

·         Married homosexual males average 8 sexual partners per year.[ii]

·         Lesbians average 50 male sexual partners in their lifetime (compared to an average of 12 for women who only have sex with men).[iii]

·         Most “committed” homosexual relationships end within three years.[iv]

·         Nearly all (possibly all—studies ended when none could be found) long-term “committed” homosexual relationships accommodate infidelity as acceptable.[v]

·         Self-identified homosexual teens (not questioning or bisexual) have pregnancy rates two to seven times greater than heterosexuals in their demographic. 10% of males who consider themselves homosexual or questioning have had enough sex with females to have caused a pregnancy.[vi]

·         Homosexual teens are twice as likely to be sexually active as heterosexual teens.

·         Adult male homosexuals have a life expectancy twenty years shorter than the total male population; those with AIDS have even less time.[vii]

·         Homosexuals are statistically more likely to suffer the entire gamut of mental illness than the rest of society—as much as 6 times higher.[viii]

·         Almost 50% of male homosexuals and 55% of females have suffered abuse requiring hospitalization caused by a sexual partner. When emotional abuse is included, 83% of males and 84% of females have been abused by a partner.[ix]

·         17% of young men in America are sexually abused before adulthood, more than 86% by homosexual men. Mathematically, this means that a child molester is statistically 10 to 20 times more likely to be a homosexual than a heterosexual.[x]  

·         73% of homosexuals surveyed had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger.[xi]

·         Homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested.[xii]

·         Though homosexuals make up just two percent of the U.S. population, homosexuals commit 33 percent of the pedophilia crimes.

·         About 40 percent of homosexuals have been victims of childhood sexual abuse or adult sexual violence.

We could also mention that homosexual couples do not engage in the sexual act that heterosexual couples engage in. It may be that there’s a lack of oxytocin or other hormone, which bonds heterosexual couples, and that explains why most homosexual couples are neither committed nor exclusive. They don’t get the satisfaction that committed heterosexual couples get, so they keep searching and not finding.

There’s more bad news, but I think we’ve brought up enough questions for today.

I know I tend to think that the friends of friends I know who are in homosexual relationships must be the rare committed cases. But social science data shows the likelihood of that to be low. I’m probably more accurate if I don’t heteromorphize, even though my sympathies make me want to.

Another day we’ll have to talk about which is kinder: pretending there’s no difference and encouraging their behavior, or offering an alternative?

What is most distressing from the data is the strong correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia. Roaming Millennial was so clear that there’s a total separation. But she didn’t know the data that I did, even though it’s been around a long time.[xiii] And she hasn’t been aware of the normalizing she’d been subjected to her whole lifetime.

But she is right: normalizing has crossed a line.

There’s more normalizing of the LGBT agenda to cover. I’ll get to that in a Part III.

---

[i] G. Rotell, Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men (New York, Dutton, 1997).

[ii] Xiridou, Maria, et al., “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” 1029-1038 AIDS, 17 (7) May 2, 2003.

[iii] Fethers, Katherine, et al., “Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in Women Who Have Sex with Women,” Sexually Transmitted Infections 76 (2000): 348.

[iv] Kronemeyer, Robert. Overcoming Homosexuality, New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc., 1980, p. 32.

[v] McWhirter, David P., and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple:  How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:  Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 3. They reported that in a study of 156 males in homosexual relationships lasting from one to 37 years, only 7 couples have a totally exclusive sexual relationship, and these men all have been together for less than five years. Stated another way, all couples with a relationship lasting more than five years have incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity in their relationships. No “monogamous” relationship among men longer than the ones set out in this book have been documented.

[vi] I wrote about this, including links to the original stories, August 10, 2017. 

[vii] Hogg, R. S., S. A. Strathdee, K. J. Craib, M. V O’Shaughnessy, J. S. Montaner, and M. T. Schechter, “Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 26, 657-662, 1997. “In a major Canadian centre, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality were to continue, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday.”

[viii] Homosexual conduct has consequences for mental health. There is a well-documented correlation between homosexuality and suicide and mental illness. See, e.g., Theo B. M. Sandfort, De Graaqf, Bilj, and Schable, “Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders:  Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study,” 85 (Archives of General Psychiatry 85 (January 2001) (“The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders”); Richard Herrell, et al., “Sexual Orientation and Suicidality,” Archives of General Psychiatry 867 (October 1999) (“Same-gender sexual orientation is significantly associated with each of the suicidality measures” and “is unlikely to be due solely to substance abuse or other psychiatric co-morbidity”); David M. Fergusson, et al., “Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?” Archives of General Psychiatry 876 (October 1999) (“Findings support recent evidence suggesting that gay, lesbian, and bisexual young people are at increased risk of mental health problems, with these associates being particularly evident for measures of suicidal behavior and multiple disorder.”)  While some may argue that these findings are “caused by society oppression” (J Michael Bailey, “Homosexuality and Mental Illness,” Archives of General Psychiatry 883 and 884 October 1999), this is not the only possible explanation. The survey of findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence Study found a significant greater risk for psychiatric disorders among homosexuals, even though “the Dutch social climate toward homosexuality has long been and remains considerably more tolerant” than most of the world. Sandfort, et al, above, at 89. Other possible explanations include hypotheses that “homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness,” and that “increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation.”  J. Michael Bailey, above, at 884. Also, Sandfort et al., above, at 85-91.  (Youth are four times more likely to suffer major depression, also three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and over six times as likely to have attempted suicide. Additionally, this research originates in the Netherlands where homosexuality is much more mainstream and accepted.)  Substance abuse is an additional health concern of those in the homosexual lifestyle:  Timothy J. Dailey, “The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality” and associated notes, Family Research Council “The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychologists reports that lesbian women consume alcohol more frequently, and I larger amounts, than heterosexual women. Lesbians were at significantly greater risk than heterosexual women for both binge drinking (19.4 percent compared to 11.7 percent), and for heavy drinking (7 percent compared to 2.7 percent)….Among men, by far the most important risk group consisted of homosexual and bisexual men, who were more than nine times as likely as heterosexual men to have a history of problem drinking.”

[ix] Susan C. Turnell, “A Descriptive Analysis of Same-Sex Relationship Violence for a Diverse Sample,” Journal of Family Violence, 281 (2000) (finding that 44% of gay men report having experienced physical violence in their relationships, including 14% reporting sexual violence, with 83% reporting emotional abuse. Among lesbians:  55% acknowledge having experienced physical violence, 14% report sexual abuse and 84% report emotional abuse); See also, U.S. Department of Justice Study, Citizen Magazine (January 2000) (reporting that the U.S. Justice Study found an epidemic of violence between homosexuals: an annual average of 13,740 male victims of violence by homosexual partners and 16,900 victims by lesbian partners. By contrast, the most recent numbers—1999—for “hate crimes” based on sexual orientation totaled a relatively low 1,558 victims). See also New York Times article “Alleged Murder Is Further Proof of Domestic Violence as Major Health Risk of Homosexuals, Traditional Values Group Says,” available at http://www.afaanwpa.org, quoting Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Northwestern Pennsylvania: “The truth is that acts of outside aggression against individuals involved in homosexual behavior, while always highly publicized, are rare. The far greater threat of violence to individuals involved in homosexual relationships—a staggering 50,000 percent higher risk, according to research by homosexual activists themselves—is the epidemic of domestic violence such individuals commit against each other.”  See also David Island and Patrick Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them, p. 14, “The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple…we believe as many as 650,000 gay men may be victims of domestic violence each year in the United States.”

[x] See Baldwin, Steve, “Child Molestation and the Homosexual Movement” and associated notes. “Homosexuals account for between 25% and 40% of all child molestation. Sex researchers Freund, Heasman, Racansky, and Glancy, for example, in a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, put the number at 36%. Erickson, Walbek, Sely, in a 1988 Archives of Sexual Behavior article, places it at 86% when the children being molested are male (citing W. D. Erickson et al, “Behavior Patterns of Child Molesters,” 17 Archives of Sexual Behavior 1, 83 (1988), supra note 1 at 83). …It should be noted that homosexuals account for only 2% of the population which statistically means that a child molester is ten to twenty times more likely to be homosexual than heterosexual.”  See also K. Jay et al, The Gay Report:  Lesbians and Gays Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles 275 (1979) (This study by homosexual activists and researchers revealed that 73% of homosexuals surveyed had sex with boys sixteen to nineteen years of age or younger); Eugene Abel et al., “Self-Reported Sex Crimes of Nonincarcerated Pedophiliacs, 2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 3,5 (19877) “Child molestation, by comparison, was a relatively infrequent crime occurring from an average of 23.2 times by a pedophile (nonincest) with female targets to an average of 281.7 times by a pedophile (nonincest) whose targets were males”; R. Blanchard et al, “Fraternal Order and Sexual Orientation in Pedophiles,” 29 Archives Sexual Behav. 464 (2000); K. Freund & R I. Watson, “The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children:  An Exploratory Study,” 18 Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 34, 34-43 (1992).

[xi] K. Jay et al, The Gay Report:  Lesbians and Gays Speak Out About Sexual Experiences and Lifestyles 275 (1979).

[xii] K. Freund & R. I. Watson, "The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Sex & Marital Therapy 18 (1992): 34-43

[xiii] See my Defense of Marriage Collection. 

Being Anti-Slavery among Willing Enslavers

Just for background, in 1995 The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints put out The Family: A Proclamation to the World (sometimes shortened to The Family Proclamation). It seemed straightforward, the same things we’d heard all our lives, beliefs practically everyone we ran into still held. Many of us wondered, why the proclamation? But within a year practically every line in it was challenged, in public discussion, in courts, in international organizations and UN non-governmental organizational treaty proposals. Now, two decades into the onslaught on family, we can see it was a prophetic document.

Recently the (less formal) proclamation I keep hearing from these Church leaders is that all believers need to stand up for religious liberty. (This speech at BYU-Idaho is one example.) Even if we don’t feel the attacks directly yet, my expectation based on experience with such prophetic proclamations leads me to believe this is an increasing real threat. We've dealt with it in part recently, as we watch the Supreme Court cases with Hobby Lobby and others.

So it is with that background that I am looking at the current issue. Specifically, what happened yesterday was Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s veto of a law spelling out the right of business owners to refuse to provide services that go against their religious beliefs. I haven’t read the law itself. What I understand is that Arizona already had a religious rights restoration law, patterned quite literally after the same federal law for that purpose signed by Pres. Clinton in the 1990s, shortly prior, and has been in place without fuss since then. The addition was to clarify that private business owners had the protection even when there was no government entity involved in the case (suits brought by private citizens against private business owners).

The reason was based on a growing list of cases, mostly related to small business owners being asked to perform services related to same-sex “weddings,” including in states where laws do not recognize such “marriages” as lawful, which would be the case for Arizona. The list includes bakers, photographers, wedding planners, florists, and others you might turn to for services at a wedding. Another was a t-shirt printer who wouldn’t print t-shirts for a gay pride festival. In none of the cases were the plaintiffs refused all services; in each case, the small business owner suggested the limits of services they would provide, and offered alternative sources, including less expensive alternatives. Nevertheless, the “offended” plaintiffs, rather than going to someone willing to take their money and provide the services they requested, took the small business owners to court—to force them to provide the service against their will.

It is my assumption that the majority of these cases (and possibly every one) is a purposeful act to use courts to force the homosexual agenda on the portions of society that haven’t succumbed to their pressure already, with religious people in the crosshairs. Courts have been helping by going along with that agenda, rather than abiding by the law.

In what universe would we expect to see an American forced to do work he finds religiously objectionable? In the slave-owning antebellum South, maybe. But it has been a century and a half since we fought the Civil War to do away with that ugly injustice.

Yet we have judges now who say, “I don’t like your religious belief, so I say you have to do as I say, or your alterative is a fine that will have the effect of closing down your business.” The judge decides that the baker’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (the way he chooses to make a livelihood and provide himself with property) are the judge’s to allow or disallow at whim. That is slavery.

As for yesterday’s ruling, I think Jan Brewer was wrong. She is generally conservative, but this was a political decision. It wasn’t based on the merits of the law; it was, as she claimed, because people were concerned about vagueness in the law (issues not brought up during the discussion in the legislature), and because this wasn’t a focus of her current agenda. Hmm. So, if the legislature varies from her agenda, she vetoes their work? Not usually. What followed the passage of the legislation was a hue and cry from some well-funded homosexual agenda promoters, and they threatened Arizona with a boycott, which frightened Arizona tourist industry businesses, including principally a threat from the NFL about taking away the Superbowl. And the governor caved to pressure from the bullies. She has my sympathy, but not my admiration. 

My non-expert legal opinion is that the law would have been useful, but would not have gone far enough. I believe a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Every business exchange is an agreement between seller and buyer. It has to be coercion free.

I am not saying it’s a good idea to refuse service for stupid reasons—like racism, which is what comes to mind. I think, along with the overwhelming majority of civilized people, that racism is a stupid way of thinking—but I think business owners have the same right everyone has to be stupid. And you as a consumer have the choice to go to a service provider of your choice. You are free to avoid going to someone who declares himself to be a stupid bigot. The free market makes it naturally hard—without any government interference—for a known bigot to discriminate against customers without civilized people knowing about it and going elsewhere, affecting his profitability.

The Civil Rights movement—people changing people’s minds--makes sense to me. The Civil Rights legislation, not so much. Again, I didn’t grow up in a place that ever had Jim Crow laws. They were despicable. But the forgotten problem was that those laws often forced businesses to segregate. Change came when people stepped up and said, “That’s not right,” crossed lines and tested them. Change didn’t come from government suddenly getting noble and spreading noble ideas to the people.

The repeal of those laws could have said, “Government is getting out of your business; you can get back to free exchange with anyone you choose,” and let the movement of opinion lead naturally to free-choice interracial business. Instead, government stepped in and enforced desegregation, and probably lengthening continued resentment and prejudice.

Government can’t change people’s beliefs, or change their hearts from evil to good; government can only force. So if we don’t limit government, we simply get a change of target.

Some of the commentary yesterday, from the other side, said (paraphrased), “We can’t allow people to hide behind so-called religious beliefs to get away with offensive discrimination against gays.” [Good discussion from both sides here.] Really? So, some government entity, maybe a court, should have the power to examine a person’s religious beliefs, to determine whether they’re heartfelt, and also to determine whether those beliefs should be accepted, heartfelt or not, if someone else feels offended by them? And said government should have the power to coerce a free citizen business owner to offer a service or create a product he doesn’t want to create—for religious or any other reason?

People (including judges) who knee-jerk react based on their unwillingness to appear insensitive to the current loudest crying “victim” of being offended, ought to learn how to think through an issue. Saying, “I don’t like your reason for not baking a certain cake, so I’m not buying from you anymore” is a huge chasm away from “I don’t like your reason for not baking a certain cake, so I’m using the force of government to coerce you to do what I say or else lose your ability to do business at all.”

Who is most harmed? The people who got their feelings hurt because they were pointed to some other bakery that would willingly provide the service they wanted; or the business owner who has his business shut down if he doesn’t use his skills in a celebration that goes against his beliefs? Isn’t it obvious that the business owner is the one being harmed?

There are so many related hypotheticals we can use to examine the question of slavery. I thought we’d get to such a list in a single post, but that will have to be a starting place for part II.

In the meantime, you might want to check out some additional commentary: blogger Matt Walsh spent two days this week dealing with this idea. (I’m regularly following his blog now. He’s insightful and logical, and as in this case writes what I was planning to cover before I get to it.) The two pieces are:

·         “Yes, of course a business owner should have theright to refuse service to gay people”

·         “Problem solved: let private businesses refuseservice to anyone anytime for any reason”

And it was while listening to the Hugh Hewitt show that I heard Governor Brewer’s announcement, followed by discussion. If you have access to his archive, I particularly liked the second half of the third hour on Wednesday, February 26.