Pink Propoganda

Homosexuals use the Environmental Model by:

1 - Molesting Children

"sex before [age] eight, or else it's too late" NAMBLA slogan. Why age eight? because only by molesting children that young will they be certain to change them into homosexuals. The Oedipal phase finishes at year 5, and normal interest in girls starts at age 11-12. Age 8 draws a clear line between the two. Homosexuals are developmentally stuck in a pre-pubertal mode of sexual object-choice --and they want to retard your children's development in a similar fashion by molesting them at the same stage.

David Thorstad, a spokesman for NAMBLA, says his organisation "takes the view that sex is good, that homosexuality is good, not only for adults, but for young people as well."[G372] He is a homosexual who wants to make your children homosexual. 80% of those who march in the gay march on Washington are NAMBLA supporters.

The U.S. "National Gay Rights Platform" (spelled out in 1972 and supported by Canadian Homosexuals) called for, and still calls for:

The abolition of all laws governing "age of sexual consent," thus enabling adults to have sex with consenting children of any age or either sex;
The repeal of all laws against sodomy and adult or child prostitution;
The homosexual right to legally adopt and have custody of minor children;
The repeal of all laws that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into the marriage unit.
The age of sexual consent laws, covering homosexual "sex", were recently struck down in Ontario, Canada by gay activists.

2 - Feminisation of Young Boys

The characteristics of a bad upbringing includes a domineering mother; and a weak, absent father --and an un-religious background. Here are some more: "First [among reasons for homosexual development], was sexual anxiety on the part of parents, and especially the father, which discouraged a child's sexual interests or curiosity [in women]. Second, was the mother's punitiveness and non-permissiveness towards the child's aggressive behaviour. Third, was frequent use of punishment and ridicule. Fourth, was severe demands on the child to conform to correct social habits at table, toilet, etc."[W197]

These are typical feminine traits. Note that recent attempts to implement "zero-tolerance" programs against "violence" (normal male aggressive behaviour) and "sexual harassment" (normal male expressions of sexual curiosity) in the schools --justified by a few well-publicised exceptional cases-- are attempts to feminize boys which will provably incline them toward homosexual development. There are other more-overt ways boys are feminised: like enforced cross-dressing in "sex education" classes:

"High-schoolers at a U.S. airbase in Yokota, Japan, have a 'cross-dressing day,' in which boys wear dresses and high-heels, and girls wear shirts and pants --all part of their sex-education program (Pacific Stars and Stripes, October 22, 1991)."[G383]

"Craig Goddard's first-grade son came home from public school one day and told his father that women could change themselves into men and men into women. It turns out that the boy, a student at Brookline Elementary School just outside Boston, was learning the details of the sex-change process from a transsexual 'parent', invited into first-grade classes by one of the school's faculty."[97]

"children in a school in Ashland, Mass., were assigned to play 'gays' in a school skit. One boy's line was, 'It's natural to be attracted to the same sex.' Two girls were told to hold hands and pretend they were lesbians. Parents were not informed in advance."[97]

While calling the traditional research "homophobic", homosexuals have been using the results to derail the normal psychosexual development of our children.

3 - Pigeon-Holing Sexually-Uncertain Youths

"One of the problems that students [at puberty] face is uncertainty about sexual identity. During adolescence the increase in drives leads teenagers to turn away defensively from heterosexual objects."[K277]-Glenn et al.

The suggestion that homosexuality is genetic in origin is nothing more than a way of pigeon-holing these sexually-confused youths into the 'gay' category --forcing the suggestible young to believe that they are homosexual and that they have no choice in the matter: "Bald statements indicating that anyone who experiences homosexual urges is 'a homosexual' may erroneously give the conflicted adolescent the idea that he is predestined to that object choice."[K278]-Glenn et al.

"[They say] to the sexual uncertain boy: If you think you are, you are. [And they] call on parents to be 'accepting' of that 'discovery' and show that they approve it."[6] One finds numerous examples of how homosexuals exploit this confusion to justify their intrusion, over parental wishes, as the "counselling" of "gay" children.

"Gay? Lesbian? Think you might be? GIVE US A CALL!" --recruitment advertisement seen on the junior high-school chat groups.

But there are other ways in which homosexuality is encouraged: "Frightening presentations of heterosexuality can push a child defensively toward homosexuality. Further, suggesting that homosexuality is a satisfactory means of resolving the conflicts of adolescence may discourage heterosexuality."[K278]

Not to mention, elimination of standards: "...with both parents and children increasingly confused or in disagreement about the normality of heterosexuality and the fundamental importance of gender differentiation for sound emotional development... sexually deviant youth will very likely become more numerous in the years ahead."[K339]-Levine.

4 - Giving Explicit Instructions on how to Sodomise

Children are imitative in nature. Sex education courses which show movies, graphically detailing anal-sex or fellatio, which suggest that "everyone is doing it" are a deliberate attempt to encourage such behaviour in children. They are also intended to desensitise children to such behaviour (that normal people naturally recognise as "sick.")

"As for the explicit visuals of [homosexual] sodomy and fellatio [in the sex-ed program], Ward said: 'They are used at the discretion of the [group] leader if the group is mature enough to handle them. Originally it was the kids who requested such explicit visuals.'"[R162] "They asked for it" --the standard refrain of the sexual-harasser!

"We may have to change the ways in which [children] learn about sex. We may have to become more directive, more informative, more positive --we may have to PROMOTE sexual activity-- if we want to change the current processes of sexual learning and their outcome." Gagnon, Human Sexualities, 1977.

"In Newton, Mass., a young father, Brian Camenker, learned that a 7th-grade class in sex-education used graphic descriptions of oral and anal sex. When he... asked to see the curriculum, the principal said no and told him that if he didn't like the situation he could send his child to private school... [After asserting his legal right to view the curricula] he arranged to have parents... read aloud passages used for 12-year-old children [to the school committee]. The quoted passages were so offensive the committee cut off debate and threatened to call the police to have Mr. Camenker removed from the meeting."[97]

5 - Placing Homosexual Role-Models in front of your Children

Homosexuals want openly "gay" teachers, ostensibly to serve as role-models for "innately gay" children. Since we know that environmental factors are responsible for homosexual development, we see that this is a false pretence. Instead, we see that homosexuals want openly "gay" teachers and priests, etc. not to serve as role models for "gay" children --but instead to serve as role-models for YOUR children! They want as many homosexuals in front of your children as possible --and they want YOU out of the picture.

"These investigators contend that, first, the cause of homosexuality is the individuals LEARNING this sex role from others (Gagnon and Simon, 1969, 1973; Henderson, 1975)[80,81,82], or that the individual's need to acquire the support and good will of [people they respect] who are sexual deviants results in their becoming sexually-deviant (role-acquisition)."[K332]-Levine.

"Some psychotherapists have expressed serious concern about this trend. They strongly believe that middle-class male adolescents who do not have heterosexual males as a general presence in their lives with who they can identify as emotionally positive figures can become extremely confused by the continuing statements in the media that homosexuality is merely an alternative to heterosexuality, and that it does not involve emotional disturbances."[K335] -Levine.

"It turns out that [Craig Goddard's first grade son], a student at Brookline Elementary School, just outside Boston, was learning the details of the sex- change process from a transsexual parent, invited into first-grade classes by one of the school's faculty."[97]

Of course, the more "gay" teachers looking after your children, the more likely it will be that your children will be molested by them.

"As co-chair of the United Way's gay-issues task-force," (yes, the United Way has a "gay-issues task force") "Miss Achtenburg pushed unsuccessfully for adoption of a gay affirmative-action plan [to force the hiring of homosexuals as scout-leaders.]"[3] --Yet one more reason not to give money to this so-called "charitable" organisation.

6 - Eliminating Normal Male Role-Models

"The heterosexual family unit --spawning ground of lies, betrayals, mediocrity, hypocrisy and violence-- shall be abolished." Gay Community News, New Dimensions, 1988-1990.

"The homosexual activists, meanwhile, know that normal healthy and loving relationships between parents and their children impede goal of homosexual normalisation."[97]

And this is why under the impetus of Kinsey's homo/paedophile revolution, we also find the liberalisation of divorce-laws and the promotion of single-motherhood in the media --the most recent, public example being the Murphy Brown flap. The easier it is to get a divorce, the more distant the father will be --since the mother usually gets the child. And this is why we see a tremendous animus against the traditional family in the homosexual movement. Of course, all of this goes hand-in-hand with the childish, selfish nature of the sixties generation.

7 - Helping Lesbians Have Children

We have all seen homosexuals "helping" lesbians have children. Why do they help them? Because they know that the male children of lesbians --domineering women, with an absent father-- will be likely to be homosexual.

8 - Eliminating Religion from Public Life

And why are homosexuals so hateful of religion? The main reason is that all religions proscribe homosexual practice, but there is another, more sinister, reason: "...in 1984 the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality found that children raised in non-religious homes had a 450 percent higher chance of choosing the homosexual life-style[55]."[G366] and "Observers of kibbutz-reared children in Israel reported that there was no evidence of homosexuality."[S30] Also "... there is apparently little or no homosexuality in China, in the former Soviet Union... or in various religious sects such as the Amish. In other words, culture, belief systems, and plain old strong morals can protect society against growing homosexuality."[G366]

Homosexuals remember the un-religious nature of their own childhood's and want to force it on our children, as well as other characteristics of their upbringing.

9 - Physical Intimidation of Dissenting Physicians and Homosexuals

Psychoanalysts who treat homosexuals are subjected to physical intimidation and other forms of harassment --as are homosexuals who seek treatment for their affliction.

All of this shows the true authoritarian nature of the homosexual movement: they deny people who feel that their condition is an "emotional disorder" (25% --see above) the right to seek treatment.

And, it should be noted, it shows that they believe that such treatment will produce results.

10 - Categorisation of Dissenting Males as "Homophobic"

"A 14-year-old Beverly High School girl came home and told her father that he was a 'homophobe.' She had just returned from 'Homophobia Week' sessions at the school."[97]

"[T]o attempt to explain, meaning to explain away, those who disagree with you by reference to fear and envy is no way to conduct a civil argument."[6]

Another way homosexuals use the environmental model is in their utilisation of the word "homophobe" to silence dissent. What are "homophobes"? They are, according to homosexuals, "men who compensate for their own insecurity with regard to 'sexual orientation' by rooting out the evil in others."[W216] Since the environmental model states that all men pass temporarily through a stage of sexual uncertainty, suppressing impulses and behaviour that lead away from women as they make the transition to becoming normal sexually-functioning adults, all men have (according to the theory) experienced such insecurity. This also happens around puberty, a time of emotional upheaval --when they are also being inundated with gay propaganda that says "If you think you are --you are." The suggestion that one is secretly-homosexual therefore strikes a chord because, in order to develop into normal, healthy adults, such impulses (which supposedly did exist) were suppressed (as they should normally be). And all of this happened at a time when the male was emotionally sensitive. As one researcher said:

"The cruellest form of injustice employed by the gay lobby is to accuse sensitive, decent people of bigotry, hatred, and 'homophobia' for simply following their own moral consciences and seeing abnormal as abnormal" --Masters, [New Dimensions, March 1990].

But the term "homophobia" has a dark implication. It suggests that at least half of all normal people --who view homosexual relations as wrong-- have a "mental problem" because they oppose the aims of homosexuals. And you must make no mistake about it: Homosexual activists have been pushing for mandatory "treatment" for this "mental illness." In schools, children who don't toe the line are given special classes, or they are told that their parents (who don't toe the line) are "homophobic." And adults, in the schools or in the workplace, who make negative comments about homosexuals can be subjected to "sensitivity training" classes (indoctrination), or to exorbitant fines by the local Jewish-funded "human rights" agencies.

Homosexuals, in the wake of the APA cave-in, have framed the debate in such a way that, since they are not (officially) mentally ill, THEN YOU MUST BE!

But... it is not irrational to fear a people who, for the most part, are carrying a deadly, contagious disease. People may very well be fearful of making negative comments about homosexuals for fear of their legal clout; but they are even more fearful about the possibility that these hysterical, raving, deadly-disease-carrying activists will turn up on their front-doorstep.

One last word: YOU CAN SUE ANYONE WHO CALLS YOU A HOMOPHOBE The burden of proof is on them. Go for it! --it's the last weapon they have!

11 - Creating and Abandoning Children, Exploiting Women

And here is one more way homosexuals exploit the environmental hypothesis: By getting married to women, generating offspring, then leaving. The child, reared in the absence of a father, is more likely to develop abnormally. I cannot express my disgust at the sort of low-life that would leave a woman and child to regress into mutual-masturbation with other men.

(A local case gives an example: this individual had a wife and two daughters. He obtained a divorce, and became a public figure with his "sexual orientation" and collection of AIDS paphernalia. His notoriety led to the disgrace of his wife, and the harassment of his children in school. And when his children came home in tears, he sent them back the next day with arguments --to fight his cause for him! And all this --the ruining of his family and his children's school-life-- was done, mind you, so that he could stick his penis up another man's rectum. A local magazine made him out to be a hero, who was boldly experimenting with a "new kind of family." In reality, he was a selfish bastard who threw away the things that really count for the sake of his penis.

But this is typical of the sixties mentality. They would not avoid such conflicts for the sake of their children. Rather, when such conflicts occur, they force their children to fight their battles for them. There is no great difference between using your children sexually, and using them to defend your "sexuality.")

One pro-homosexual researcher, Bozett, found that "gay" fathers typically went through a predictable sequence: they dated, got married, became fathers, separated or got divorced, then commenced a "gay" lifestyle.[66] Too bad for the kids. But at least the father is happy. This inter-generational cannibalism, where the children's happiness and well-being are sacrificed for the sake of the parent's sex-life, is typical of the degenerate sixties mentality.

12 - Promoting Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage is promoted as a way of destroying real marriage in which children are properly socialised. If the definition of marriage is expanded to include anyone, then marriage can be said to mean nothing. But marriage serves a special purpose, that of uniting man and woman to provide a proper upbringing for children:

"We do not need marriage to mark the presence of love, but marriage marks something matchless in a framework for the begetting and nurturing of children. In that respect, there is an evident connection between marriage and what has been called the 'natural teleology of the body': namely, the inescapable fact that only two people, not three, only a man and a woman, can procreate a child. It makes a difference, after all, that a child should enter a framework of lawfulness, with parents who are committed to his care for the same reason that they are committed to each other."[98]

"That is not to say that every marriage must produce children. Yet many seasoned writers have become convinced that a sterile couple proves the falsity of distinguishing between heterosexual and gay couples. But even people not covered over with college degrees have been able to grasp the natural correspondences that establish establish the coherence in the design of marriage: There is a natural correspondence between the notion of marriage and the sexual coupling, the merging of bodies, in the 'unitive significance' of marriage; and there is the plainest natural connection between that act of coupling and the begetting of children. Those children embody the 'wedding' of the couples by combining in themselves the features of both parents."

"These meanings are so evident, these natural correspondences so fixed, that nothing in them is impaired if a couple happens to be incapable of begetting children. Their marital acts retain the same significance in the unitive scheme of marriage. But if marriage were detached from the 'natural teleology of thee body,' this question may be posed: On what ground of principle could the law confine marriage to 'couples'? If the law permitted the marriage of people of the same sex, what is the ground on which the law would refuse to recognise a 'marriage' among people who profess that their own love is not confined to a coupling of two, but connected in a larger cluster of three or four? And if that arrangement of plural partners were permitted to people of the same sex, how could it be denied in principle to ensembles of mixed sexes?"

"When proponents of gay marriage thus show a flippant disregard for polygamy, they show not only a want of historical memory, but a dimness of moral imagination. They resemble those people, described by Aristotle, for whom life is but 'a succession of unrelated emotional experiences,' bearing little connection in principle. And they may be the first to record their astonishment as their policies begin to generate effect they had never, for a moment expected."

"We have drifted so fare not from any awareness of the moral foundations of the law that Mr. Sam Donaldson could earnestly ask: Just what 'compelling interest' would the state have, after all, in the intimate relations of marriage? It used to be understood that the family is the 'coiner' of citizens, and it mattered profoundly to the community that its citizens were not spawned in random relations. Aristotle remarked, in a fascinating passage in the Politics, that 'the polis [or the polity] is prior in the order of nature to the family.' Of course Aristotle never suffered any doubt that people were quite capable of having sexual relations even before the advent of government --and even on those occasions when governments broke down. What he meant, rather, was that the notion of what constituted a 'family' was always enveloped by the moral understandings the pervade the community and find expression in the laws."

Conclusion

By reading the above, the reason for suppressing the environment hypothesis by homosexual activists becomes very clear --as is the reason for the various things which they do support. The environmental model allows us to understand the factors which cause homosexual development, and make certain that our children do not develop in this fashion. The hypocritical homosexuals have used this model to encourage homosexual activity among our children, even as they pretend it to be invalid and "homophobic." Their very use of that model in promoting homosexuality among our young is proof enough that they believe it to be correct.

Nevertheless, they have not neglected the genetic model. In order to establish a "preference" for something, the something in question must be experienced --the "preference" must be discovered. This is the reason for sex education programs that stress the "naturalness" of homosexuality, encourage experimentation, and suggest to the impressionable teens that "everyone is doing it." By preventing homosexual experimentation among teens, we can prevent them from "discovering" a "preference", and help them channel their sexual impulses along socially-productive as well as mentally and physically-healthy lines.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Homosexuals Use the Environmental Model by:

G. William Gairdner, "The War Against the Family a parent speaks out" (Toronto Stoddart, 1992). An excellent overview of the liberal agenda and aims by a Stanford professor of philosophy.
W. D.J. West, "Homosexuality" (Chicago Aldine, 1968). An excellent summary of pre-1973 research although, even at that time, experts regularly gave in to homosexual pressure on the child-molestation issue. li>97 Michael Chiusano, Parents' Rights & On the Battlefront, National Review, Sept 30, 1996.
K. Toksoz B. Karasu and Charles W. Socarides (ed), "On Sexuality Psychoanalytic Observations," (New York International Universities Press Inc, 1979).
6 Richard John Neuhaus, "Table for One," Dec 13, 1993. A review of homosexual Bruces Bawer's "A Place at the Table The Gay Individual in American Society." Contains many brilliant arguments.
R. Judith Reisman, Ph.D. and Edward Eichel, "Kinsey, Sex and Fraud The Indoctrination of a People" (Lafayette, Louisiana Lochinvar-Huntington House, 1990). ISBN 0-910311-20-X. (Can also be obtained for 19.95 (US) from A-albionic Research, P.O. Box 20273, Ferndale, Michegan, 48220.) "[Dedicated] to the several hundred children who suffered inhumanely in the illegal sex experiments that constitute the basis for a significant portion of Dr. Alfred Kinsey's book "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male." Many of these children will still be alive today. It is also dedicated to those children who are being subjected to the kind of Kinseyan sex education curricula described in this book." YOU MUST READ THIS.
80 Gagnon, J. & Simon, W. (1969), Psychosexual Development."Trans-Action", March.
81 Gagnon, J. & Simon, W. (1973), Sexual Conduct The Social Sources of Human Sexuality. Chicago Aldine.
82 Henderson, B. (1975), Human Sexuality An Age of Ambiguity. Boston Little Brown.
3 Rich Lowry, "Roberta On a Rampage," May 2, 1994. An article on the antics of lesbian activist Roberta Achtenburg.
55 Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality (ISIS), "What Causes Homosexuality and Can It Be Changed?" 1984. ISIS... has been renamed the Family Research Institute, and is based in Washington D.C. (703) 690-8536.
S. Charles W. Socarides, M.D., "Homosexuality Psychoanalytic Therapy" (New Jersey Jason Aronson, 1989). A book detailing the psychoanalytic understanding of homosexuality, based firmly on the (Freudian) psychoanalytic tradition. This book includes some typical cases, and techniques of curing this maladaption.
66 Bozett, F.W. (1979). Gay Fathers The convergence of a dichotemized identity through integrative sanctioning. "Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 2608-2609B (University Microfilms No. 79-26, 643).
98 Hadley Arkes, Odd Couples, National Review, August 12, 1996.