Introduction.
Let’s start with a few specific fabrications about homosexuality!
Gays would have you believe that their lifestyle is natural, normal and healthy.
Genetically determined no less. Those who think otherwise are unbalanced swivel-
Homosexual men and women come in all shapes and sizes. Many are well-
The best available scientific and medical evidence internationally, demonstrates unequivocally, that homosexual, as compared to heterosexuals, are at increased levels of pathology and are inordinately affected by promiscuity, infidelity, substance abuse, violence, child sex abuse and psychological instability. A significant minority of gays participate in sadomasochism and other unsafe practices.
Moreover, compelling scientific evidence shows that homosexual men and women suffer from mental disorders, which include depressive moods, compulsive behaviours and obsessive thoughts. A significant minority experience suicidal ideation and attempt suicide. Of course, they blame societal homophobia for this, but the claim lacks any convincing evidence.
As if these problems are not enough, there is then the physical health issue and
a shortened life expectancy. Homosexual men and women are disproportionately at
risk to a range of sexual diseases from HIV/AIDS, any of 40 varieties of HPV, oral
and anal cancer and a nasty series of sexually transmitted infections (STI’s) some
of which are totally indifferent to the much vaunted ‘safe sex’ advice and practice.
In truth, the only safe sex is -
According to a paper published by the Jubilee Centre entitled, Free Sex: Who Pays? (2012), our current culture of sexual licence and promiscuity is costing about £100 billion each year.
A 2011 survey by homosexual rights propaganda group Stonewall, shows that older homosexual
men and women are at increased risk of loneliness and isolation. Studies show that
loneliness in old age is linked to depression, poor health and to problems with the
immune and cardio-
It is important to acknowledge the difference between individuals who seek help to
cope with their homosexuality and the homosexual movement with its caustic agenda.
The former should be treated with compassion, the latter with censure simply because
it is so destructive to the well-
Gay on gay murder is now much more common and increasing, which is largely ignored by the medical profession and the national media As will be shown here, some are addicted to an insatiable range of sexual behaviours; they call them ‘orientations’; that are disturbingly shocking, outrageous and incredibly hazardous. What was once labelled a vice is now considered a virtuous variation. Such is the putrefying power of a perverse propaganda.
Consider, but briefly, those who actively seek the acquisition of full-
Running parallel with the ‘gay gene’ myth is the falsehood that the homosexual condition is fixed and thus incurable. Any attempt to reverse the condition is judged to be intensely harmful and deeply damaging. Indeed, any suggestion to the contrary is extended evidence of flagrant prejudice and chronic homophobia deserving of censure, punishment even. Thus, helpful heterosexuals are seen as a humiliating hindrance.
To understand homosexuality you have to enter a seductive labyrinth of mesmeric make-
Homosexual men and women defy logic and nature when they attempt to mimic it, because it is impossible to unite that which is biologically incompatible. Not only is the familial genealogy fractured, but also the influence of the male and female sexual complementarities that flow naturally from conventional homogeneous unions. Moreover, most gay activist reject the concept of marriage and wish to smash it as an oppressive institution that inhibits sexual licentiousness. Thus, homosexual politics involve profound contradictions and inconsistencies.
It is interesting to note how few homosexual men and women have availed themselves
of the provisions for legally binding ‘civil partnerships’. Almost 50,000 same-
Consider also, gay parenting though largely confined to a few? As far as a child
is concerned there is no such thing as ‘two Mums’ or ‘two Dads’. It defies the natural
order of reproductive relationships. The creation of a child strictly depends on
the fertilisation of the male sperm and female ovum to which offspring is inexorably
bound forever, to which gays, as a functioning unit, are permanently excluded. Homosexual
parents fool only themselves at immense cost to one another and society at large.
It should also be observed that their own narcissistic interests displace that of
the child. More bizarre still, are those cases reported by an irresponsible media
of homosexual ‘men’ giving birth to a child -
Of course, the gay parenting conspiracy is now facilitated through legal instruments
in permitting individual tailored pacts to withhold, or otherwise, the true family
and identity of the child. The legal, social and psychological impact of this experiment
does not augur well for the future well-
More chilling, are those cases of gay parents who create disabled ‘designer babies’ to suit their lifestyle. The case of two deaf lesbians will be considered.
Now comes news that homosexuals Sir Elton John, 63, worth about £175 million and his partner David Furnish, 48, have purchased a newborn baby from America at a purported cost of £100,000. They had previously been unsuccessful in adopting a baby from the Ukraine. John was rejected because of his age and homosexuality.
The child’s family consists of two unidentified mothers and the fathers’ identity is being kept secret. It is not known who the true father is – even if either of them. If they followed homosexual practices, however, each would have provided a specimen of sperm to be mixed up in one sample. Only subsequent DNA analysis will determine who the father is. The child’s biological mother donated her egg in a process known as ‘gestational surrogacy’ to a mystery surrogate mother.
However complicated, strange or unfamily-
So, uniquely, the child has two furtive mothers and two feckless fathers, comprising of the biological and counterfeit. A couple of decades ago, such a situation would have been met with spitting scorn, sharp derision and utter horror. But now, this is the new freaky fetishism that has become famously fashionable. It corrupts both culture and morality and it does so deceitfully in the name of ‘love’. Conventional parenting which is biologically based and bound by love, is now commercialised into a cold and clinical form of contract parenting.
Celebrity friends gushed effusively, congratulating them on becoming a happy family. Fulfilling a dream, Sir Elton was “…overwhelmed with happiness and joy.” The subsequent BBC news announcing the event interviewed Christian preacher Stephen Green who said, “This isn’t just a designer baby for Sir Elton John, this is a designer accessory.” Echoing a UN resolution he condemned the arrangement on the basis it was selfish to deprive the baby of a mother. More specific, Articles 7 and 8 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the child provide for the right to know and be cared for by both his/her parents, and the right of the child to preserve his or her identity.
Internet news website Pink News, the propaganda arm of Stonewall, quickly responded furiously condemning Green and readers organised to flood the BBC with complaints of homophobia. Green has become the target of gay hate and vituperation simply because he has previously thwarted their endeavours. It is also apparent that gays are defiantly against free speech!
The following day Andrew Pierce, consultant editor of the Daily Mail, an adopted
gay man, went on to criticise the pair, describing Elton John as an “...ageing, pampered,
self-
Nevertheless, four months after receiving the baby, John announced his intention of having the child’s DNA tested in order to establish who the father is.
Consider, also, the appalling case of two British lesbians, who, in 1999, advertised for a gay man or couple to donate their sperm so they could start a family. A gay male couple responded and the lesbian pair conceived two girls. Within nine years, the relationship turned sour resulting in a legal argument before the High Court. By now, the two girls had suffered significant emotional conflict and distress. In his judgement, Mr Justice Hedley commented, “The four adults in this case regard the price paid by these two children as an acceptable price for the pursuit of their own adult disputes ... The case provides a vivid illustration of just how wrong these arrangements can go.”
Feminist and lesbian campaigner Tammy Bruce has cogently observed, “Today’s gay activists have carried the campaign a step further, invading children’s lives by wrapping themselves in the banner of tolerance. It is literally the equivalent of the wolf coming to your door dressed as your grandmother.” She continues, “By targeting children, you can start indoctrinating the next generation with the false construct that gay people deserve special treatment and special laws.”
In a major American study of donor-
Nearly half are disturbed that money was involved in their conception. More than
half say that when they see someone who resembles them they wonder if they are related.
Almost as many say they have feared being attracted to or having sexual relations
with someone to whom they are unknowingly related. Approximately two-
Another study of 19,000 young people, Parental Cohabitation and Adolescent Well Being, richly demonstrates that children with biological parents do best.
About 2,000 babies are born in Britain each year using donated sperm, eggs or embryos. This will include a sizeable number of lesbians. Of course, these are only the ones the Human Fertility and Embryology Authority document. A considerable number of lesbians obtain sperm donations informally from commercial and sometimes dubious sources. Many travel abroad to destinations like Spain, the Czech Republic and America. Often, large sums of money are involved. British sperm donors no longer have a right to anonymity but sperm trading is now an international enterprise.
The rapid growth of homosexuality over the last fifty-
This will be a shock to some, but history teaches that homosexuality is conditioned
by social, cultural and political forces and is self-
Apart from politics, homosexual attraction is determined by a combination of familial,
environmental, social and other influences. For others, homosexuality develops due
to negative or traumatic experiences such as sexual abuse when young. Research demonstrates
a disproportionate number of gays have suffered sexual ill-
With eager Government support, Britain’s foremost homosexual political pressure group
-
They use small samples that are self-
Summerskill’s family background is of interest. He is the grandson of Dame Edith
Summerskill, a former prominent Labour politician (1938-
Stonewall was the creation of actor Sir Ian McKellen, journalist Matthew Parris, Michael Cashman MEP, Simon Fanshawe, author and broadcaster and others. It was motivated by a daunting desire to defeat Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's Section 28, which inhibited local councils from encouraging homosexuality in schools. With a staff of 60, Stonewall’s turnover in 2010 exceeded £3.8m.
The first executive officer, Angela Mason, was a committed radical feminist and lesbian,
a lawyer by profession she was tutored in cultural Marxism and revolutionary politics.
She eventually became head of the Women’s Unit during the Labour Government in the
Department of Trade under Harriet Harman MP. There she spearheaded legislation that
would embrace homosexual rights with gusto, thus casting Christian and other rights
to one side. Eventually, laws granting special protective rights to homosexuals
was enshrined in the Equalities and Human Rights Act 2010, which Labour got through
by the skin of their teeth before their government finally collapsed prior to a
general election. Mason is currently one of the Commissioners with the Equality
and Human Rights Commission, which is run by gay-
Each commissioned report by Stonewall; and we will examine them here; stress two
important facts. First, it portrays society as being riddled with homophobic hate
and bullying, second, that this hate directly results in unremitting violence against
gay men and women. Thus, gays become the new oppressed -
However, a fresh authoritative government report, The Integrated Household Survey
of 450,000 households late in 2010 unequivocally concluded only about 1 in 100 men
were gay. This was corroborated one year on in 2011 in a further study. Indeed,
this confirmed the findings of an earlier two-
Homosexual activists at home and aboard intemperately condemned the findings stating most gays and lesbians were simply too frightened to come forward and identify themselves. But this is pure bluff on their part since the survey was done on a confidential basis. Further, a 2011 survey of homosexual men by Gaydar discovered that only one in ten kept their sexuality completely private, thus contradicting the false claim of potential violence.
This raises another noteworthy consideration.
An important 145-
Despite that, this new report ominously notes that HIV/AIDS, “... remains one of the most serious public health issues confronting the Government at the start of the 21st century.”
The number of patients has trebled in the last ten years. Particular strategies are recommended to deal with the growing problem. The closest they get to the central question of abstention is in that evidence given by the Health Protection Agency. They suggest that efforts to curb the epidemic will require a combination of medical, behavioural, social and structural interventions. The report agrees with the proposition then largely ignores behavioural and social interventions.
One significant fact arising from this evidence is totally overlooked.
It is confidently predicted that 100,000 homosexual men will be infected with AIDS/HIV in 2012. Contrast that with the acknowledged estimate of gay men in the community as determined by two government departments, that is 800,000, and it becomes immediately obvious that 1 in 8 homosexual men will have become infected by this very serious disease at a cost of £1 billion each year. This is an increasingly expensive public health challenge.
So when all the major political parties congratulate the gay community for its forbearance against criticism; which they deceitfully label as hate; it is difficult not the state the obvious – politicians are part of the problem. They collude, deliberately, or through ignorance and deceit, in enhancing an unhealthy lifestyle which results in profound physical and psychological harm.
There can be little doubt, that the gay rights campaigning zeal of Peter Tatchell has had a measured impact on public opinion. Indeed, he was motivated to set up his own pressure group in the form of Outrage, Stop the Murder Music and an AIDS awareness arm – ACT UP. Now he has added to this with the creation of a Foundation. More recent is his ‘Equal Love Campaign’ that has two aims, gay marriage for homosexual couples and civil partnerships for heterosexuals..
Currently he boasts of directly influencing the Prime Minister, who to the surprise of many outside the 2011 Tory Party Conference, endorsed gay marriage. Indeed, as an honoured guest, key speaker and popular Grand Master at the 2008 San Diego Gay Pride, he called for the USA to withdraw foreign aid to countries allegedly endorsing homophobia. In May 2011 he turned his attention to the Commonwealth, which was a bastion of global homophobia, persecution, collusion and appeasement. The question of foreign aid was ignored, so it must have come as surprise when David Cameron pledged in October 2011 to slash aid to African countries with poor records on homosexual rights. Pressure has now reached global proportions.
If he deserves some public recognition; and this, as will be shown, has been partially achieved; he also deserves closer scrutiny.
All the more so since he is a former prominent member of the Gay Liberation Front (GLF) whose radical political idealism was derived directly from extreme feminism and the American Black Panther movement. Both movements stem straight from cultural Marxism that has spawned a malignant political philosophy that has weakened the forces of democracy and religious opinion. Currently, political correctness now dominates both the Church and State, almost to the point of paralysis. This is no mean achievement and that is why it should be challenged.
He is sometimes seen in public wearing a gaudy black revolutionary beret adorned with the subversive red star. The imagination quickly turns to the fictional urban guerrilla ‘Citizen Smith’, played by Robert Lindsay, in the late 1970’s British television comedy sitcom in which he raises his clenched fist defiantly declaring “Power to the People”. This is not to suggest, however, that he is a lazy, unemployed dreamer and petty criminal! The more sinister evocation is that of Che Geuvara who fought in the Cuban Revolution of 1959 and later Bolivia. An infamous terrorist but now internationally hailed by the Left as a Hero of the People. Tatchell is our latest and he’s got the black insurgent beret to prove it!
Tatchell tries to conceal his real political bias; away from cultural Marxism by stating he is influenced by the suffragettes and the American Civil Rights movements.
An Australian immigrant, but now naturalised, he fled to Britain to avoid army conscription
during the Vietnam War, which he didn’t support. He faced a three-
He became an 18-
Today, many glowing accolades are made about him, even by Christian organisations
that applaud his campaigning zeal. He’s very much an up-
Spectator journalist Rod Liddle thinks he is, ‘brave, principled and decent.... a voice of pure principle’. The media are drawn like the common fruit fly to fetid jam; to his belligerent confrontational tactics when diplomacy is discarded. Others resent this approach and think it damages their cause. He, to the contrary, thinks it has produced big dividends for gays and lesbians. Twice on the fringe of national politics, he’s made little or no impact.
He regularly achieves praise and honour as his popularity grows. For example, he became the darling of the Gay Police Association during the 2005 Pride celebrations. The latest example is the 2010 award of an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Brighton. A year later he was given another Honorary Doctorate, this time by London’s South Bank University for his services to human rights.
His appeal draws wide public support and is based on the laudable notion of “Human Rights, Democracy, Global Justice”. The latter gives his campaign an international edge, particularly for gays in Africa, Eastern Europe, even Muslims.
Thus, his cause is dignified, legitimised and even ennobled.
Privately though, he appears an unhappy man claiming his council home is fortified under siege from potential external threat and violence. He claims that he has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder for the last 20 years. He works about 70 hours a week but only receives an annual income of £8,000. A salary is less important. He claims he gets about 500 emails each day and faithfully responds to each one. That’s 3,500 emails each week. If he spent just 2 minutes daily on each email, that, in itself, would be about eight hours work. Bricks have been thrown through his windows, his home has undergone three arson attacks and a bullet shoved through the letterbox. He states he’s received a dozen death threats.
Remarkably, he claims he’s been beaten up 500 times and now; due to falling health because of it; has eased up a little. Consider this level of violence for one minute? Incredibly, he’s been assaulted once a month for the past forty years. Assailants have attacked him with fists, iron bars, hammers, sticks, rocks, bricks and bottles. He does not report these matters to the police because he thinks they are ‘useless’. He also claims he’s been arrested 300 times. Again, this amounts to 8 arrests each year for the last forty years. Tatchell claims he has refused inclusion in the Queen’s Honours List, a Peerage even. To the casual observer he appears immersed in a solitary victimhood to a degree not shared by others.
In September 2010, a small group of gays honoured him with their own version of a blue plague outside his council home in Bermondsey, London. This is tempting fate, since it identities his home more accurately for any who would wish to harm him.
Nevertheless, when his case is properly examined his cause is unequivocally concerned mostly with gay sexual rights. His writing technique is clear though subtle. This is done by surrounding his gay rights demands with other rights that most of us would have difficulty in rejecting. That way the proverbial elephant imperceptibly eases itself into the bedroom.
For example, take the human rights of children. Who could sensibly argue against that?
On the downside, however, few consider the proposition that as children’s rights are secured, parental rights are diminished in equal measure! In fact, it’s already happening, particularly in schools and especially in relation to sexual matters like education, contraception and abortion. The aim of the radical Left is to remove parental choice from the equation.
Tatchell’s narrative, however, concentrates on the highly disputable rights of children
to enjoy sex, even with grown-
He wants to legalise early intimate relationships, even though he says he does not wish to encourage sex at an early age. He observes, “ Consensual sex should not be stigmatised or criminalised, not for young people, not for adults, not for anyone.” The prospect of doing so is seen as persecution and not protection for children. Another strongly held view is that the age of consent be lowered. Some highly contentious reasons are given for doing so. When he argues for the lowering of consent, this is smoke and mirrors, for what he truly desires is the abolition of any legal restrain on children to experience sex, as and when they want to.
He fails to acknowledge the current law regarding sexual conduct and children. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is not intended to prosecute mutually agreed sexual activity between two young people of a similar age, unless it involves abuse or exploitation. Young people between the ages of 14 and 16 who mutually agree sexual activity do so because of the permissiveness of the law. This is considerably removed for any notion of persecution. A boy or girl under 13 years of age cannot consent and the current law serves to protect their innocence and vulnerability.
Over the years, Tatchell has been consistent in his arguments about intergenerational sex and evidence for this is found in an article he wrote for a book entitled, Betrayal of Youth: Radical Perspectives on Childhood Sexuality, Intergenerational Sex and the Social Oppression of Children and Young People – CL Publications 1986, currently out of press. It was edited by Warren Middleton, hailed as one of the founding fathers of the paedophile movement in Britain who was instrumental in the creation of the infamous Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), and the journal Understanding Paedophilia.
In June 2011, Warren Middleton, now known as John Parratt, 62, with other former leading members of PIE was convicted at the Old Bailey of possessing harrowing pornographic drawings of young boys being raped. He was jailed for 12 months.
According to Middleton, their aim is to eradicate any inhibition that restricts the sexual and social rights of children. True liberation, for children is the right to say yes to sex. Their collective view was that if society supported adult/child sex then any damage would hardly be an issue. The North America Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) endorses their view. Both NAMBLA and PIE shared a common bond.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Tatchell is a paedophile, but there are persuasive indications that he supports what they do.
Tatchell confirms this in his own words when he states, “Shouldn’t we be preparing
and educating children for greater rights and responsibilities at an earlier age;
perhaps critically re-
Today, Tatchell wants to distance himself from this book, but as can be shown his message then, is exactly the same today. It’s plastered all over his website and in his daily utterances!
His reasoning is tendentious, unproblematic and simplistic, conditioned by unrealistic
assumptions about the nature of sex and the efficacy of the law. His assertions
lack any empirical base and thus reflect his personal gay-
Let’s be clear about his affiliations and his background, because in reality he is
a self-
His ideological stance is that homosexuality should not exist in parity or harmony
with heterosexual society, but that it should smash traditional sexual mores as a
precursor to dramatically and irrevocably changing it to produce a new social/sexual
order. In short, his intention is to transform conventional society to bring about
conditions where anything goes. This reflects pure Marxist political/cultural dogma.
He remains true to the revolutionary imagination of the GLF whose message was “Two,
Four, Six, Eight -
As a true red, he’s already in the bed.
He will have supported the 1971 Gay Liberation Front Manifesto that aimed to target the family structure as a priority because it causes homosexuals to feel ashamed and guilty. It is heavily influenced by radical feminism. The Patriarchal Family is seen as the source of hostility because it reinforces the male and female role. It brazenly states, “Gay liberation does not just mean reforms. It means a revolutionary change in our whole society.”
They aimed to target schools, the Church, media, words [linguistics], employment,
law and psychiatry. The gender-
Turning to his views on the determinants of homosexuality is both confusing and contradictory. He argues against a gay gene on the basis it does not explain the great variety and flexibility of sexual behaviours,. He cites lesbianism and bisexuality as instances. Writing in the Guardian in 2006 he states, “Much as I would love to go along with the fashionable ‘born gay’ consensus (it would be very politically convenient) I can’t. The evidence does not support the idea that sexuality is a fixed biologically given.” He has also observed on his internet. Blog, “The truth is that nurture appears to be more important than nature when it comes to the formation of sexual orientation.”
On the other hand, he takes a contradictory stance in suggesting genes and hormones do influence sexuality, which is largely based on the recent theoretical assumptions of two gay activists who have written a book entitled Born Gay. Speaking on Radio Five Live in January 2011, he made it clear that the evidence suggests “very significantly” that genes plus hormonal factors are major determinants of homosexuality. Accordingly, “They're the major determinants. So no one can choose to be gay, or choose to be straight.”
He goes on to explain that social expectations, cultural values and peer pressure push people towards heterosexuality but ignores these same forces when it comes to homosexuality. So why is the gene/hormone applicable only to same sex attraction? Gays readily accept a heterosexual becoming a gay, but never the other way round, which explains the intensity of their opposition to reparative therapy.
He also ascribes to a genetic determination in another unusual manner by comparing gays with blacks when arguing gay rights. He ignores his own logic in comparing what is culturally disposed – homosexuality, which is acquired, extrinsic and learned, with that of race, which is innate, inherent and inborn. Thus, psychiatry can change homosexuals but is of no effect regarding race.
Whichever way one looks at his views, Tatchell wins.
Homosexuals appear not to understand that the ‘born that way’ argument is counter-
If homosexuality is accepted as inborn, why then shouldn’t paedophilia since proponents
claim the condition is inborn, natural and innate? Trisexuals make the same claim,
as do people who embrace Objectum-
On 26 June 1997 Tatchell wrote a startling letter to the Guardian newspaper defending
a book about ‘Boy Love’. He saw it as a “courageous” effort. When he was later criticised
for this by the Daily Mail columnist Peter Hitchen’s, in 2010, he justified himself
stating his interest was in protecting free speech. He also pointed out that several
of his personal friends had gained “great joy” from having sex with an adult, some
as young as nine-
What Tatchell fails to understand is that non-
Additionally, numerous studies show adult-
Hitchen’s might have been more shocked if he had looked closer to what was involved.
Tatchell was supporting the work of Professor Gilbert Herdt, who has made a career
from anthropological research into the sexual initiation of young boys with their
elders among the Sambia [a pseudonym] tribe of Papua New Guinea. He’s a big hit
with the gay community. Tatchell observes, “Far from being harmed, Prof Herdt says
the boys grow up to be happy, well-
Indeed, he thinks that Herdt offers a rational and informed perspective of sexual
relations between younger and older people, “...where consenting inter-
Let’s take a brief peep into Sambian culture.
The initiatory cycle into manhood starts when boys are between six to ten and consists of six stages until eventually they marry and become fathers. The boys are removed from their mothers at an early age to an isolated area in the jungle. They are then violently ritually bled from the nose with a sharp cane and this results in loud exalted war cries. They are instructed by older bachelors in the ways of oral copulation and warned they will not become proper men if they fail. Attempts at escape are punished. Erotic advances are made and homosexual activity takes place. Repeated acts of fellatio are necessary.
Sexual copulation is intensified as the boys are instructed to ingest as much semen
as possible. This will make them fierce warriors. Herdt describes this as the “...crazy
ride from boy to man” and loftily attributes this to a “semen conservation theory.”
It becomes the alternative to mother’s milk. As the boys become adolescents they
are the new bachelors who now inseminate other boys. Again they are severely beaten
and nose bled. This is a purifying ritual from female contamination. Homosexual
relationships are brief and non-
This is nothing short of ritualised barbarity inflamed by a fear and hatred for women Indeed, Tatchell’s trendy tribe transcends both tragedy and trauma.
Today, Papua New Guinea is the epicentre of HIV/AIDS in the Pacific region. Fear spreads among the population fuelling accusations of witchcraft against women who are tortured by mobs who hold them responsible for the epidemic. Thus, AIDS patients have been thrown off bridges or left isolated to starve to death.
We can see from this that Tatchell, in pressing the sexual ethics of the Sambian
tribe, is now ascribing to a non-
According to queer theory, If their sexual conduct was genetically determined, it
would not be possible for them to switch from homosexuality to heterosexual relations
with woman to have children. Transition would be impossible. But according to Tatchell,
the boys grow up happy and are well-
Tatchell may publicly abhor paedophilia, but he shows an inordinately intense interest in the subject matter in stressing its potential for enhancing sexual relations between minors and adults. Homosexual history is littered with accumulated evidence of active pederasty because it is part and parcel of their culture. However, in order to sustain the victimhood façade, there are times when gay politics attempt to distance itself from an activity that would certainly drawn public opprobrium.
On the other hand, on his own website he writes of “subverting the status quo” which involves, “Making trouble, defying convention, undermining normality, and questioning authority.”
Interviewed by Gay News in 2008 he boldly stated, “…we are sexual subversives who unravel the straight machismo that underpins all relations of oppression and exploitation.” Indeed, “Queer liberation” is aimed at the whole of humanity to free men and women from sexual subjugation. It thus exposes his global aspirations for domination.
Further, commenting on an internet animal rights website called abolitionist-
In an additional interview by The Independent in 2010 he stated contemporary homosexuals
are conservative reformers but that, “The core message of GLF was that genuine queer
emancipation involves changing society, rather than adapting to it.” This requires,
“…a full-
Celebrating 40 years since the creation of the GLF, Tatchell smugly wrote in the Guardian that, “In contrast to the gay law reform movement, GLF's strategy for queer emancipation was to change society's values and norms, rather than adapt to them. We sought a cultural revolution to overturn centuries of male heterosexual domination and thereby free both queers and women.” He brazenly declares that, “We queers subverted this conventional gender system.”
He supported the GLF who espoused a non-
American Jack Nichols, former leading veteran gay activist, editor of Gay Today and
responsible for resurrecting the defunct Mattachine Society, which was initially
set up by Harry Hay who was an ardent supporter of the American Man Boy Love Association
(NAMBLA), considers Peter Tatchell as an anti-
According to Catholic columnist Matt Abbott, “This ‘anti-
Considered more carefully, this puts a very different light on Tatchell’s motivation.
He rejects conventional morality, traditional values and the centrality of the family as the core issue of a liberal democratic society. He wishes to undermine the male and female modalities and the institutions that underpin their value and importance in civil society.
Since his aim is a full-
Curiously, he supports a street preacher’s freedom of expression to associate homosexuality with sin, yet denies the right of an elderly couple running a bed and breakfast to express their religious ethics. Instead, he thinks they should be prosecuted by the law for failing to accommodate a pair of gay men. Thus, the equalities of homosexuals are more pressing than the freedom of expression of Christians. This, again, calls into question his appeal to human rights since the rights of homosexuals are more equal.
In his recent public condemnation of the Pope and homosexual abuse in the Catholic Church, Tatchell is exposing himself as a hypocrite. His message is also contradictory. If the age of consent was lowered, many of the guilty priests would be untouchable. First, he is the enemy of the church, any church, and second, he is sympathetic to the sexual demands of paedophiles. As a dangerous sexual subversive revolutionary, he is out to destroy anything that is ethically wholesome or morally good on the basis that it represents an oppressive evil. Heterosexuality has to be radically changed. An uncompromising transformation of straight society is necessary because homophobia is the new perversion.
He does not seek parity, but dominance! His narcissistic dictum is that some people
are more equal than others. On the face of things, he cunningly appeals to uplifting
liberationist aspirations, but the real aim is to ensnare and subdue. His corroding
view of conventional morality in the form of the family is highly prejudicial and
the ultimate aim is to demolish it. Thus, his political and social base is not just
contradictory -
He is the equivalent of the shifty old sly fox that advises the hospitable hens on
chicken coop safety by making it more fox-
Licence is cloaked as liberty and freakishness as freedom. On the surface the evidence is for human rights, but the real facts are about inhuman wrongs. Cultural Marxism is destroying our family bonds, our religious traditions, our democratic liberties and cultural values and that is precisely what Peter Tatchell and his gay liberationist friends aim for.
If current popular assumptions about homosexuality are in part driven by poisonous Marxist ideology, which will be discussed more fully shortly, they are also based on fraudulent research carried out in the 1940’s by the American Zoologist Dr. Alfred Kinsey at the Kinsey Institute for Sexual Research. He was based at the Indiana University and received financial support from the RokeFfeller Foundation. He posed as an impeccable neutral scientist in a marriage of convenience to promote a picture of respectability.
His forged analysis eventually led to major changes in American society involving law, science, medicine, education and politics. In fact, it contributed to a profound moral revolution that spread from America to the rest of the world. The magnitude and scale of Kinsey’s lies reverberated onto a largely gullible world. But not anymore! Seminal research by Dr. Judith Reisman is pivotal in exposing the many perfidious lies associated with Kinsey. This included the so called 10 percent gay population myth, his encouragement of pornography, homosexuality, paedophilia, abortion and incest.
Kinsey’s deceptive and criminally associated research Sexual Behaviour in the Human
Male (1948) provided a body of so-
His documented sex ‘experiments’ had been carried out by known paedophiles, criminals
and child molesters. This involved up to 2,035 children. The youngest was 5-
Much of this data was also secretly obtained from a former World War Two Nazi doctor.
Fritz von Balluseck worked in a Polish concentration camp and was encouraged by the
Nazi SS to carry out sex experiments on children. He cruelly raped many. It was subsequently
shown that he had been molesting children for 30 years when he was denounced by the
German press after he was convicted for the rape and murder of a 10-
Of the 5,000 male respondents who made up Kinsey’s research base 2,446 were convicts,
1,003 homosexuals, 50 transvestites.117 mentally ill, 650 sexually abused and 342
“other”. This yielded 4,608 n=Aberrant and 873 n=Normal subjects. Clearly, he was
not concerned with the average American on the Manhattan omnibus. Instead, he dug
deeply into deviancy in a big way to portray a loose-
He was an omni-
If the 2010 general election has depressingly demonstrated anything, it is that, with rare exception, all the major and minor political parties have now defiantly signed up to the sodomy lobby. In the case of the Conservative Party, in particular, this is proving to be a major shift in Conservative ideals.
We are all now snappily sliding down the slippery slope to Sodom-
Business in gay boisterous bathhouses; just like that in glum-
Doctor Gwenda Hughes, head of the Health Protection Agency STI section warned in 2010 of high rates of STI’s among gay men. In the last 10 years, for instance, diagnosis of chlamydia has risen by 341 percent.
Terrence Higgins Trust’s Chief Executive Sir Nick Partridge said: "It’s staggering that almost half a million people each year are affected by preventable sexually transmitted infections. Gay men continue to top the list, accounting for two thirds of syphilis and over a third of gonorrhoea diagnoses last year, while being only 6% of the population.”
At the same time researchers in infectious diseases at the Ghent University in Belgium
warned that despite a heightened awareness of HIV in the West, reckless sexual behaviour
among young men who have sex with men is fuelling the HIV epidemic in Europe and
the UK. They had isolated the genetic viruses of 500 patients -
Gays have been very successful in making homosexuality a civil rights issue when in fact it is truly a public health issue. In 1994 it was reported in the Journal of Public Health that the average expenditure per death for AID’s cases was £289.753, whereas it was only £60 for heart diseases. In 2011 it was disclosed that £1.9bn was spent on infectious diseases in 2009/10 in England and that 40% of that was spent on HIV/AIDS.
Preliminary results from a small Spanish study in December 2010 indicates that 75% of gay men are carrying the Human Papilomo Virus (HPV). This is a significant marker for HIV and it causes cervical cancer in women and penile cancer in men.
Similarly, a 2007 American study showed that homosexuals are spreading a new highly-
In February 2012, the Daily Mail warned that a, “Flesh-
It is useful to observe that the original generic acronym for AIDS was gay-
Since the HIV/AIDs pandemic started in the early 1980’s, 25 million people have died
globally and merely controlling HIV infections could cost $733 billion over the next
20 years. Although gays like to portray HIV as an equal opportunity disease -
British citizens have no reason to feel smug. In the 1970’s contaminated blood was
given to patients that had been obtained from HIV/AIDS-
So much for wrong gay rights!
What has been achieved by the homosexual community, nevertheless, amounts to a tour
de force. These rights are rooted in a sophistry of false reasoning that depends
on hidden bogus assumptions and the use of calculated confusing polysemous terms
the most common of which are sexual orientation, heterosexism, diversity, multi-
Consider, for a moment, the accusation of homophobia? This is commonly defined as an irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals. In truth, any idea of irrationality or fear should invoke pity, help and understanding, not scorn and punishment. But that is no part of gay politics. Criticism of homosexuality, however stated, is never seen as a measure of personal or religious morality, or of traditional cultural virtue.
Religious ethics, in particular are condemned as a form of hate simply for rejecting homosexuality as a sin. Christians are free publicly to discuss all forms of sin with the one exception of homosexuality. That is utter taboo. Many people feel that an insidious pressure is being brought to privatise the Christian religion as a precursor to criminalizing it.
Even science based evidence has to be mocked and undermined if it questions the substance
of homosexuality as defined by gays. The irrationality of the homosexual world is
projected upon that of the heterosexual and it is the latter that is perceived as
the problem to be scorned and stamped upon. Conditioned by vacuous value-
It may be suggested that gays want to normalise homosexuality, but
that misses the point because what they ultimately seek is the universal classification
of heterosexuality as deviant. Homosexual activists are already looking at the possibility
of making homophobia a mental disorder describing it as an ‘intolerant personality
disorder’.
Far fetched, you might think? Well, consider this? Right now, under existing legislation,
if you are considered politically incorrect regarding anything to do with homosexuality
you could be branded a criminal. For example, if a person uses even temperate words
or behaviour about homosexuality that is subjectively perceived by anyone to be evidence
of hate, the matter can now be formalised within the criminal law. The element of
hate does not have to be proved. Currently, it might be problematic to define one
as a deviant, less troublesome a criminal facing seven years in jail. Such is the
knife-
There’s more!
Unnoticed, ‘Big Brother’ Britain has now smashed its clunking bruising fist into the very heart of primary and secondary schools; with, of course, the best of intentions; in an attempt to curb racist, homophobic or transphobic attitudes in the playground.
Thus, local and central government, directed by five abstruse pieces of turgid legislation,
countless reams of detailed and boundless guidance and an army of nit-
The view is held that the real aim is to identify parents who may be teaching their children inappropriate attitudes – the ‘bigots’ and ‘racists’ of tomorrow.
In March 2010, ten-
Dr Michele Elliot, director of the children’s charity Kidscape, said, “Children are being criminalised and singled out here from a very early age when they don’t know what they’re doing.”
Less than a year later, the Manifesto Club obtained additional information under
the Freedom of Information Act about what was happening in our schools. Their report
revealed that for the year 2008-
Adrian Hart, a spokesman for the Manifesto Club observes that these policies misunderstand children profoundly and create the illusion of a racism problem in schools in England and Wales.
The following year (2009-
In 1986 the United States Supreme Court rejected the view that homosexual sodomy
be viewed as a fundamental privacy right no different from marital sexual relations.
So, 17 years later, the gay movement then claimed constitutional minority status
protection as a ‘suspect class’ defined by immutable characteristics. They played
what might be described as a gay race card. They deceitfully substituted the notion
of identity in order to obfuscate their behaviour. Today, the gay movement refutes
the obvious fact that homosexuality is based on behaviour – sodomy. Rather they view
it as innate. Note this is a legal, social and political opinion, not science.
Moreover,
although gays now insist they were born that way, they simply cannot provide irrefutable
evidence since none exist. Indeed, a gay activist writer of limited talent and fame
named Karoly Maria Kertbeny anonymously coined the word ‘homosexual’ in 1868 to replace
the term ‘Knabenshander’ or defiler of boys. He wanted to remove the criminal association
that terms like sodomite and pederast expressed. Its origin therefore is inspired
by obscure journalism rather than definitive biology. Notwithstanding, since then,
homosexual propagandists have continued to deny any association between homosexuality
and paedophilia and it continues to this day.
Incidentally, some 30 years later the term heterosexual was first published, but it was not until the 1960’s that it became common. This, of course, coincided with the development of the gay movement in the USA and Europe.
Kertbeny is now an iconic figure in the Hungarian gay movement. This, despite the
current trend by homosexual men and women to remove the term ‘homosexual’ from our
lexicon on the basis they find it offensive and degrading since it suggests an abnormal
medical condition susceptible to treatment -
The dispute about defining words within the gay community continues to this day with the latest example of attempting to disassociate homosexuality from paedophilia. This correlation, however, not only has a long established history, but it can be currently seen within our justice system in the form of crime statistics of men who rape young boys. Some horrific cases are included on this website.
New psychiatric labels are now introduced which will have the effect of confusing matters even further. Indeed, that may be the intention of some gays. So, for example, hebephilia is a condition which refers to sexual attraction of children in the early years of puberty, which in the case of boys, is 11 to 13 years of age. Ephebophilia refers to the sexual attraction of later adolescent children and teleophilia to a sexual interest in pubescent youth It is argued that there is a need to be more age specific in defining these terms because paedophilia relates more strictly to prepubescent children.
A useful example of this denial of homosexual paedophilia is illustrated in a televised debate on BBC1 The Big Question in 2009. The discussion was about the scandal of priests in the Catholic church in Ireland who had sexually abused children, The extent of the abuse was disclosed in the 2,565 page Ryan Report which concluded “Sexual abuse was endemic in boy’s institutions.” It recognised that girls were subjected to sexual abuse and stated, however, that such abuse was not systemic. The circumstances of the boys was different.
The debate was fairly low-
Subsequently the Archdiocese of Cardiff distanced itself from the remarks and Father
Owen retired. This is rather odd since the Congregation for Catholic Education in
2005 released an Instruction Concerning the Criteria for Discernment of Vocation
In that document the Vatican clearly states that individuals with deep-
Now, if homosexuals are keen to redefine their behaviour into an ambiguous characterisation, they ought to be a little more cautious.
The concept of ephebophilia was first introduced in 1906 by homosexual Mangus Hirschfeld
in Germany. Interestingly, he located them within the homosexual population. Serious
consideration is now being given to have these new categories enshrined within the
forthcoming revision of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-
At the present time only paedophilia is formally recognised as a mental disorder. Whereas, none of the other defined categories are. Moreover, to date, American courts have also rejected submissions based on them. Some American psychiatrists are already warning of the unintended consequences of endorsing these conditions formally. Indeed, efforts to include them are seen as a quintessential example of special interest groups to promote a pseudoscientific construct to advance their ends. Some psychiatrists take the view that a small group of government experts intent of making hebephilia a mental disorder to legitimate the indefinite incarceration of men who have committed culturally repugnant acts with young children and who do not meet the diagnostic criteria of other established disorders. It is feared that if hebephilia was included in the diagnostic manual it could lead to offenders being jailed for longer periods and the manual itself would become discredited.
Allen Frances, professor emeritus at Duke University, has vocally opposed efforts
to expand the DSM-
It is interesting to note that transsexuals met with initial resistance for inclusion
by the gay movement, but finally made it despite an ongoing undercurrent of disapproval.
The coalition Government has promised them big changes in society to accommodate
their proclivities. Moreover, new evidence is now slowly emerging of new ‘sexual
orientations’ seeking their rightful place alongside the LGBT, which include polyamorists,
pan, boy-
It is suggested here, that gays are apparently
just normal men and women who become conditioned by addictive homosexual tendencies.
They have failed to resist or openly courted variable discordant pathological sexual
urges that breach normative social, psychological and cultural standards. Just like
heterosexuals, homosexuals are born chromosomally as either male XY, or female XX.
There is substantial biological evidence that men and women are hard-
Gay activists continued attempt to establish a biological basis for homosexuality is becoming increasingly difficult because they face an impossible challenge. A study in 1995 found that between 99.7 and 99.9 percent of the genes of any two unrelated people, gay or not, lesbian or not, bisexual or not and transsexual or not, are the same. Nevertheless, geneticists have established linkages to some 1450 biological conditions like physical diseases and think it is impossible directly to link a gene to behaviour. These finding drives a coach and horse through the claim for any homosexual gene.
Psychologists generally agree that heterosexual development is not genetically determined. It is largely determined by environmental influences. Thus, if heterosexuality results from a learning process that involves relationships with parents and peer groups which include highly individual experiences, sexual encounters and repeated behaviours, then so does homosexuality. This explains why there is such a large variety of heterosexual and homosexual practices among cultures and even within them. Hence in some cultures homosexuality is unknown and in others it has been obligatory. Indeed, one can even trace a significant variability of homosexual behaviours over the last 50 years. Dangerous practices that were virtually unknown several decades ago such as fisting (insertion of hand/forearm into the anus) and rimming (anal/oral tongue contact) are now common.
Notice also, that some males are more susceptible to homosexual behaviours when confined
to a strictly masculine environment, that; on leaving; are quickly abandoned. These
are known as ‘optional’ homosexuals who are differentiated from ‘obligatory’ homosexuals
who permanently feel a psychological compulsion for same-
It is useful to note that distinguished American Professor Edward O Lauman and others,
who reported on their seminal research in 1994 The Social Organization of Sexuality
remarked on the fluidity of behaviours associated with homosexuality. They observe,
“...homosexuality is a complex multidimensional phenomenon whose salient features
are related to one another in highly contingent and diverse ways.” Similarly, the
British Health Protection Agency which monitors, HIV prevalence among homosexuals,
find great difficulty in identifying homosexuals as a distinct group of individuals.
They are instead a fluid group that emerges as a result of a shared behaviour, changing
over time with no obvious or implicit demographic or cultural characteristics such
as those that define ‘young people’ or ‘black African’.
Dr. Neil Whitehead is a reputable American research scientist who has written over
120 published scientific papers. His book “My Genes Made me do it” (1999) is based
on a comprehensive 13-
Both homosexual gene researcher Dr. Dean Hamer and gay activist brain researcher Dr. Simon LeVay now reject the idea that homosexuality is solely rooted in biology.
Other compelling scientific studies of monozygotic or identical twins who have identical genes fail to show any overwhelming biological factors which induce homosexuality.
Outside of rape, all sexual behaviour is voluntary involving a conscious choice but
the existence of such desire does not justify the act. Otherwise, adultery, incest,
polygamy, paedophilia, extreme sadomasochism and bestiality would be acceptable.
So it is right that certain harmful desires be suppressed.
Gays claim they have a
sexual orientation towards someone of the same sex, a lesbian towards other women,
a bisexual to both sexes, a transsexual, transvestite or transgendered towards the
opposite inner sex. In doing so, they deliberately exclude an unlimited number of
other sexual orientations because questions would shift from a recognition of orientation
to one of conduct and it would quickly become a serious public health and safety
issue which society would want to regulate and control. Indeed, homosexual activists
are permanently engaged in a grotesque, bizarre masquerade in stressing their sexual
orientation, but the fact remains -
Therefore, a distinction must be drawn between a
person’s orientation and their conduct – the desire and the action. Conduct, more
especially that which is addictive, has serious health implications, whereas orientation
or desire, if not acted on, is less harmful to society. This explains why gays feel
it necessary to distance homosexuality as much as it can from paedophilia and many
other really damaging sexual activities.
Additionally, it’s interesting to note that
the decision by the American Psychiatric Association to reclassify homosexuality
in 1973 was not done on the basis of medical science. It was achieved through political
persuasion and the power of winning a vote that it was not a mental disorder. Again,
nebulous persuasive politics ascends the rigour of methodological science. Nevertheless,
transsexualism, or to give its current appellation. Gender Identity Disorder (GID)
or gender dysphoria remains still classified as a psychological disorder.
Such alarming
doom-
Hence, the
intended purpose of this website is to counter the substance of the many assertions
made by homosexuals or their apologists. It is to reveal the sheer duplicity and
orchestrated falsehoods that accompany the overstated assumptions made by homosexual
men and women.
For that purpose, this non-
This first part is a commentary that covers the current position within a
British context. The remainder consists of a series of reference materials that reflect
a wider dimension in stating the case against homosexuality. These same sources have
also helped shape and inform this current critique.
What are the consequences for
the individual person as well as the wider community and why is it no longer a medical
disorder? Certainly, medical science has never rigorously established that it is
not, so what explains the current scientific assessment? Although a great deal has
been documented about homosexuality, crucial efforts by the scientific community
to establish its aetiology have been consistently rejected. Apart, that is, from
flawed ‘research’ by homosexual practitioners/scholars, or their apologists, who
clearly have an axe to grind. This despite the medically established fact that homosexuality
involves life-
A subsidiary aim of this website is to defend our common ideals
about the traditional family which radical homosexuals find threatening and offensive.
There is little doubt they intend to destroy it. More important, since much discourse
within the homosexual community involves an increasing concern for children's ‘human
rights’ within the context of a fabricated homophobic victimhood, particularly in
schools, there is a pressing concern that this should also be properly addressed.
Recognising that not all homosexuals are so disposed, we have an important duty of
care to protect innocent children from the advances of predatory gays who see youth
as their greatest prize. Even Jack Straw MP when Home Secretary said in 1998 that
he did not favour gay adoption and that homosexual couples should not be ‘awarded’
children merely to enhance their status. “We should not see children as trophies”,
he telling said in a remarkable admission.
Notwithstanding, four years later he
was instrumental in forcing through gay adoption. Subsequently, as the Secretary
of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor he boasted before Parliament of major legislative
changes embracing homosexual rights. He rejected the view that ‘...people who were
gay or lesbian were told by the state that they had dangerous tendencies.’ This change
amounted to a political and moral upheaval. It was a calamitous betrayal against
the welfare of children of today and tomorrow. Straw simply endorsed the bumf and
puffery of homosexual fiction that had long abandoned the respected tradition of
established medical science.
We need to examine the nature of this sudden shift
in opinion because the ‘dangerous tendencies’ claim most certainly has a congruence
within the homosexual context and always has. Why? It’s exactly what homosexuals
tell us no less, quite apart from the substance, validation and methodological rigour
of voluminous scientific findings and research.
Moreover, according to British health
experts, homosexuals suffer significant mental health problems. Research carried
out by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in 2004 found that 43 percent of homosexual
men and women had mental disorders. Problems included sleep disturbance, panic attacks,
depressive moods, compulsive behaviour or obsessive thoughts. Thirty percent had
attempted suicide.
Imagine for a moment, if these sombre findings were attributable to the work-
Homosexuals like to indulge in more inventive fabrication here by claiming their
psychiatric problems result from general hate filled antipathy by the ‘heteronormative
breeders’ or normal heterosexual members of society who indulge in critical homophobia.
However, in common with many other international studies, this research can find
no causal link between the problems associated with homosexuality and public discrimination.
Indeed, important separate independent epidemiological research elsewhere has unequivocally
demonstrated that homosexuals in gay-
Remarkable that we now add to that stress by permitting gay adoption. This could
add to their problems and intensify the vulnerability of children’s health who will
experience tangible psychological harm, increased maladjustment and sexual confusion.
Evidence for this is validated by a preponderance of sound empirical research carried
out throughout the world which the liberal political elite ignore. In their collective
delusion they apparently have more love for homosexuals than they do children. This
amounts to a clear abandonment of responsibility.
The purpose here, however, is
not to scold but to inform and educate. But when necessary, criticism should rightly
be responsible, reasonable and resolute. The aim is clarity not cloudy thinking –
truth not truculent intolerance!
By infiltrating our religious, civic and state institutions,
the gay lobby has created a universal super hoax. Using stealth and deception they
claim that homosexuality is a normal healthy native life-
Indeed, we currently
face a pernicious sexual revolution that is solely conditioned by an unstable set
of hazardous sexual cravings of a minority interest. The magnitude and scale of this
challenge is unsurpassed in human history. Reason enough, it might be suggested,
to look forebodingly to the future with real trepidation. But before we do that,
we need to look at the past to understand, how it is, that we have arrived at the
current position. We first need to look at the consequences of neo-
Now under active reconstruction, this is a dynamic website that is constantly revised
with new information.
Copyright | Contac t Us | Top | Next
The status of homosexuality is a political question, representing a historically rooted socially determined choice regarding the ends of human sexuality.
It requires a political analysis.
Prominent pro-