Proportionality: The Key
Study after nationwide study (3) has yielded estimates of male homosexuality that range between 1% and 3%. The proportion of lesbians in these studies is almost always lower, usually about half that of gays. So, overall, perhaps 2% of adults regularly indulge in homosexuality. Yet they account for between 20% to 40% of all molestations of children.

Child molestation is not to be taken lightly. Officials at a facility which serves about 1,500 runaway youngsters each year estimate that about half of the boys have been homosexually abused and 90% of the girls heterosexually assaulted. (27) Investigation of those suffering severe chronic mental illness implicates child molestation as a primary cause (45% of Bigras et al’s (28) patients were homosexually abused).

If 2% of the population is responsible for 20% to 40% of something as socially and personally troubling as child molestation, something must be desperately wrong with that 2%. Not every homosexual is a child molester. But enough gays do molest children so that the risk of a homosexual molesting a child is 10 to 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual.

Goals of the Gay Movement
The gay movement is forthright about seeking to legitimize child-adult homosexual sex. In 1987, The Journal of Homosexuality – the scholarly organ of the gay rights movement – published “Pedophilia and the Gay Movement.” (29) Author Theo Sandfort detailed homosexual efforts to end “oppression towards pedophilia.” In 1980 the largest Dutch gay organization (the COC) “adopted the position that the liberation of pedophilia must be viewed as a gay issue… [and that] ages of consent should therefore be abolished… by acknowledging the affinity between homosexuality and pedophilia, the COC has quite possibly made it easier for homosexual adults to become more sensitive to erotic desires of younger members of their sex, thereby broadening gay identity.”

In 1990 COC achieved a significant victory: lowering of the age of consent for homosexual sex in Holland to 12 (unless the parents object, in which case it goes up to 15). (30) In the U.S. and Canada, the North American Man-Boy Love Association marches proudly in many gay pride parades with the stated goal of removing the barriers to man-boy sex. Note the phrases “oppression towards pedophilia” and “liberation of pedophilia.” It is clear that those who advocate the legalization of sex between adults and children intend to argue that such conduct is a “civil right,” deserving of the same legal protections afforded to other minorities. A large proportion of Americans regard that argument as a mere pretext to giving “sexual predators” free reign to take advantage of vulnerable children.

Conclusion
Not only is the gay rights movement upfront in its desire to legitimize sex with children, but whether indexed by population reports of molestation, pedophile convictions, or teacher-pupil assaults, there is a strong, disproportionate association between child molestation and homosexuality. Ann Landers’ claim that homosexuals molest children at no higher a rate than heterosexuals do is untrue. The assertion by gay leaders and the American Psychological Association that a homosexual is less likely than a heterosexual to molest children is patently false.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/child-molestation-and-homosexuality-2/

You asked!

Until people turn ofF their corporate propoganda machines (TV) and start searching a still uncensored internet for the final remnants of truth and true "PUBLIC" opinion, we are doomed to an Orwellian existence.

With the media and government under corporate control, if you want liberty and freedom, it is time to turn off your TV and turn on your only true freedom..... choice to decide for yourself.

One problem...... most are willing to be "given" their belief systems in the name of "security".

"The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself!"

Our government counts on your willingness to comply with "their" truths. It is a dumbing down of America, and it is working!

Why can't people see the fact that we are daily lied to, are in 2 wars based on lies, in a recession due to this corporatism and the control of a private banking cartel that "OWNS us and our money", and nobody seems to care?

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps
Jim Burroway
October 1, 2006

I have counted fifteen key steps to writing an anti-gay tract. While the steps are very wide-ranging as tactics, there is one common element that ties them together: fear. Each step builds on the previous one, reinforcing the things the writer wants his readers to be afraid of. It starts with a fearful premise reinforced with fearful “facts,” and leads to the fearful consequences of those “facts.” It ends with a fearful depiction of the future for our society if these fearful problems aren’t dealt with.

Fear is a great motivator. The proliferation of negative political ads is based on the unfortunate discovery that voters can be more easily motivated to vote their fears than their hopes. Tracts like these don’t enlighten anyone and they don’t provide any useful information. But they do instill fear, and that’s the point.

If you were to sit down to write one, you wouldn’t necessarily have to follow all fifteen steps. Some may not apply depending on the particular subject you’re working with. But the more of these steps you follow, the closer your work will come to matching the “best” that these anti-gay groups have to offer.

Step 1: Set the stage. Most anti-gay tracts begin with a short opening section similar to mine. This is where you quickly dispense with the notion that gays and lesbians are actually human beings, let alone friends, family, neighbors and fellow citizens. Instead, gays and lesbians are portrayed as a faceless sex-obsessed hoard representing a dark and ominous force in American culture.

It’s important to set this stage right away — to make sure your reader is on board with the premise that the rich and complex lives of gays and lesbians can be reduced to one singular component — because it leads directly to the subject that many Americans find very uncomfortable: sex.

Step 2: Talk about sex. A lot. Most general-topic anti-gay tracts begin with a detailed description of sexual practices. There’s a good reason for that: no one looks good when their entire life is reduced to one-dimensional statistical descriptions of sexual practices.

Talking about sex can be rather gross, but don’t let that stop you. In fact, that’s the whole point. You want your audience to share your revulsion of gays and lesbians, and this is the easiest way to do it. Talk about sex as though it were the only thing that matters to gays and lesbians. Not love, not relationships, not commitment, not families – just sex.

To reinforce this point, anti-gay writers make extensive use of the term “homosexual” throughout their tracts. By constantly emphasizing “homosexual” instead of using the terms “gay” or “lesbian”, the sexual component of gays and lesbians are emphasized above all other aspects of their lives. And the more you portray gays and lesbians as sex-obsessed homosexuals, maybe your readers won’t notice the irony of your tract being obsessed with the sex lives of supposedly “sex-obsessed” people.

A Personal Note About References
Having said all of that about references in step 3, I wish to add a more personal note. I, too, use footnotes, and sometimes I use lots of them. And that’s why I want to take this moment to invite you to look not only the references I cite here, but in all of my work.

I say this to emphasize a point. Unlike most anti-gay authors, I do not expect anyone to take my word for anything. I recognize that you have no reason to trust me about anything. And besides, I’m human, and am just as prone to simple errors as anyone. I know that few people actually look at references, but I urge you to look at mine – and everyone else’s. It’s the only way to evaluate whether a given claim is credible or not.

I try to provide as much information and clarity to everything I write so that it can be more transparent and easily verifiable. If you find an error or mistake in how I cite a reference — or if you think I am misrepresenting someone else’s work — please contact me and I will address the problem as quickly as possible.

Step 3: Use plenty of references. Professionals are smart people, and smart people use lots footnotes or endnotes.

An abundance of reference citations gives your article a scholarly tone and allow you to build trust with your readers. With them, your descriptions of those fearsome homosexuals will have the full backing of professional authorities. Having lots of references is probably the most important step you can take in building a convincing anti-gay tract.

And there is an additional beauty to having plenty of reference citations: while footnotes are impressive, nobody actually reads them. You can use virtually any source you want to and nobody will bother to see whether it actually means anything or not. Having seen your extensive reference citations, they’ll just take your word for it.

Another advantage to using lots of reference citations is this: once your reader gets accustomed to seeing them sprinkled throughout the page, you can easily slip in all sorts of “facts” without providing any source citation at all. Once you have established “cred” you can do just about anything.

Step 4: Cite authoritative sources, such as national probability-sampled surveys or governmental statistics. If you want your readers to be afraid of your target, you have to give them lots of reasons to be fearful. The best place to start is by using reliable surveys and governmental statistics, sources that everyone can trust.

But you’ll find that it’s not so easy to get the really juicy statistics you’re looking for this way. For one thing, Americans — gay or straight — are generally not that sexually adventurous, and these surveys tend to back that up. And for another, because of the expense of mounting these surveys, they typically don’t get enough gay men and women for making valid comparisons. Because the margins of error for these smaller subgroups are just too high, it only takes a few screwballs to throw the averages off.

But if you can use these more reliable surveys to your advantage then go right ahead. Be sure to brag that you’re using a nationally representative study – this is something you don’t want to hide.

You can also use official governmental reports to back up your arguments. While these reports aren’t necessarily representative studies, they have the advantage of being official, which presumes a lack of bias. Whether this is really true or not is a matter of debate, but that’s okay. The only people debating it are academics and activists, not your average reader.

When you cite governmental statistics, you are, as far as your readers are concerned, staking your claim to the full faith and credit of the United States of America. It’s hard to get any more authoritative than that.

Step 5: Slip in other less reliable “random” surveys. As I said before, Americans aren’t generally that adventurous, so it’s difficult to find the really scary stuff if you stick with probability-sampled surveys. But that’s okay because there are many more wide-ranging surveys to choose from which are not probably-sampled. Some are representative of selected cities or regions which may not represent everyone nationally; others are hampered by methodological limitations which prevent them from being representative altogether.

When it’s time to switch to a less reliable survey, just quietly slip it in. Nobody will notice that you didn’t describe it as “probability-sampled.” And here’s a bonus trick: you can call some surveys a “national survey” even when it’s not probability sampled. If your readers just assume that it is, it’s not your fault. You didn’t say it was. Sins of omission don’t count in culture wars.

Step 6: Cite casual surveys. Anti-gay writers often cite casual sex surveys published by gay magazines such as The Advocate or Genre. When you’re ready for the really scary stuff, casual surveys like these can be an excellent source for salacious statistics even though they are utterly unreliable for providing valid statistics.

To learn more about the problems inherent with casual surveys, see our review of The Gay Report, a book based on a casual survey from the 1970’s that has long been a favorite source among anti-gay writers.

Not only do these surveys omit the views of non-readers, they many not even reflect the views of that magazine’s readership. At best, they only reflect the views of those who are motivated to fill out intimate and detailed questionnaires on sexuality. That’s why casual surveys tend to reflect the views of the more sexually adventurous, which makes them a favorite among anti-gay activists.

One classic misuse of an STD study is the case of the so-called “Dutch Study,” which supposedly proved that gay unions last only eighteen months and that gay couples average an additional eight partners per year outside. To learn exactly how they came up with this, see our report, Straight From The Source: What The “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples.

Step 7: Add behavioral statistics using convenience samples from clinical research, especially STD/AIDS and other medical studies. As with casual surveys, the pay-off here can be huge. But you need to be sneaky about it. For example, if you’re using a study based on people being treated for STDs, you cannot make that too obvious. (Well, you have to put the study’s title in your footnotes, but don’t worry. Like I said, nobody actually reads footnote.)

People who engage in risky sexual behavior are far more likely to contract an STD. This means that studies based on people recruited from STD clinics are far more likely to provide juicy statistics for sexual behavior. You can also find interesting statistics from studies of drug users or economically-stressed urban populations.

Step 8: Manipulate the data. This is where you can put your analytical skills to the test. As you delve into all of these studies, you’ll find that there is often more then one way to present the data. Of course, you’ll want to choose the method that depicts your targets in the worst possible light. There are many ways to do this.

Here is one popular trick: Notice how sometimes you might find some writers using awkward phrases like “those who behave homosexually” instead of simply saying “homosexuals.” Why do you suppose that is?

It turns out there is a very important difference. For anti-gay writers, one great opportunity for manipulation comes in deciding how to deal with bisexuals. Because bisexuals behave heterosexually as well as homosexually, you get to put them on whichever side that gives you the best outcome. All you have to do is work the numbers to see what works best for you.

Sometimes you can combine bisexuals with homosexuals (i.e., “those who behave homosexually“), and other times, you can combine them with heterosexuals (in which case, they usually just become “heterosexuals”). Or you can leave them out altogether. It’s all up to you. And you don’t have to be consistent about this – nobody else is. You can decide this on a case-by-case basis and adjust your descriptions accordingly.

Another opportunity arises when surveys over-sample smaller populations in order to get a better snapshot of these smaller groups. The overall survey can be statistically adjusted to become a representative sample, but the smaller subset by itself is not. But that doesn’t mean you can’t use data from that smaller subset. When it comes to statistics, there are many ways to skin the onion.

Step 9: Use your opponents’ words and actions against them. This is where you really get to have fun. In any crowd, there is always a radical somewhere who is on a special mission to reform the world and enlighten the ignorant masses. Fortunately, this person is usually not shy about annoying everyone else with his proclamations. Thanks to people like this, you can always find that especially scary quote anytime you want. It saves you from having to make stuff up yourself.

But the way you use the quote is important: make sure you quote him as though he speaks for everyone. No matter who he is or how unpopular he may be, treat his opinions as though everyone you’re trying to marginalize unanimously agrees. And if you can pretend that the quote reveals a hidden agenda, you get extra bonus points.

Step 10: Get really kinky. After wading through all of this sex talk, your reader may have gotten a little desensitized after a while. That’s when you will need to kick it up a notch. Drugs, orgies, bondage, bestiality, polyamory — throw it all in there. Remember, this is all about fear. Don’t hold back now.

This is where the sensational nature of the popular press works in your favor. You can include lots of stories ripped from the headlines to make it hit home. And as you did with the nut-job extremists, make sure your readers are led to believe that everyone is doing it and this is where it all leads. With enough imagination, the slippery slope can slide in all sorts of directions.

Step 11: Cite a threat to marriage and the family. Now it’s time to make your readers afraid of the dangers posed by all of this sexual activity you’ve been describing. Threatening the institution of marriage and the family will be one of your most reliable themes.

Social conservatives have been decrying the breakdown of the traditional American family for decades. They cite gay marriage and adoptions as a threat to marriage and the family, despite the fact that the dramatic increase in the divorce rate was well underway long before Stonewall, the elimination of anti-sodomy laws, or marriage equality in Massachusetts.

But every problem has a bogeyman, and gays and lesbians who seek to enter the profoundly conservative domain of marriage and family are the ones who are portrayed as making straight marriages a thing of the past.

Step 12: Cite a threat to health. Medical doctors are nothing if not meticulous note-takers, and you will find just about anything you could ever want if you go combing through the medical journals long enough.

Describing a disliked minority as disease-laden is practically mandatory when writing any decent anti-anybody tract, whether that tract is anti-Jewish (see The Protocols of Zion), anti-Black, anti-foreigner, or, of course, anti-gay. Who are you to snub such a time-honored tradition?

Gays and lesbians are often accused of being far more likely to molest children than straight people. But research simply does not back that up that charge. You can learn more about this in our report, Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Step 13: Cite a threat to children. Innocent children are vulnerable to all sorts of predators. Just make sure you readers are worrying about the right ones. This is another favorite claim against disliked minorities.

Step 14: Cite a threat of a societal breakdown. Everybody yearns for a return to the “good old days,” when everyone supposedly exhibited as strong moral fiber (a moral fiber that tolerated official racism and mob violence, but that is another matter). But we’re not living in the “good old days” anymore. And there is so much to choose from to prove it: public sex, nudity, murder, domestic violence, political intrigue, violent oppression, general mayhem — you name it.

Nothing exemplifies this breakdown better than images of rowdy, intoxicated, and uninhibited mobs in various stages of undress at sexually-charged festivals and parades. Think of how anti-gay writers invoke a minority of participants at gay pride festivals in a few select cities. You get the idea.

But for other topics like violence, murder and so forth, you only need to sketch a picture. Remember, we’re really talking about sex here, and these other examples, while interesting, are not your main point. Just provide some simple examples — a few statistics and a brief mention of news items will do the trick. By this time your audience is already plenty frightened, so you can afford to keep it short and sweet.

Step 15: Close on a compassionate note. You don’t hate anyone. Honestly, you don’t. The Biblical message is all about compassion, about loving your neighbor and all that. You love homosexuals. You really do. You just don’t like their same-sex-lusting, public-fornicating, disease-spreading, marriage-ruining, child-molesting, society-endangering ways. And really now, where’s the hate in that?


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

And that is how you can write an anti-gay tract in fifteen easy steps.

Oh sure, there is so much more you can do once you put your imagination to work. There are rhetorical flourishes to explore, strawman arguments to knock down, red herrings to catch and release. You can add guilt by association, urban myths (gerbils anyone?), religious condemnations — these and more, depending on the audience you’re trying to reach. With a little work and creativity, you too can become an “authority” on just about anything.

But be sure you follow step 3 and use lots of footnotes. That way I can keep an eye on you.

Article found here:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,016.htm

Hey I got an idea...Why don't you kill off all those "Christians" and then you wouldn't have to worry about it??

I belive that this issue is a governmental issue. Christians should have no more of a part in it then placing their vote..

They have the same rights as anyone to vote as they choose and express themselves any way they want...if you don't like it...continue to complain and whine about it.

But unlike those that seem to want to keep people from expressing themselves, I choose to believe that everyone, even those that have the craziest of ideas have a right to express it..

If you don't like what Christians say and do....then stay out of the chruches and don't worry about it.

I don't HATE people...only actions. Hate is a very strong word IMO. we all have the right to express what we think/believe...on every side

I don't hate anyone, I just get annoyed by people that preach tolerance and diversity and acceptance..but have little for anyone that doesn't share or even champion their particular beliefs..

IMO that makes them hypocrites correct? i will say though, we are all human. even my anger gets the better of me at times. but i don't force things down someone throat like that then do the opposite

"There's a storm gathering." A minute-long TV spot by a group called the National Organization for Marriage is already spawning YouTube parodies of its grave, Terminator-esque warning about gay marriage destroying the American Way of Life.

But for sheer hilarity, no parody can match the audition tapes for the ad, in which a series of no-name actors stand in front of a green screen and mostly botch lines like "the clouds are dark and the winds are strong" and "I'm a California doctor who must choose between my faith and my job."

The audition videos, uncovered by the Human Rights Campaign, seem too good to be true. But NOM has helpfully authenticated them by sending DMCA notices to YouTube to get them pulled down. Vimeo.com hosted the banned videos for a while, but now also appears to have folded like an umbrella.

So internet rebels are reportedly saving the videos with keepvid.com, and then uploading them back to YouTube when they're pulled. Washington City Paper is keeping up with the YouTube roulette.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/04/funny-anti-gay.html

1948 and 1970?

"If you don't like what Christians say and do....then stay out of the chruches and don't worry about it."


ha ha ha

You have a deal...but please do return the favor and keep your church out of my public square, my bedroom, my doctors office, my government, my public school, my marriage...

Understand? even a little?

You again are assuming that I do have a church...
But if you have read my postings, I have said that church opinion has no place in governmental decisions...if you want to make gay marriages legal, if you have the votes, it is your right to do that..if you want to allow mulitple partner marriages, if you want to make a supreme race of all blondes and blue eyed people, and you have the votes for it, then you can do that too, if you want to marry animals(Sic) then you can do that too, governmental laws have changed to be secular in nature and the church is not part of the secular world. I have no issue with keeping it that way.

You don't have to have a church to share it's attitudes.

agreed

So tell me...what are the "right" attitudes that we should all adhere to boo2u?? Because many people do not share yours or my point of view, does not mean that they have the right or wrong attitude.. What happend to the diversity attitude, the acceptance attitude that states that we all have our differences and it is ok to have them, but to respect their rights, and beliefs even if you don't share them??

everyone has the right to speak out about what they believe or have a peace protest (without laws broken)

whether it's KKK vs NAACP, pro-life vs pro-choice, church vs non-church goers. and we all have the right to vote based on our beliefs.

not all churches or christians are hypocritical just as not all non-church goers or non-believers or hypocritical

there is good and bad in everything

You are so rigth yellowrose :)

You are so rigth yellowrose :)

The issue I have is with Churches getting involved in our politics at all. Our government and religions are suppose to be separate by constitution. Now church goers certainly have the right to have their opinion heard and I wouldn't care if churches asked their congregation to donate to specific political actions but I think they should be banned from direct support let alone the creation of legislation.

Yes...everyone has the right to speak.

I don't want to pull these ads. People should however know the truth behind these ads.

If the positions expressed in these ads are the heartfelt sentiments of the writers and sponsors of these ads why are actors appearing in the ad?

Here's another question...who are the sponsors of these ads? Who is footing the bill and why aren't they showing their faces?

The CA doctor? Not a doctor but an actor...but...then that's right in line with the religious right wing fear mongers playbook right? Joe the plumber? Not a plumber haha

So, back to who is paying for these ads....

Are they Californians? Or are they hateful people from all over he country who are so scared of gay marriage they have to intrude on CA politics?

The prop 8 ads sponsored by big churches money hinted at things that were simply lies...like allowing gay marriage would force churches to perform them...and that my friend is wrong.

/sarcasm on

Isn't lying mentioned in the Bible somewhere?

Isn't there a little bit about judge not lest you be judged?

What about bearing false witness?

As usual these so called church and family people are busy picking and choosing...I do so hope there is a judgement day one day. I'll bring the popcorn and watch with interest.