Category Archives: Homosexuality

by

How Pedophiles Are Using the “Gay Agenda”

See the source image

How Pedophiles Are Using the “Gay Agenda”

James R. Aist

“Because iniquity will abound, the love of many will grow cold.” (Matthew 24:12)

Introduction

Before I delve into the subject matter of this very sensitive and controversial issue, I want to make a few relevant, clarifying points. First, the vast majority of both homosexual and heterosexual people are not child molesters; thus, one cannot identify a child molester solely on the basis of their sexual orientation. Second, while it is true that male heterosexual pedophiles account for most cases of child molestation, this is due solely to the fact that male heterosexuals outnumber male homosexuals by as much as 67 to 1. And third, the vast majority of child molestations are perpetrated by males, not females.

Pedophilia is an integral and valued component of the homosexual movement

Baldwin (2002) and Sprigg and Dailey (2004) have documented extensively this component of the homosexual movement. The practice and celebration of consensual sexual involvement of adult homosexual men with young male teens and boys has a history dating back to ancient times. In modern times, this practice is largely represented in America by an organization called the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). This group openly and proudly practices, and lobbies for acceptance of, pedophilia, claiming that they are doing their under-age victims a favor by having sex with them. There are two other large concentrations of active pedophilia in America that should be mentioned in this context: the Roman Catholic Church (click HERE) and the growing business of human sex trafficking (click HERE). Pedophilia is a major, scandalous, and devastating moral failure in American society today.

In the USA, the legal age of sexual consent is determined at the state level, with all states presently falling in the 16-18 year range. However, world-wide the legal age of consent for sexual relations varies from less than 12 years of age to about 21 years of age, with 13-18 being most common. There is no reason to assume, in view of the prevalence of liberal attitudes regarding sexual morality in America, that our own legal age of consent will not be conformed to that of other, more lenient countries, in the near future. In fact, NAMBLA lobbies for the repeal of all age-of-consent laws in the USA, hoping that some day they can have their way sexually with male children of any age without fear of legal consequences. While NAMBLA is an embarrassment to many in the homosexual community, it appears that, as a whole, the homosexual community is doing more to embrace them than to marginalize them. And their presence is a real, substantial and integral part of the homosexual movement in America, as adult-youth sex is viewed and promoted by many in the homosexual community as an important, and valued, aspect of gay culture (Dailey, T). This is an undeniable manifestation of yet another link between homosexuality and pedophilia, this link being of a more cultural nature and having an extensive historical witness. To read about other links between homosexuality and pedophilia, click HERE.

Pedophiles are using the “gay agenda” to gain access to your children and grandchildren!

Since the U. S. Supreme Court declared recently that so-called “gay marriage” is legal in all 50 states, pedophiles have become increasingly emboldened and committed to having pedophilia accepted as merely another “sexual orientation.” And, to be brutally honest, they are technically correct about this…in part: pedophiles, by definition, do have a sexual preference for children, but this sexual orientation crosses a line that other sexual orientations do not. This line is “consensual sex.” Having sex with children, whether homosexual or heterosexual, has been legally taboo in the United States for generations, because children are not considered to be mature, adequately informed, and responsible enough to consent to it. And rightly so.

Now the gay agenda, using a propaganda campaign based primarily on lies, myths and hoaxes (click HERE), has managed to make homosexuality socially acceptable and “gay marriage” legal in the United states. But the most ominous threat of the “gay agenda” lies in their campaign to get “sexual orientation” classified as a legally protected characteristic (along with age, race, religion etc.). Insofar as they are successful in this aspect of their agenda, “sexual orientation” cannot be used to discriminate against an individual under penalty of law. Current efforts (i.e., the so-called Equality Act) by homosexual activists and their heterosexual cohorts are aimed at instituting such laws without any exceptions (e.g., for religious institutions and Christian business owners).

So now the stage is set for pedophiles to attach themselves to the “gay agenda” bandwagon to achieve their “pedophile agenda.” Insofar as the “gay agenda” gets “sexual orientation” classified as a legally protected characteristic, the “pedophile sexual orientation” also cannot be used to discriminate against an individual under penalty of law, because it too is, after, all, a “sexual orientation!” Their end game is to gain for the pedophile sexual orientation the same preferential treatment that is presently given to the homosexual sexual orientation. That would include legalization of pedophilia and marriage to minors. Of course, to fully establish and implement this agenda, the pedophiles would merely have to get our legal “age of consent” either reduced or eliminated altogether. This would make their sexual relations with minors legal, and they would then be free to prey on your minor children and grandchildren without either parental consent or penalty of law! And there it is, folks.

Moving forward, then, the critical issue will be whether or not pedophilia will be an exception to the inclusion of “sexual orientation” as a legally protected trait. Personally, I believe it should be an exception, but in a country where it is legal to deprive babies in the womb of any protection of their right to live, can we assume that the right of born children to protection from pedophiles will be sustained? In California, there is already a move to provide legal protection for pedophiles (click HERE)! Unless we rise up against this diabolical scheme, it will surely prevail. It is time for fervent prayer and well-informed voting, my friends!

References

Baldwin, S. 2002. Child molestation and the homosexual movement. Regent University Law Review 14:267-282. (click HERE)

Dailey, T. Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse. (click HERE)

Sprigg, P. and T. Dailey. 2004. Google Books. Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows about Homosexuality. Chapter 6. Is There a Link Between Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse? Pages 121-142.

(To read more of my articles on homosexuality, click HERE)

by

Homosexuality and Choice

See the source image

Homosexuality and Choice

James R. Aist

“We now have scientifically sound evidence, coming from homosexuals themselves, for a significant role of choice in homosexuality.“

Homosexual activists insist that homosexuality is not a choice, whereas many born-again Christians claim that it is. In my investigations into the truths about homosexuality, I have found that there is truth in both positions. Furthermore, a relatively recent scientific study has shed light on this issue and inspired me to take a second look into the relevant facts, which turn out to be quite instructive, if not surprising.

There seems to be some consensus that most homosexual people do not choose to have the same-sex attractions and sexual feelings that they experience initially, and I believe this consensus to be true. But that doesn’t mean that living a homosexual life-style does not involve choices. Once that first same-sex sexual attraction is encountered, there is a choice as to whether or not to act on it (either through fantasies or sexual encounters), and the same choice is made every time that attraction is experienced. Bi-sexual people make a choice every time they engage in homosexual sex rather than heterosexual sex. Heterosexual people who are married with children and then forsake their marriage for a homosexual relationship have made a choice to do so. And the fluidity in sexual orientation, found especially in lesbians but also in gays, speaks to the choice of sexual orientation available to many homosexual people, at least until their late teens (1). And where there is choice there is also the potential for change.

There is also reason to believe that, especially in the early days of one’s homosexual activity, the sexual pleasure experienced in homosexual encounters intensifies and reinforces same-sex attractions and sexual feelings, making it more difficult for any heterosexual inclinations to be sensed or expressed later on (2). At this point, homosexuality has become strongly established and sexual attractions, feelings, fantasies and behaviors are exclusively homosexual. Apparently, there is virtually no longer any role of choice involved, barring spontaneous change (3), effective therapy (4) or divine intervention.

The role of choice in the development of homosexuality has been investigated scientifically for more than two decades, but there have been severe limitations on the accuracy and reliability of the results because of inadequate sample sizes, unreliable sampling methods and the limited scope of the sampled populations (5, 6). Those limitations changed considerably in 2010 with publication of the results of a large, probability study of the USA population with respect to self-identified homosexuality (5). In this study, 12.1% of gay men, 31.6% of lesbians, 61.7% of bisexual men and 59.5% of bisexual women reported a small to large amount of perceived choice in their sexual orientation. This is the largest and most reliable scientific study to date of the role of choice in the development of homosexuality, and it revealed that, while a large majority of exclusively homosexual people do not believe choice had a significant role in their development of homosexuality, many of them believe it did. And a clear majority of bisexual men and women claim that there was a significant role of choice in the development of their sexual orientation. So, we now have scientifically sound evidence, coming from homosexuals themselves, for a significant role of choice in homosexuality. That said, we should keep in mind that the practice of homosexuality always involves a choice, as I implied in the opening paragraph.

Since choice 1) often is perceived to be a factor in the development of exclusive homosexuality, especially in women, and 2) always is involved in the practice of homosexuality, it should be of no surprise that the best evidence available on sexual orientation change efforts shows that both secular and religious therapy programs designed to help dissatisfied homosexuals overcome their homosexuality have success rates in the 25%-30% range (4). For these ex-homosexual people, homosexuality was not immutable. Rather, they chose to overcome it and did.

(Note: It is important to keep in mind that the summary data cited above on the role of choice in the development of homosexuality, despite being reported by individuals, applies directly only to the respective populations of the subjects in the studies and not necessarily to any one individual. Each person’s sexual orientation experience is unique to that person.)

References Cited:

  1. Whitehead, N. and B. Whitehead. 2012. Chapter 12. Can sexual orientation change? (click HERE)
  2. Aist, J. 2012. Are Homosexuals Really Born Gay? (click HERE)
  3. Aist, J. 2012. Spontaneous Change in Sexual Orientation: It Does Happen! (click HERE) 
  4. Aist, J. 2012. Homosexuality: Good News! (click HERE) 
  5. Herek, G.M., et al. 2010. Demographic, Psychological, and Social Characteristics of Self-Identified Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults in a US Probability Sample. Sex Res Soc Policy 7:176-200. 
  6. Diamond, L.M. and C.J. Rosky. 2016. Scrutinizing Immutability: Research on Sexual Orientation and U.S. Legal Advocacy for Sexual Minorities. J Sex Res 53:363-391.

 (To read more of my articles on homosexuality, click HERE)

by

Why Is There a “T” in “LGBT”

See the source image

Why Is There a “T” in “LGBT”

James R. Aist

Introduction

The acronym “LGBT” was invented by the homosexual movement to refer to people who are Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender. The combined LGB (homosexual) sub-group comprises only about 2-4% of the general population, and so, by itself, would not seem large enough to garner sufficient sympathy for their agenda. Leaders of the homosexual movement continue to stress that “homosexual” and “transgender” are really quite different in nature. So, why, then, is “transgender” included in the homosexual movement? This seems to be an enigma. Is there an explanation for this association that goes deeper than a mere desire to involve a slightly larger number of “oppressed” people in the homosexual movement in order to achieve the goals of their agenda?

Scientific revelation

In the process of researching transgender issues (click HERE), I discovered a direct, more fundamental association between “homosexual” and “transgender” than the mere desire to gain strength through numbers. Scientific studies (see References 1 & 2, below) have found that 73%-81% of male-to-female transgendered “females” are still sexually attracted to females! So, by definition, to the extent that these transgendered “females” have actually become female, they have also become virtual lesbians. This is a direct link of “transgender” to “homosexual”, and it would seem to provide a more fundamental connection of “transgender” to the homosexual movement than a mere desire to involve a larger number of “oppressed” people in the homosexual movement.

Moral implication

Here is an often overlooked ramification of Deuteronomy 22:5 with 1 Corinthians 1:6-9 (click HERE) to the practice of gender transformation and subsequent sexual relations. “Do not be deceived; God will not be mocked” (Galatians 6:7): if a male-to-female transgender person has sex with a man, he is committing a homosexual sin, because he is, in reality, still a man. Likewise, if a female-to-male transgender person has sex with a female, she is committing a homosexual sin, because she is, in reality, still a woman. In other words, such transgender sex becomes homosexual sin, thus providing another direct link between “transgender” and “homosexual”. And, as with any kind of sin, sexual or otherwise, the only effective way for such a person to be reconciled to God and spend eternity in heaven with Him is to confess the sins, repent of them and accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. For, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9). We have God’s word on it!

References

  1. Auer, M., et al., 2014. Transgender Transitioning and Change of Self-Reported Sexual Orientation. PloS One. (click HERE)
  2. Author unspecified. 2016. Transgender sexuality, References 7 and 8. Wikipedia.    (click HERE)

(To read more of my articles on HOMOSEXUALITY and TRANSGENDERISM, click HERE)

by

Transgendered Men in Women’s Facilities?

See the source image

Transgendered Men in Women’s Facilities?

James R. Aist

Scientific studies have found that 73%-81% of male-to-female transgendered “females” are still sexually attracted to females.

Introduction

This article is about why men of any gender – real or perceived – should not be allowed in women’s public facilities. I will begin with two brief, complementary explanations of what gender identity disorder is, and then explain why allowing transsexual men into such facilities is a freedom way too far. Sprigg (7) has presented pertinent facts and strong arguments along the same lines.

What is Gender Identity Disorder?

Gender Identity Disorder (GID) – often called “Gender Dysphoria” to de-emphasize the mental delusion involved – is a mental disorder characterized by the feeling and belief that you are not really the gender of the body you were born in, but that of the opposite gender. Thus, a person born a male feels and believes that he is really a female trapped in a male body and identifies his gender as female, and a person born a female feels and believes that she is really a male trapped in a female body and identifies her gender as male. Such a person is said to be transgender, because he/she perceives their real gender to be opposite (trans) their birth gender. Conversely, a cisgender person feels and believes their real gender to be the same (cis) as their birth gender. Transgender people experience intense anxiety, distress and inner conflict, because their perceived gender does not match their actual, birth gender. These feelings and beliefs are, themselves, very real to the person experiencing them, but they do not correspond to the actual, biological gender. Therefore, they represent a virtual, rather than an actual, reality. That is to say, persons with GID are delusional with respect to their gender. The best estimates of the prevalence of GID put it in the range of 0.33%-0.47%, or less than one-half of one percent, of the general population (8). Thus, GID is not “normal.”

A Family of Psychoses

As Barber (3) and McHugh (5) have pointed out, GID belongs to a family of mental disorders, or “psychoses”, which are characterized, in part, by a mental departure from reality, referred to by psychiatrists as “delusion” (4). Perhaps the best known mental disorder of this family is anorexia. Anorexic people are actually skinny, but they feel and believe that they are grossly overweight. Transabled is another mental disorder belonging to this family of psychoses. Transabled people feel and believe that they are disabled, yet they are, in reality, physically whole and healthy people. And that brings us to transgender people. As mentioned above, they feel and believe that they are not really the biological gender of the body they were born in, but that of the opposite gender. This delusion has been likened to that of the Emperor in Hans Christian Andersen’s tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” (5). In that tale, the Emperor, believing that he wore an outfit of exquisite beauty imperceptible to the common man, paraded naked through the streets of his town for all to see. The people knew very well that the Emperor was deluded, but they were afraid to say anything to him about his nakedness, for fear of retribution.

A Freedom Too Far

For purposes of clarity, let me first point out that I am using the term “public facilities” to refer to all shared restrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, dressing rooms and shower rooms (Did I leave anything out?) in the public arena (i.e., outside of private residences).

The review article (6) touched on this issue briefly, pointing out that male-to-female transgendered “females” are perceived to be less of a threat to real females in public facilities than are gender-normal males pretending to be transgendered, and that may be true. The threat is not only regarding actual sexual assault, but also voyeurism, where a gender-normal male would behave as a “peeping Tom” (a person who gets pleasure, especially sexual pleasure, from secretly watching others), as it were, and thus invade the bodily privacy of unsuspecting females. As Sprigg (7) put it, transgender activists are putting gender ideology above public safety and the fundamental right to bodily privacy.

And here’s an eye opener for you. I have discovered a couple of little-known facts that should, perhaps, be of even greater concern than the “transgender pretender.” Let’s assume, for a moment, that transgender activists are correct in asserting that the male-to-female transgendered “females” using women’s public facilities are going to outnumber the transgender pretenders. Then, the greatest threat could come, hypothetically, from the male-to-female transgendered “females” themselves, based on sheer numbers. But, you may ask, “Why would the male-to-female transgendered “females” pose a threat to the real females in women’s public facilities?” Here’s why: scientific studies (1, 2) have found that 73%-81% of male-to-female transgendered “females” are still sexually attracted to females! Moreover, only 25%-30% of transgender people having undergone gender re-assignment have had any kind of gender-confirming surgery, meaning that more than two-thirds of male-to-female transgendered “females” using women’s public facilities will still have their God-given, male genitals intact (9). Think about that for a moment, and then let me ask you this: Do you want male-to-female transgendered “females” with fully functional male genitals getting “turned on” sexually by your wife or daughter while using women’s public facilities? I didn’t think so. Moreover, it’s not difficult to guess what else they might feel compelled to do once they are sexually “turned on.” This is why I believe that male-to-female transgendered “females”, rather than transgender pretenders, could prove to be the greatest threat to women using unrestricted public facilities.

At present, we have laws against “peeping Toms.” They are arrested, tried in a court of law, and, if found guilty, given an appropriate jail sentence. But if male-to-female transgendered “female” peeping Toms can legally be in women’s public facilities and are, somehow, “caught in the act” by the victim, they could get off scot free, because it would be virtually impossible to prove that they were actually peeping, and they would have a legal right to be in the facility. Thus, legally enforced, unrestricted access to public facilities, in effect, legalizes voyeurism. And that just isn’t right!

The absurdity of shared public facilities has to stop! Gender-normal persons outnumber gender-deluded persons by a ratio of about 250:1. It makes no sense to put the personal interests of such a tiny minority above the personal interests of such a vast majority. Gender-normal persons’ safety and feelings matter too! Accommodating the needs of transgender persons by providing gender-neutral facilities is going far enough. Surely they can deal with their feelings and distress privately for a few minutes while they “do their business”, without having to victimize the gender-normal public to accommodate their mental disorder in the process! Furthermore, a policy of shared public facilities opens the door to sexual perverts and sexual offenders, making it easier for them to gain access to their potential victims and, potentially, to get away with it. No one is even allowed to ask about their perceived gender status. To force the gender-normal majority to compromise their safety (real or imagined) and their very real right to bodily privacy in public facilities is clearly “a freedom way too far!”

Transgender activists accuse gender-normal activists of creating an anti-transgender hysteria based on fear mongering, rather than real-life events, concerning unrestricted public facilities. So that you will know the truth, I have assembled just a few of the many recent reports where real-life conflicts have been caused by unrestricted public facility policies. You can decide for yourself if you think this is just anti-transgender hysteria based on fear mongering:

  • Sexual assault victims speak out (click HERE)
  • Man lounging around naked in girl’s locker room at college (click HERE)
  • Man strips in front of girls in locker room at pool (click HERE)
  • Nine-year-old girl in boys bathroom at school (click HERE)
  • Store lets men use women’s dressing room (click HERE)
  • “Transgender” sexual predator in women’s shelter (click HERE)
  • Men in women’s restroom prompts ACLU leader to resign (click HERE)
  • Finally, a tried and convicted case of rape of  a 10-year old girl in the bathroom of a private home (click HERE).

References Cited:

  1. Auer, M., et al., 2014. Transgender Transitioning and Change of Self-Reported Sexual Orientation. PloS One. (click HERE)
  2. Author unspecified. 2016. Transgender sexuality, References 7 and 8. Wikipedia. (click HERE)
  3. Barber, M. 2015. Transwhatever. RenewAmerica. (click HERE)
  4. Definition of Psychosis, New York Times Health Guide. (Click HERE)
  5. McHugh, P. 2015. Transgenderism: A Pathogenic Meme. The Public Discourse. (click HERE)
  6. O’Leary, D. and P. Sprigg. 2015. Understanding and Responding to the Transgender Movement. Family Research Council. (click HERE)
  7. Sprigg, P. 2016. Transgender Activists Put Ideology Above Safety. Family research Council. (click HERE)
  8. Yarhouse, M. 2015. Understanding the Transgender Phenomenon. Christianity Today. (click HERE)
  9. Bernstein, L. 2015. Here’s how sex reassignment surgery works. The Washington Post. (click HERE)

(For more articles on transgenderism and homosexuality by Dr. Aist, click HERE)