A second crimen carnis contra naturm (immoral acts against our animal nature) is intercourse between sexus homogenii, in which the object of sexual impulse is a human being but there is homogeneity instead heterogeneity of sex, as when a woman satisfies her desire on a woman, or a man on a man. This practice too is contrary to the ends of humanity; for the end of humanity is respect of sexuality is to preserve the species is without debasing the person; but in this instance the species is not being preserved (as it can be by a crimen carnis secundum naturam), but the person is set aside, the self is degraded below the level of animals, and humanity is dishonored

Immanuel Kant.  German Philosopher 1724 – 1804

                                                                             

These and more questions are addressed here! This non-religious, non-commercial and wholly independent website draws together a collation of serious resource material. Much of the evidence to substantiate these issues comes from the gay community itself. With that in mind, the aim is to provide a ready source of factual information on a range of important issues affecting and involving homosexuality.   A number of interesting questions will be confronted in drawing upon serious authoritative research findings.

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 has 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-threatening behaviour with an addictive component which has serious health implications.

The purpose here 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!

In doing so we expose homosexual myths and methods by directly challenging their deceit and propaganda. It is also controversial simply for revealing the duplicity surrounding homosexual issues and intentions.  What does history tell us and what are the facts about the condition of being gay?  Has it been an historical mistake for mankind not to nurture, let alone tolerate homosexuality and are all the worlds’ major religions wrong to reject it?

If you observe homosexual activism carefully, you will find their agenda deliberately spotlights two pillars of contention. First, is that of equality, which is a function of politics! This idea has only been pushed over the last fifty-years deceitfully aligning itself with the innate and immutable character of race.  Thus, by associating homosexuality with the race issue it serves to emphasise the lie they were born that way.  So, they argue, if this is the result of nature they cannot be held accountable for what they do?  Of course, this is a manifest falsehood based upon propaganda and distortion which will be exposed later.

But as we will discover, no amount of psychotherapy can change a person’s race, but it can successfully deal with sexual orientation. The gay response to this conundrum is to reject the efficacy of therapy. In doing so, they deny both fact and reality! A common feature of gay politics.

The casual observer should ask why it is that history has denied this state of impartiality and opted instead for denunciation or even, at times, death? Evidence pre-dates the Judea-Christian tradition and can be traced to Ancient Samaria.

Indeed, Assyrian Laws c. 1450-1250 specifically outlawed men having sex with men. Even pagan Celtic Britain kept campers at bay! By 494 AD homosexuality was a capital offence under Emperor Valentinian and was further codified under the Byzantine Emperor Justinian in the 6th Century.  Moreover, by 900 it became a civil crime throughout Europe under Charlemagne.

Between 1828 and 1836 eight men in Britain were hanged for sodomy; four for bestiality.  The last execution for sodomy took place in 1836 yet it remained a capital offence until 1861.  

It was not, however, until 1967 that the law dramatically changed to allow sex between two consenting men over 21 providing it was in private.  The number of men found guilty of gross indecency in 1966 was 420, but by 1971 it had more than trebled and by 1989 had risen to 2,500.  Gays described this time as the period of anti-gay witch-hunt by the police.  On the other side of the coin, however, gays recklessly stretched the parameters of legislation in order to secure greater acceptance.

By the 1980’s, there were over 20,000 convictions for buggery, gross indecency, soliciting and procuring.  Clearly, gays were increasingly defiant of the law, were busy organising themselves into a more cohesive pressure group and despite initial reluctance by the Trade Unions and Labour party eventually managed to garner additional support from them.

The biggest change came with the ratification of the European Convention on Human Rights in January 2002.  The gay lobby was now galvanised into action in order to secure further advantages from what was seen as repressive laws on homosexual conduct by way of litigation through the courts

All of this resulted in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that in one determined stroke did away with gay soliciting, buggery, gross indecency, group sex and assault with intent to commit buggery.  Cruising is now legal but cottaging is not.

The substantive homosexual claim today is conditional on ultra-radical politics of more recent innovation – not race, sex, medicine or indeed history. These considerations in fact bedevil their case and where possible are avoided!

Contributing to this pressure has been a Labour Government actively pursuing gay rights within an eager European Union. Homosexual pressure is now ubiquitous, concentrated within the functions of state and increasingly taken up by trade unions and private monopolies. Workers are sacked for having legitimate reserved opinion against homosexuality and Christian organisations banned from banks. Religious opinion and history in democratic society is being squashed to silence by what is seen as a super hoax.  Gays have achieved this by carefully fabricating a politicised victimhood.

There are early signs the judiciary is compromised. The established Church is emaciated by internal dispute and hypocritically allows civil partnerships for gay priests providing they don’t have sex.

Shortly the educational system will seriously falter under the weight of a homosexual culture and our children will fall prey to gay propaganda.  Kids will be taught that homosexuality is normal and healthy with the inevitable result more children will be enticed into it only to suffer its miserable gripping consequences characterised by mental turmoil, depression and suicidal ideation.

Political correctness is ingrained in many of the institutions of science, academia and government agencies. Psychology, psychiatry and social work have been captured by an ultra-liberal agenda.  We witness a cultural preoccupation with political correctness, sensitivity and diversity.  Psychology has surrendered its professionalism and science to this questionable phenomenon.  

Thus political correctness harbours hostility, reflects narcissism, masks histrionics, functions as instant morality, wields power, serves as a distraction, involves intimidation and lacks alternatives.  Political correctness results in intolerance and injustice as it inverts logic, truth and reality.  Nonetheless, gays have exploited its advantages whenever possible.  They have even documented their strategy for doing so, which is also revealed here.

In the meantime, political and intellectual opposition to the onslaught of the gay agenda is rapidly fading having been caught off cue. The Left is filled with emancipated glee; the Right transfixed like lost robotic rabbits caught in hostile homosexual hot lights. The police, meanwhile, contribute hugely to this modern moral panic of homophobia and resentment by fabricating falsehoods of gay victimhood.

Feeding from all this, is mostly a sympathetic national and local media that circulates twisted gay opinion as certain fact.

Take for example, an Observer report by Mark Townsend in September 2004. Based on so-called evidence from the local gay lobby he claimed there were 8,000 homophobic attacks each year in Devon and Cornwall alone. An alarming figure by any account. But the Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales only dealt with 317 cases that contained any homophobic element, resulting in a 71 percent conviction rate for the period April 2004 and March 2005. Currently, the South Wales Evening Post alarmingly reported that South Wales had one of the ‘highest levels of gay hate crime in England and Wales’, when the actual figure for the whole of Wales was a mere 14 prosecutions. So who is economical with the truth?

Moreover, homosexuality is steeped in a form of victimhood that has gained in political status.  It has brought them considerable advantage including preferential treatment and the possibility of using police power to silence unwelcome critics and financial compensation.  Thus, politicised victimhood undermines liberalism, weakens our democratic culture and subverts equality before the law, as well as police and judicial impartiality.  In 2007, homosexual rights will be further protected when the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) is established.  Every current indication from Government is that homosexual rights to impose itself on society will result in democratic and religious freedoms being trounced.

In early 2007 discussion between gay lobby groups and Tony McNulty of the Home Office took place with the view to creating new laws that will control public criticism of homosexuality in the media.  The aim will be to render any criticism as harassment.  Indicating he is open to further discussion the Minister said, “The new incitement laws will help inform other parts of hate crime, we will see how religious hatred incitement goes and this will inform our thinking in terms of verbal abuse in terms of homophobias, things are fairly new but I’m open to discussion.”

We now learn that London is reputably the Gay Capital of Europe? If there is so much hate about, why is that? Indeed, gays increasingly claim each pink parade is a resounding success that suggests little or no evidence of homophobia.  Gay websites proudly boasted of 600,000 people in attendance at the London European Gay Pride in 2006.  More down to earth, the police said only 40,000 attended.

But there is more! A ‘VisitBritain’ website which is in 17 languages opens with the comments ‘Welcome to the United Queendom of Great Britain …with our proud gay history, cutting-edge culture and fashion, flamboyant cities and pulsating nightlife, isn’t it time you came out …to Britain?’ Funded by the Department of Culture, it extols Britain as home to one of the largest gay populations in Europe, with the same age of consent as heterosexuals at 16 and civil partnerships. It says ‘Awash with rainbow pride, Britain is a nation of excitement, history, talent and understanding. Several cities are identified as being gay-friendly which include London, Manchester, Newcastle, Brighton, Cardiff, Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Michael Cashman, 55, Labour Euro-MP speaking on the eve on his gay wedding in March 2006 to Paul Cottingham, 41, former Butlins redcoat, remarked, ‘A dream of equality has become a reality that I never thought would happen in my lifetime.  At last we can enjoy rights and responsibilities that have been so long denied, and for no good or just reason.’  Later he was to claim that,  ‘Labour has virtually delivered on equality: from gays in the military, an equal age of consent, housing succession rights, civil partnership, hate crime legislation, same sex immigration, review of the sexual offences laws and abolition of discriminatory measures, non-discrimination in the work place, adoption and fostering rights and now proceeding to ban discrimination in the supply of goods and service’.

Even the infant 15-year old British Gay Police Association are simply amazed at the rapid pace of change favouring anal intercourse. This is contrary to their heightened daily hue and cry of rampant homophobia, even against ‘gay’ police horses, in town and country, home and hearth. Be warned, its zero tolerance for slighting snuggling constabulary shires! They’re so brazen they want the police disciplined for using the phrase ‘queer’, which they freely use themselves. Police force to fraudulent farce, service to asinine subservience!

Unlike Cashman, however, this is how the homosexual police see it – ‘In recent years and months, the gay community has experienced an onslaught of vociferous, homophobically motivated campaigns from religious extremists, frantic in their desire to prevent gay people enjoying the same legal rights, freedoms and protections they take for granted. ‘  Such a perspective has prompted them to place a very nasty advert in The Independent in June 2006.  Have they gone too far?  Headed ‘In the name of the father’ it showed a picture of the Holy Bible next to which was a large red-raw Rorschach type blood spatter.  The message was grossly offensive and unsubstantiated in suggesting Christians are mostly responsible for violence against homosexuals.  The advert implies they are violent and hateful thugs, the very antithesis of Christian teaching.

Not surprising then, that Scotland Yard is now investigating them for an alleged ‘faith crime’ following a public complaint.

This police association wants to stifle Muslim and Christian opinion within its own ranks fearing it could lead to ‘homophobia’.  There is a major difference of opinion between them and the Christian Police Association.  Already there are cases of officers who refuse to work with gay officers or who withdraw from groups discussing equality within police forces.  They have now set up a 24-hour internal help line to monitor what they term as ‘faith-based homophobia’.  Clearly they wish to stifle religious opinion because they view it as unfavourable to homosexuality.

More generally, however, the police are utterly taken in by homobabble and are becoming increasingly authoritarian when policing gay rights.

Acting under Home Office advice, the rot set in 2002 when Sergeant Geoffrey Clark of the Gloucester Police detained Robin Page, 61, a well-known author, broadcaster, conservationist and farmer for ‘inciting hatred’ following a protest speech at the Frampton County Fair.

After arguing that hunt supporters should be a protected minority, Page had said, ‘If you are black, vegetarian, Muslim, asylum-seeking, one-legged lesbian lorry driver,   I want the same rights as you.’  He was thrown into a police cell and accused of having committed a ‘hate crime’.  The case went all the way to the Attorney General himself who ruled no crime had been committed.  Yet, in spite of that, Page’s personal details are retained on police records for being involved in an alleged ‘hate incident.

That apart, there’s a seriously sinister side developing within the British police today. Take the case of Lynette Burrows, author on children’s rights, family campaigner and broadcaster. In December 2005, she took part in a debate on Radio Five Live on the new Civil Partnership Act. She said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. Following a public complaint, the police pounced, or should that be ponced, on her? Scotland Yard insisted on an investigation into homophobic remarks as a ‘priority crime’ to reassure the community. The boy’s in blue are gradually plodding into a darker side of social control which aims to curtail free speech.

Was the BBC outraged that one of its contributors had been intimidated in this sinister fashion? Hardly! Instead it distanced itself with indecent haste describing Burrow’s opinion as ‘challenging and unpleasant’.

Similarly, just a week later, elderly Joe Roberts, 73, and his wife Helen, 68, both devout Christians, politely objected to the promotion of gay rights by their local council. A view that would be shared by millions of people. When Roberts was told that the promotion of homosexuality was part of the Council’s diversity policy, Mr. Roberts asked if Christianity could be promoted in the same way. He was refused on the grounds it would offend gays and lesbians.

Subsequently, Wyre Borough Council reported them to the police for ‘…the implications of homophobic behaviour.’ The couple were interrogated for 80 minutes by two Lancashire police officers who warned them they were ‘…treading on eggshells.’ They felt their right to free speech and religious freedom was being threatened. This is how totalitarian states start off.  .

The Robert’s family threatened legal proceedings which resulted in a hurried and humiliating capitulation by both the police and council.  A full apology was formally issued and £50,000 paid in damages and legal fees.  It was they who were treading on eggshells instead as they now confessed to an improper use of power.  Indeed, the Robert’s family were invited by the police to draw up new appropriate guidelines.

Sir Iqbal Sacranie, when head of the Muslim Council of Britain was investigated by the police for saying homosexuality is ‘harmful’ and for criticising the same-sex civil partnership idea on BBC radio. Sacranie is a hypocrite. He feels free to speak bluntly about gays yet wants religious hate laws to prevent public criticism of Islam which is itself full of a visceral hate for Jews and ‘kafir’ – non-Muslims.  An article in The Times (April 2006) revealed, for example, that Muslim students training to be imams at a British college are being taught fundamentalist doctrines which describe non-Muslims as pigs, dogs and filth.  Apparently, this is being subsidised by the British taxpayer.

Meantime, the some police forces continue pursuing a foolish policy of pressure and intimidation, because in all these cases, they would have known from the very outset that no serious crime was involved as they sheepishly suggested to the press.

Currently, however, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has decided the police has got too much egg on its face and withdrawn the politically correct instructions to investigate politically incorrect opinions. But not before they were heavily criticised by the Daily Mail for radically amending the British Constitution without public and political discourse so that free speech and thought are restrained. The Association of Chief Police Officer’s will now have to review their idiotic policy on ‘secondary victimisation’ because the real victim is universal democratic free speech.

However, before that can be fully accomplished the North Wales Police; in tandem with the local Crown Prosecutor; have stepped into the breech and brought the force into disrepute.  They arrested, charged and bailed John Atkinson, 46, a former detective officer with 22 years of distinguished service, with a public order offence.  What was his crime?  Chatting with a group of 6 police officers in a police van in Wrexham town centre late one night he asked about Superintendent Michele Williams, who is openly homosexual and heavily involved in the forces diversity programme.  He mischievously referred to her as a ‘diversity dyke’.  

The six police officers drove off but five minutes later came back, running towards him and ordering him to put his hands in the air.  ‘I honestly thought it was a joke and they were winding me up,’ he said.  He was then arrested, handcuffed, bundled in the police van, forced to strip naked and left in a cell with just a blanket, denied access to a toilet and later charged with ‘threatening and abusive behaviour.’  A subsequent front page headline in the Daily Post claimed he was ‘Treated like a dog’.  This was a serious understatement for he was treated worst than a dog!

Last year, North Wales Police Chief Constable Richard Brunstrom, came under heavy fire when he referred to gays as ‘queers’ in a discussion about public toilets.  He quickly apologised but the Gay Police Association wanted him charged.  The Police Authority quite properly refused.

Atkinson was to claim at his trial he had no idea one of the officers; Sarah Fellows; was gay.  The police protested to the court they were shocked by his ‘dyke’ remark but when asked about the chief constable’s earlier reference to queers they ineptly distanced themselves from the issue.  It did not, however, stop Fellows from claiming she was ‘extremely shocked and insulted’.  The magistrate’s threw the case out and dismissed the charge.  Mr Atkinson felt the whole episode was pure farce and lamentably commented, ‘Four miles from here, an old lady was beaten to death two years ago.  It was an undetected murder.  Three years ago, a postman was beaten to death in the next town – undetected.’

This case is exceptional, not only for being the second of its kind but also for the chilling consequences to freedom of speech.  Genuine strong opinion is to be trashed by an oppressive interpretation of the law.  What kind of a society have we become when it is perfectly legitimate to ridicule religion, but watch out if you disparage the homosexual lobby in the slightest manner?

However, now comes news that the police in Brighton have charged Councillor Peter Willows, 75, with a public order offence for allegedly equating homosexuality with paedophilia.    If convicted he faced either 6 months in jail or a maximum fine of £2,000.  Willows, a retired engineer and welder had served on Brighton and Hove City Council for 12 years.

When the case was heard Willows denied using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress but was convicted and handed a conditional discharge.

Summing up Miss Ray-Crosby said: “Nobody on the defence team and certainly not Mr Willows wants to accept it’s right to be offensive about gay people.”

She added: “It is frankly heartbreaking that a man like him, at 75, ends up in the magistrates’ court because of a stupid remark that he bitterly regrets. His good name is something he will never be able to recover. He ends his political career in disgrace.”

Willows was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £250 court costs but when he said he could not pay straight away, his friend Councillor Geoff Wells offered to pay and unusually other supporters offered to chip in.   But Jay Nemes and Johnny Core, two gay men who handed in £40 towards Willows’s court costs, did not agree with the verdict.

Mr Nemes said: “Freedom of speech in England ended on December 12, 2006.  “We have reached a stage where someone who makes an unfortunate comment and then apologises for it gets the full weight of the law brought down upon them

Pauline Quinton, the presiding magistrate, said: “We do not consider your remarks were borne from a hostility to people who are gay.”

What are the implications of this sorry case?  Despite the incontrovertible fact that there is a volume of serious academic evidence clearly equating homosexuality with paedophilia it is now wrong to say so.  Some of that evidence is highlighted on this website.  The big question mark now is – for how much longer?

Then there’s the case of ten Glasgow firefighters were summarily punished by way of compulsive ‘diversity training; one was even demoted losing thousands of pound in pay and pension rights; for refusing to participate in a gay pride event.  They were instructed to attend in uniform and hand out fire safety leaflets.  Some objected on the grounds of conscience while others claimed they were embarrassed.  

The firemen, from Cowcaddens fire station in Glasgow, had also become aware of a ‘kiss-a-fireman’ competition being run by a local gay bar and expected to be harassed.  Instead of attending the march the firemen handed out fire safety leaflets to members of the public on a nearby street.

Scottish National Party member, Fergus Ewing thought it ‘unbelievable’.

Brian Herbert, the demoted watch manager has since been reinstated to his post and the other eight firemen remain under a ‘final warning’ from their employer although they are still considering further action.

A former pop mogul turned politician has promised to back an appeal from nine fire-fighters disciplined.  George Hargreaves, who launched gay icons such as Sinitta, is donating £50,000 to an appeal, vowing to take the case all the way to the House of Lords.

Mr Hargreaves, a founding member of the Scottish Christian party and candidate for elections in May, told the Sunday Mail: “If there is anything less than a total exoneration then Strathclyde can look forward to going all the way to the House of Lords.”  He said the officers deserve better after arguing that it was against their “moral conscience” to attend the gay pride event.

Next is the arrest and charge under the now much-abused Public Order Act of ‘threatening behaviour’’ against budding evangelist, Stephen Green, Director of the Christian Voice organisation.  After two hours, Inspector Alexander Chadd of the South Wales Police arrested Green at the Cardiff Madri Gras who was handing out religious tracts containing information on what the Bible says about homosexuality.  Green was bunged up in the cells for four hours.  

A month later, and much to the dismay of the police, the Crown Prosecution Service dropped all charges.  Have the police acted unlawfully?  David Francis, the Deputy Chief Constable defensibly claimed the decision of CPS to withdraw the charge rested on the fact the evidence was insufficient and they had not criticised the police.  This is potential misleading since the CPS reject charges where (1) the evidence is insufficient or, (2) it is not in the public interest to do so.  They hardly ever mention anything about the activity of the police since this could have other legal implications elsewhere.  This is particularly apt because Green now intends suing the police.  

The police claim they are unable to carry out their duties to the full because of shortages of manpower and resources.  So it is useful to ask them how four police officers can be allotted to the job of investigating another so-called homophobic crime allegedly committed by a ten-year-old boy in March 2007?  The Cheshire police said they considered it a very serious offence.  Primary schoolboy, George Rawlinson, was terrified he would be arrested for sending an email to another boy calling him a ‘gay boy’.  Inspector Nick Bailey  said, We were obliged to record the matter as a crime and we took a proper, and maybe an old fashioned, view.’  Clearly, the police have lost sight of their historical function.

However, we should not be entirely surprised because politically correct Chief Constable Peter Fahy of the Cheshire Constabulary is on record in declaring the need to celebrate diversity.  This was in relation to a previous alleged homophobic hate crime committed by the Rt Rev Peter Forster, the Bishop of Chester in November 2003.  He had suggested that homosexuals can reorientate themselves through psychiatric health following an extensive Church of England study on human sexuality.  The Bishop was warned about his future behaviour.

It is worth reflecting for a moment and ask upon what basis are the police performing?  Indeed, there is a good case to suggest they are behaving unlawfully because real laws are promulgated by Parliament and not the collective desire of the Association of Chief Police Officers.  The police pursuit of hate crime by way of a ‘hate incident’ and ‘hate crime repeat victimization’ is not enshrined in any real law, but has been made up by them.  It clearly amounts to a form of police harassment because they go beyond the law.  They need urgently to revisit their 104-page booklet ‘Hate Crime: Delivering a Quality Service’ and revise it substantially in order to bring subsequent police action into line to the law of the land.

There is little or no evidence that laws that limit free speech work to meet their stated goal – reducing bigotry and increasing tolerance.  Indeed, there is the view it will achieve the opposite effect.  Setting up certain groups as beyond criticism is bound to increase resentment among those not similarly treated.  The creation of protected classes sharpens intergroup tensions and leads to competition for victim status.  Indeed, attempts to suppress a natural revulsion for a particular lifestyle may in fact stimulate more resentment.  This is especially so when homosexual men and women casually use the very terms they complain about.  This is hypocritical because they want others banned from using language they have adopted.  

A quick visit to Peter Tatchell’s website, for example, reveals it is replete with references to buggers, faggots, queers and dykes.  So when is he going to be arrested, charged and bailed by the PC police?

This latest police action is the thin end of the wedge.  How long is it before someone using the name Dick is prosecuted for using the shortened name for Richard?  What about calling someone with red hair ‘ginger’, or somebody with a big nose ‘Concorde?  What about fatty or skinny?  You may think this is exaggerated but already the Lord Chief Justice has endorsed the report of the Judicial Studies Board on equality advice.  Phrases like he, she, postman, chairman, asylum seeker, man and wife, immigrant, mixed race, West Indian or Asian are out.  Indeed registrar offices throughout the country are eliminating references to traditional marriage on the instructions of the Women’s Equality Unit at the DTI for fear of offending homosexuals.  Now comes news that the Lord Chancellor has banned the use of the term ‘homosexual’ from all official documents on the grounds it ‘….may be considered offensive.’

The Metropolitan Police Diversity Handbook bans its officers and civilian staff from using the phrase because it ‘criminalises’ them, yet hypocritically acknowledges that gays may refer to themselves using the exact phrase.  The handbook can be criticised for several serious errors.  It argues that children brought up by homosexual parents are not disadvantaged and that gay men are not more likely than heterosexual men to be HIV positive.  Scotland Yard has created a category of hate crime, termed ‘transphobic crime’ for anyone who does not treat transvestites and transsexuals with respect and dignity.  Little surprise that lesbian Linda Bellos, who jointly chairs the advisory group, is thrilled describing the document as ‘invaluable’.  Rather odd, though, that formal police policy is guided by doggy homosexual findings.

On the other hand, it could be argued that Islam, with many mixed messages between attitude and behaviour, morality and mendacity, feudal and fresh vision, is the remaining bulwark against further encroachment. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), representing 1.2 billion Muslims has so far successfully resisted all efforts enhancing gay rights at the UN.

However, unless gays can convince us that homosexuality is inspired by nature, their case is conceptually weakened, if not destroyed. They have long suggested their condition is a biological variation rather than a psychiatric defect. But looked at impartially, the substance of orthodox science has advanced over exotic homosexual theory. And this despite current psychiatric methodology and theory, or should we say the lack of it? Too often, psychiatry is privately packing patients in with gender reassignment surgery without proper regard for the ultimate consequence! There is considerable disquiet within the profession.

But modern science unequivocally warns of the health perils of buggery as an unsanitary and pathological act, of either a hetero or homosexual kind. Under the best of clinical conditions the rectum is a hostile area subject to fissure, tearing and the transmission of highly contagious diseases. It is not designed for the intromission of penises, fists, forearms or rimming, but the expulsion of disease-ridden excrement. On these central considerations, medical opinion is very decided!   Indeed, sexual diseases arising from anal intercourse are well-document, but now recent research from the UCLA AIDS research centre demonstrates that anal cytology predicts anal precancer In HIV-positive gay men.  Their findings show that HIV-positive men who have sex with men are up to 90 times more likely than the general population to develop anal cancer.

The structure and function of the male and female human reproductive systems are fully complementary. Anatomically the vagina is designed to receive the penis. It is lined with squamous epithelium and is surrounded by a muscular tube intended for penile intromission. The rectum, on the other hand, is lined with a delicate mucosal surface and a single layer of columnar epithelium intenuea primarily for the reabsorption of water and electrolytes. The rectum is incapable of mechanical protection against abrasion and severe damage to the colonic mucosa can result if objects that are large, sharp, or pointed are inserted into the rectum.

The anus and rectum, unlike the vagina contain no natural lubricating function. Thus insertion of unlubricated objects or inadequate dilation of the anus before insertion of a large object can result in tissue laceration. The internal and external anal sphincters are elastic rings of muscle which generally remain tightly constricted except during defecation. The anal sphincters are also intended for material to pass through them in a direction that leads out of the body. When an attempt is made to insert something in the reverse direction, the muscles of the sphincter constrict.

From the perspective of pathology and pathophysiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma. Four general groups of conditions may be encountered in homosexually active men: classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, hepatitis non-A, non-B, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (fecal incontinence, hemorrhoids, anal fissure, foreign bodies, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) .

In addition to infections and trauma, tumours are a definitive risk for homosexual men.  Homosexual behaviour in men is a risk factor for anal cancer. Squamous-cell anal cancer is also associated with a history of genital warts, an association suggesting that papillomavirus infection is a cause of anal cancer. Anal warts are commonly found among individuals who practice anal intercourse and only rarely found among heterosexuals practicing vaginal intercourse.

Dr Valerie Delpech , of the Health Protection Agency’s HIV department said: ‘Sex between men remains the group in the UK at highest risk of acquiring HIV with evidence that transmission is continuing at a substantial rate. The rise in the number of new diagnoses reported is likely to be due to more HIV testing among MSM and ongoing transmission of HIV.’

And because of a foolish exercise in political correctness, thousands of innocent citizens fell foul of a contaminated national blood supply by the Canadian Red Cross and suffered an undreamt nightmare of HIV and hepatitis. Otherwise, western medicine has withstood repeated advances from gays to accept their blood. Statistically, homosexuals have a higher incidence of blood-borne diseases and the existence of a ‘window period of infections’ that may be incubating at the time of the donation. Clear testimony that the life choice is unnatural and unhealthy. They also have a difficulty getting routine insurance.

A lawsuit is being made against a Chinese construction farm and its hospital. Reportedly the first of its kind. Nineteen people contracted HIV after a hospital used blood sold by a couple who later died of AIDS. The claim is for 30m yaun (£2m) compensation. In another case a man donated blood to the central blood bank in the city of Dehui, Northeast China’s Jilin Province, 15 times from January 2003 to June 2004, his HIV infection was not detected and the blood was given to 25 people. Before the local health authority started investigating the incident six blood recipients died, and could not be conclusively established that they were infected. If the six died of AIDS the total number of people infected would be 27. Experts are certain that 18 people were infected of whom three have died. In addition, the man passed on the virus to two sex partners, one of whom in turn passed it on to her husband, making for a total of 27 victims.

In the UK meantime, our blood stocks are being put at risk by the intimidation of militant gay rights students who are fighting the donation ban on homosexuals. It’s part of a global protest by gay activists. One homosexual in Australia is suing the blood service for ‘injury to his feelings’ and 100 gays in South Africa gave blood concealing their lifestyle until afterwards.

University students here have torn down advertisements appealing for blood, demonstrated outside clinics and in at least one university banned the blood service altogether. At a recent meeting of the National Union of Students, homosexual activist Kat Louis threatened getting tough on the ‘blantantly homophobic’ blood service. Donor bans are enforced in the University of Leeds, and ‘gay blood is good’ demonstrations have taken place in Nottingham, Salford, Aberystwyth, Lancaster and Bangor. Awareness campaigns are taking place in others.  A week later angry demonstrating homosexuals were protesting at the Robert Gordon University of Aberdeen.

At the University of Warwick nurses complained protestors were intimidating donors and wanted them removed. These gay activists argue that anyone practicing ‘safe sex’ should be able to donate. But of course, evidence shows many homosexuals do not practice safe sex. Some deliberately shun it.  A 2007 survey by Sigma confirmed previous gay surveys which shows that nearly half of all  gay men do not have an HIV test, even some with as many as 30 partners a year.

Similar campaigns occurred across Scotland when the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service came under fire from homosexual student activists.  Scott Cuthbertson, the NUS Scotland LGBT spokesperson, feared the ban ‘…perpetuates the myth that HIV/AIDS is a “gay disease”.  MP’s, Scottish MP’s and gay campaigners like Peter Tatchell think the ban implies homosexuals are promiscuous.  Despite the fact demonstrations took place in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dumfermline and Kilmarnock, science and surveys reveal that gays are disproportionately susceptible to HIV/AIDS and the lifestyle is generally not confined to monogamous relationships.

Doctor Frank Boulton, consultant for the National Blood Service observes, ‘Our primary concern is to ensure that the blood we provide for patients is as safe as possible. …Independent medical evidence suggests that if we were to begin accepting men who have had sex with other men as donors, the incidence of HIV in the blood supply would increase.’ Boulton has the support of the Terrence Higgins Trust. So, for the time being at least, blood donations are refused from homosexual men, heterosexuals who indulge in dangerous practices, anyone recently having acupuncture or anyone lately a resident of another country where HIV is rife.

Currently, hundreds of survivors of one of the worst medical disasters in the history of the NHS are demanding millions of pounds of compensation from the government to alleviate the acute poverty in which many of them are now living.  British patients were given blood donated by AIDs-ridden American prisoners during the 1970s and early 1980s.  Official figures show at least 3,000 Britons were infected with HIV or Hepatitis C.  After being given infected blood, 8,000 US haemophilia sufferers have won settlements.

The second pillar of contention is the imperative of victimhood in which alleged pervasive societal homophobia dramatically and grievously blights their very existence. Another political issue with social consequences. By this means gays advance their cause of victimhood persuasively and conceal risky behaviour that threatens the fabric of conventional society.

Right now, one in eight gay men in London and one in 12 has HIV in cities like Manchester. A third (almost 20,000 mostly young men) do not even know they have contracted it, or are not bothered; some are momentarily frozen into petrified passivity. Incredibly, others actively seek out the ‘positiveness’ of HIV – these are the bug chasers.

Interestingly, in San Francisco, reputedly the gayest city in the world, 1 in 5 males above the age of 15 is homosexual and over a quarter have HIV.

If examined carefully enough, you will find that gay research on homophobia hate is more often than not simple propaganda. Their ‘research’ will provide percentage figures aplenty, but the raw data on which these percentages are based is withheld. So for example, they may assert that 80 percent of gays experience verbal or physical attacks, but there may only be a handful in their sample which is statistically insignificant. This is a devious ploy that has to be guarded against.

Gay police propaganda would have you believe our population includes between ten and fourteen percent of homosexuals. Really! That is between six and eight millions gays of the entire population of some 60 million, or between four and six million of the 42 million working population. This lie is also exposed by the comparatively ‘low’ incidence of HIV/AIDS within the gay community. The medical problem would be much greater based on a larger group. More important reasons for scepticism are to follow.

Now comes astonishing information from both the Telegraph and Observer in December 2005 that there are some 3.6 million homosexuals in our community. It’s claimed that’s about six percent of the population. The gay lobby have jumped on this to emphasise their place in society, but the claim is entirely bogus. No definitive conclusions can be drawn from a year-old government report on which the pretence is imprudently based. Not surprising then that an official spokesman has urged restraint stressing, ‘…that there is a lack of reliable data.’ Nevertheless, this has not prevented two newspapers from turning speculative analysis into twisted fact.

The Observer article by Denis Campbell is of particular interest because it is disingenuous. His claim that there are about 3,6 million homosexuals in society, representing six percent of the population is inaccurate and is not found in the Final Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) Civil Partnership Report by the Women’s Equality Unit in Whitehall. Even the reports conclusions are misleading because they allude to two sets of data.

For instance, in one part they refer to government estimates that there are between 1.5 and 2 million homosexuals in the labour force of some 29 million. Campbell has next doubled the population figure to 60 million; which it is; and then doubled the number of homosexuals to produce a total of between three and four million gays. But of course, half of the total population will include babies, infants, adolescents, young teenagers and a large 16 percent pool of elderly. Thus, his claim is misleading. The more accurate percentage reading therefore is that no more than two percent of the working population is gay.

Let’s not forget the Government is working with guesstimates. Their report states, ‘Whilst no specific data is available …research suggests that lesbian, gay and bisexual people constitute 5 – 7 percent of the total adult population Now they fix the adult population at 42.1 million and assume on the 5-7% principle that there are between 2.10 and 2.95 million homosexuals.

The fact that they refer to two separate variables; the labour population and the adult population; from which they draw different conclusions is evidence of confusion and uncertainty. Also, by drawing on these two standards that are lower than the entire population, it means the estimated number of homosexual men and women is exaggerated.

They can only draw on other ‘assumptions’ to predict the rate of take-up by those interested in gay marriage. Here, they are more ambitious because the differential is between five and ten percent of the gay community as a proportion of all heterosexual marriages by 2050. This they have entirely modelled on the Scandinavian experience. One is inclined to think it has suited their purpose to do so because it inflates the take-up rate, even at the lower figure of five percent. It is difficult, therefore, not to adduce that the take-up rate will be marginal.

This is the same government department, run incidentally by an activist lesbian, that earlier predicted there would be 425,600 gay marriages by 2050. Within a year the figure was drastically revised down to 42,550.

According to new figures from Statistics Sweden (May 2006), 11 years after new partnership laws were introduced only one half of one percent of new marriages have been same sex couples.  Last year there were 3,300 homosexual men and women living in registered partnerships.  Homosexual marriages have a higher rate of divorce than do heterosexual ones.  After five years 30 percent of homosexual women have divorced compared with 20 percent of homosexual men.  Among heterosexual couples the figure is around 13 percent.

On the eve of the UK’s first gay weddings, Denis Campbell of the Observer was again pointing to, ‘Record numbers of gay men and lesbians, whose sexuality is neither a secret nor a source of controversy, occupy key positions across British life. They influence the entertainment we consume, how safe our streets are, the quality of our hospitals, how well solicitors perform, the country’s political direction and much else besides. They are doers, decision-makers, entrepreneurs, administrators and definers of taste. They wield real power. They run companies worth billions of pounds as well as key public service organisations. They all have an impact on our daily lives or the world around us, through their decisions, attitudes, tastes and priorities.’

What Campbell suggests is that their homosexuality is irrelevant. To do this one must take a very narrow perspective on what is involved. The gay lifestyle is addictive, constrictive, mentally and physically debilitating, as well as a threat to traditional family life and conventional mores and principles. One must wonder if Campbell has an agenda?

Limited research by Barclay’s Bank on gay customers found that 40 percent of the women and 25 percent of the men were professionals; 11 percent of the women and 13 percent of the men were managers; five percent of the women and six percent of the men were senior managers; and eight percent of both sexes were clerical and office workers. Now many commercial businesses are chasing the pink pound with estimates of up to £60bn in the gay economy. Further evidence, one might suggest, that the homosexual world is far from being blighted and damned.

Another example in the misuse of statistics is by the homosexual lobby group Stonewall.   This is evident from their recently independently commissioned survey on homophobia in schools.   The Schools Health Education Unit (SHEU) carried this out.  Stonewall then released highly selected findings favourable to their cause during July 2007.  In doing so, they have deceitfully misquoted government figures on the prevalence of homosexuality in our schools.

Stonewall claimed that homophobic bullying in Britain’s schools has reached almost ‘epidemic’ proportions.  Alarmingly, 156,000 homosexual school children are identified as victims.  This ‘major survey’ of secondary schools reveals almost two-thirds of lesbian and gay pupils are repeat victims of homophobic bullying.

Their key findings are:

· Sixty five percent of lesbian and gay pupils have experienced homophobic bullying.  

· Of those, 92 percent (143,000) have experienced verbal homophobic bullying, 41 per cent     (64,000) physical bullying and 17 per cent (26,000) death threats.

· 97 percent of gay pupils hear derogatory phrases such as ‘dyke’, ‘queer’ and ‘rug-muncher’ used in school.

· Half of teachers fail to respond to homophobic language when they hear it.

· Thirty percent of lesbian and gay pupils say that adults – teachers or support staff – are responsible for homophobic incidents in their school  

· Less than a quarter of schools have told pupils that homophobic bullying is wrong.

By any account these findings are alarming, but are they true?

At present the school population comprises some 6 million children who attend about 17,000 schools.  The Stonewall survey was done on the internet and attracted as few as 1,145 respondents.  It is right to question the representative nature of this study?  

Surprisingly, the SHEU report does not identify 156,000 gay and lesbian pupil victims.  This figure has been carefully contrived independently by Stonewall.  According to Alan Wardle, Director of Public Affairs at Stonewall, the figure is an ‘extrapolation’ of government figures which loosely allude to the possible number of homosexuals in the population.  As we have already noted, there are no reliable figures and a government spokesman has urged caution.  

It is a remarkable twist that Stonewall is using the bogus claim of Dennis Campbell of the Observer who initially asserted that 6 percent of the adult population was gay or lesbian.  Stonewall in turn; have applied the 6 percent principle to the school population to arrive at a clearly exaggerated total.  It is worth noting that in May 2005 this same organisation claimed other research that asserted a homosexual school population of some 60,000.  No mention is now made of this or how the total figures have dramatically expanded in just two short years.

There’s little doubt many gays are currently in the higher echelons of society in law, politics, medicine, the media and corporate business. To quote Paul Rondeau, ‘The economics and education of homosexuals makes them prime players in a capitalistic society. Money means power, and education means the knowledge to use that power to gain more. Homosexuals have demonstrated they have access to the leadership in media, government, education, business and other centers of influence as well as access to capital. These are hardly traits of an oppressed minority.’ Tony Blair even thinks we may soon have our first homosexual British prime minister.

So far, however, the conversion to homosexual culture has proved a remarkable gambit and there is evidence, as will be revealed, it has been made  with great deliberation!

In fact, most of what they have achieved has been through threats, distortion, misinformation, lies and when needed, brute violence. Their culture is riddled with contention, controversy and conflict. Yet, it expands rapidly.

Over the last 50 years or so their number and interests have literally mushroomed. Before that, homosexuality was rare, mostly concealed and marginalised. They even used a secret gay language in the 1960’s called ‘polari’ to conceal their inclination. Paul Baker, a leading expert says polari is making a comeback with a hit London play and a camp cabaret. This is seen as a milestone in the mainstreaming of gay culture.

Moreover, the gay lobby want to obliterate the term ‘homosexual’, suggesting it is demeaning and implies deviance or disorder. Yet, despite this calculated, on-going effort, the gay lexicon has now exploded to cover every conceivable sexual option. Phrases like boydyke, trannyboy, trannyfag, multigendered, polygendered queerboi, transboi, transguy, transman, half-dyke, bi-dyke, stud, stem, trisexual, omnisexual and multisexual are viewed by gays as ‘healthy and empowering’.

It is interesting to note that the homosexual term was an invention of Hungarian-German writer Karoly Maria Kertbeny in 1868.  He anonymously published two pamphlets demanding the repeal of penal sanctions against homosexual men.  One effect of this new word was to remove the criminal association existing with such terms as sodomite, pederast and ‘Knabenshander’ – a defiler of boys that were still criminal offences throughout Europe.  The homosexual lobby has a record of refashioning language.  Gay propaganda, however, only changes the image.   The dark reality remains untouched.  Kertbeny’s tomb was rediscovered in 2001 in Budapest.  Since then the gay community has erected a new tombstone over it and each year Hungarian gay festivals place a wreath on his grave.

Now universally numbered in millions, they have multi-million dollar funding. The Internet has helped spread their practices and alliances. It is a means for disseminating ideas as well as distributing deceit. Internet gay sex sites offer a revolutionary social and sexual environment. Men can get what they want directly by using a developed coded language complete with words and styles. Messages give key information about physical attributes, sexual behaviours and levels of risk regarding HIV and STD’s
.
They now conspire in myriad ways on an international scale. Homosexual pressure groups demonstrate a proselytising zeal. The Sodomy Lobby seldom slumbers. They never take ‘No’ as an answer and undiminished, repeatedly push their demands. Progressively on the offensive, they are defiantly indulgent about their behaviour, but as you will discover, some elements of this is bizarre and extreme,

The social endorsement and affirmation of a homosexual orientation opens the pan-sexual door to several distressing paraphilias permitting transsexualism, paedophilia, pederasty, polygamy, and other disturbing behaviours.

Some go on to practice more than anal-oral sex, but also, rimming, frotteurism, felching, fisting, necrophilia, coprophilia, fetishism, incest, bestiality, zoophilia, hypoxphilia, transvetic fetishism and anonymous sex. Even more extraordinary is orchiectomy (gelding), apotemnophilia and acrotomophilia. The latter two are Amputee Identity Disorders (AID), colloquially described as amputee ‘Wannabes’ and ‘Devotees’. This has serious consequences for society, not least for homosexuals themselves.

Homosexuals deflect personal responsibility for the harm they cause and want the rest of society to ignore it. Many deny or avoid their shame and loneliness through promiscuity, alcohol and drugs.

Accordingly, it’s no surprise that significant research in 2005 by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, found that gay, lesbian and bisexual men and women suffer high levels of mental disorder. Homosexuals then blame heterosexual homophobia for their difficulty. Research, internationally, repetitively finds that homosexuality is associated with increased rates of depression, anxiety, illicit drug dependence and suicidal ideation.

Current research by Professor King and Annie Bartlett reported in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health , February 2006, indicate lesbians have higher risk of breast cancer and higher alcohol and cardiovascular disease (overweigh with cigarette smoking) than heterosexual women. Gay men are at higher risk of contracting sexual infections and HIV than straight men, Both gay men and lesbians have higher rates of anxiety, depressions, substance use disorders and suicidal behaviour. Uncertain, they can only speculate about the aetiology of psychosocial problems.  The latest American research indicates that people with HIV have even higher levels of depression/anxiety and drug/alcohol abuse.

However, no such reservation inhibits the more recent distressing findings under the guise of ‘research’ carried out over three years in Northern Ireland by the Rainbow Project, an avowedly homosexual lobby group.  Entitled ‘Out on your own’ it is aimed specially at Government calling for supportive initiatives, particularly in schools to combat homophobia.  It is another flawed study by gays.  The 100-page study claims one in four gay men in Northern Ireland has attempted suicide, that 30 percent has self-harmed and, alarmingly, over two thirds has considered suicide. This is adduced from a small sample of only 190 young men who answered an internet questionnaire.  Significantly, the number still in secondary education is not given but it seems likely to be less than 20.  Face-to-face interviews was confined to only 16 respondents.

Campaigners for the Rainbow Project say the research illustrates that homophobic attitudes and prevailing heterosexism, together with the isolation that homosexuality might bring, play a major part in the incidence of emotional and mental health difficulties, suicidal ideation and self-harm suffered by gays.   It is useful to reflect that this homosexual project has a political axe to grind which is self-serving.  They have also embraced the bogus claim by Campbell that 6 percent of the population are gay.

What is clear is that the respondents in the study  identified strongly with mental, emotional and psychological difficulties which is associated with their perceived negative treatment by heterosexual society.  The findings, however, are wholly undermined because nowhere is there any evidence of causality – the direct irrefutable link between so-called homophobia and gay mental health issues. Science is much more than simple anecdote.  Instead, the report suggests causality by drawing on other external homosexual research findings of dubious character to establish it – a cosy little circle.  It is thus methodologically unsound.  It has to be said that the presentation is excellent, which is why many ‘useful idiots’ may be convinced by the findings, but the conclusions lack the benefit of scientific rigour.

The report is eager to blame the homophobia of heterosexual society while discarding any possibility that homosexuality has its own inherent problems.  More useful, the report identifies relevant universal research which demonstrates that homosexuality results in psychological, psychosocial, psychiatric and social health problems constituting a potential major health problem.

More generally, any opposition to homosexuality is labelled as homophobia. This generic phrase is a cunning counter-attempt to invert reality by associating homophobia with mental illness. And while there is no such thing as clinical homophobia, opinion on the condition of homosexuality is far from certain. Indeed, transsexualism is still generally understood to be a psychological disorder. This homophobic ploy also circumvents rational debate because the aim is to silence potential censure.  Gays get really angry if it suggested they suffer from a mental dysfunction, but freely label anyone who does not support their lifestyle as tainted by the mental disorder of having an exaggerated fear, or phobia.  The kettle calls the pot black!  Another feature of gay politics.

It is the classical psychological defence mechanism of projection.  Gays unconsciously attribute to others their own feelings, thoughts and intentions.  The homosexual personality is displaced upon heterosexual people.  This can lead to a distortion of reality, paranoia,  or even feelings of aggression. Someone else has to be blamed for their problems.  Homosexuals who feel inferior project inferiority onto heterosexual others.

Meanwhile, critics remain unconvinced the so-called gay lifestyle is healthy or normal, despite the immeasurable tolerance shown to homosexual men and women, which explains why their lifestyle is burgeoning.

With no objection, British television nightly pours out homosexual information under the guise of entertainment or as serious psuedo-intellectual content. Chat-show hosts flirt with gay guests and flaunt their downside lifestyle for the sake of entertainment. Gayness has now become a crude fashionable accessory. Its hedonistic Hollywood in well-honed high heels! Guests can boast the flavour of ingested ‘spunk’ as another rapturously plays a vaginal flute.   Gay images, content and themes inundate our living rooms.

Homosexuality enjoys a happy hour of homage, hospitality and honour. It’s ‘hurrah Henry’ for his horny hosts!

Taste is tattered; shit is shiny sheen and the new bigamy – buggery! Morality is murky and mundane, while salaciousness is singularly sensational, perhaps sublimely spiritual, saintly or even sacred? It’s not that our Metropolitan elite is asleep, they are wantonly wide-awake to the experiment and have abandoned us to an impending nightmare! We have become a narcissistic ‘Big Brother’ society preoccupied with the vulgar tawdriness of selfish uncertainty.

We function scatologically without distinction to wholehearted humane feeling. The measured pattern of life’s true pleasing passion is locked in the raw animalistic vice of Pavlovian dog-like instinct. Another reason, perhaps, why intellectual homosexual culture draws awkward strength from the animal kingdom – creature comforts from the carnage of carnivores?

In contrast, there is a growing volume of research showing notable intolerance among cohabiting gays and lesbians which may be the reason for the low take-up rate of ‘same-sex marriage’ and of those who do, the high level of break-up. Reputable independent British research in 2003/2004 shows that twenty-percent of men and women in a gay relationship are raped by their partner and over half are physically attacked. Forty-three percent of respondents complained of a mental disorder and over a third contemplated suicide.

Research by Sigma in 1994 revealed that one third of active homosexual men in their study had been forced into anal intercourse. Further, a 1999 study of 2,474 men by Professor Michael King of the London Royal Free and University College Medical School was reported in The British Medical Journal. This disclosed it was not uncommon for men to rape men. Homosexual practices sometimes involve sado-masochism and bizzare violent fetish behaviour. Rather alarmingly, a significant number of serial killers are homosexuals.

But gays do not want you to know about these unsavoury facts because ‘Pride’ is the buzzword and credibility the cause!

But a growing volume of research shows that homosexuality increases the likelihood of mental disorders and that elevated psychiatric morbidity is not fully explained in terms of stigma, prejudice, and victimization. Even so, does this potential for mental morbidity account for the fact homosexuals have shorter lives, despite continued medical advances?

Now comes the research findings of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine which identifies cognitive impairment in people with AIDS.  Cognitive impairment is caused when the HIV virus attacks the brain and can be a complicated syndrome resulting in deficits in mood, behaviour, motor coordination and thought processes.  More people with AIDS-related dementia are living with a milder form of cognitive impairment

In the final analysis, the problem is not heterosexual homophobia, but surprisingly, homosexual heterophobia. Flesh it out a little! Heterophobia is a prejudice or discrimination based on pro-homosexual sexism: discrimination against heterosexual behaviour, conditions or attitudes that deny the right to social and psychological differences based on biological characteristics of the sexes and deny the desirability of the complementarities of the sexes. So, what about our customary rights that are slowly being discarded at immense social and psychological cost?

Fact – homosexual rights are incalculably and irredeemably sexist. Quintessentially it’s about power – the basis of politics.

We will shortly examine what influence they wield nationally and internationally and how this is translated into major changes in law and custom. Some claim the homosexual rights movement is not a cause based on science, social justice, or fairness toward a ‘persecuted minority.’ Rather, it is the work of a devious and clandestine fifth column that seeks to undermine the moral values of the Western World. There is substantial and compelling evidence for this even from the gay community.

They have the power to manipulate damaging disclosure about their life-style and an ability to fashion laws and attitudes that enhance it. They claim the role of the victim as the one who is harassed by the heterosexual community, when in fact they abuse their own minds and bodies. Repeatedly claiming they were born that way, they seek to stultify criticism and objection.

But internationally known lesbian activist Camille Paglia has observed, ‘Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction… No one is born gay. … homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.’ There is a lot of experiential evidence to back her assertion, but gays reject this to deny any evidence of ‘choice’. The claim that queers are born that way is scientifically baseless.

Homosexuality emerges as a complex socially conditioned behaviour, which can and does change. Thousand of homosexuals recuperate each year. Thus, the American Psychiatric Association; a formidable professional body that strongly supports gay rights; observes in their Fact Sheet on Sexual Orientation (2000), ‘There are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.’

Moreover, in 2005 a research team at the University of Illinois screened the entire human genome system. Led by Dr. Brian Mustanski, he concluded, ‘Sexual orientation is a complex trait. There is no one “gay” gene.’ Homosexual propaganda consistently ignores such scientific evidence.

More telling, an Australian study of identical twins in 2000 found only 20% male homosexual and 24% female homosexual had a gay twin. Yet if genes determine sexual orientation, the figure should be 100% because importantly, identical twins have identical genes.

So, if the condition is not biologically determined, it has to be embraced as a life-choice – something most gays utterly reject. Why – because it has significant political implications for sustaining homosexual credibility? Homosexual activists do not want others to know that change is possible because that fact invalidates their experience and infringes on their ability to promote their agenda in society. If a person can change, then their story and lifestyle come into question.

Society would view homosexuality differently if it thought that the pain and suffering associated with it was preventable. Indeed, putting aside any religious principle, simply human morality and compassion must question the legitimacy of encouraging and facilitating self-destructive practices.

Homosexuals deflect personal responsibility for the harm they cause and want the rest of society to ignore it. They deny or avoid their shame and loneliness through promiscuity, alcohol and drugs.

Research published in the well-respected journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour, claims that of the gay people who underwent ‘reparative therapy’, 78 percent of men and 95 percent of women turned straight. Author, scientist and strong supporter of gay rights, Professor Robert Sptizer, proclaimed the study ‘…questions the politically correct view that once you are gay, that’s it and suggests that there is more flexibility than many people have assumed’.

Similar programmes are successfully carried out each year in the UK involving thousands of homosexual men and women. Even so, only 0.3% of men in Great Britain is exclusively homosexual throughout their lives according to the largest study of its kind ever carried out in the UK.

Indeed, the Laumann Study (1994) was the first to unexpectedly discover that homosexuality is not a stable trait.  So striking was this finding that it led researchers all over the world in subsequent years to see it it was really true.  Numerous large-scale epidemiological surveys conducted in all the English-speaking and many of the industrial nations have repeatedly confirmed the fact that most homosexuals grow out of it and revert to heterosexual relations.

And what about the cost to society?   Interestingly, a 1994 Journal of Public Policy compared spending on fatal disease and found that £289,753 was spent per AIDS death whereas death from heart disease constituted a mere £60.  More recently, one leading expert has calculated that each HIV infection case costs between £500,000 and £1million in treatment and lost productivity. The total medical bill for looking after all AIDS patients in Britain is a staggering £345 million a year – and it’s growing.  The cost in human suffering, pain and loss is, however, incalculable.

The UK’s Health Protection Agency observes that of the 5,560 HIV diagnoses that have already been reported for 2005, 52 percent were acquired through sex between men and women; mostly acquired abroad; 31 percent through sex between men, two percent through injecting drug abuse, and one percent through other means. Most at risk were men who have sex with men and their rates are increasing.  An American study in 2004 by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) showed that 70% of new HIV infection cases resulted from men having sex with men.  The younger the person the higher the risk.

Researchers from London’s Imperial College indicated in 2006 that the HIV epidemic among gay men in the UK is set to increase further, with there being a danger of infections spiralling out of control.  In contrast, they say, heterosexual infections acquired in the UK (as opposed to abroad), while they will still continue to happen, are unlikely to increase a great deal.

Now a ‘dream team’ of the world’s top economist, which included three Nobel Laureates, met in June 2004 to select the biggest challenges facing the world. Organised by Denmark’s Environmental Assessment Institute, the Copenhagen Consensus Conference considered the world’s top ten major problems. This included communicable disease, malnutrition and hunger, water and sanitation, subsidies and trade barriers, governance and corruption, financial instability, climate change, migration, education and conflict.

Surprisingly, they think that combating HIV/AIDS is the most urgent problem facing the world. According to a United Nations report late in 2004, the HIV/AIDS pandemic is the worst catastrophe in the history of the world. They predict medical funding of $22 Billion by 2008.

Though it would be vehemently denied, homosexual practices have led directly or indirectly to the death of some 20 million people worldwide. The future looks gruesome! Experts predict that by 2010, one-hundred million people could be infected.

According to UNAIDS, in poor countries drugs are being allocated to political and military elites. With the epidemic still in its infancy and at least 39 million HIV-infected people expected to die over the next five to ten years, the depletion of elite workers, professionals, political leaders and managers is expected to reach crisis proportions in many countries by 2010. This will challenge the ability of the state to perform even rudimentary aspects of governance.

In Sub-Saharan Africa there are 12.5 doctors per 100,000 people, with dilapidated or non-existent health structures in most countries. Consider also, a UN estimate of 70,000 medical professionals who leave Africa each year.  Indeed, according to WHO there is a shortage of more than four million health care workers in 57 developing countries which is hampering efforts to combat diseases such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.

WHO announced in 2003 it wanted to put three million people on anit-retroviral treatment by the end of 2005. The tragedy of this is that, by prioritising treatment over prevention, another five million people have become infected with HIV. Unfortunately, the strategy allows the epidemic to worsen. By an count, WHO is obviously loosing the battle,  a view endorsed by Koffi Annan, General Secretary to the UN.

The Chinese government says there are 840,000 people in China infected with HIV, but health experts say the figure could rise to ten million by 2010.

In a world-wide study of 11,000 companies in 117 countries it was found that 50 percent of company leaders expect HIV/AIDS would hurt their businesses. Professor David Bloom of the Harvard School of Public Health, who led the research for th World Economic Forum (WEF) said deepening corporate concern matched the growing scale of the epidemic in many countries. During a briefing in London in January 2006 he observed ‘It’s in the manager’s faces now. Staff are getting sick, more are off work to attend funerals and it’s getting harder to operate businesses.’ In Kenya, for instance, ten percent of employees are off work every day due to AIDS, either because they are sick, are caring for sick relatives or attending funerals.  Recent research shows that HIV/AIDS has significantly weakened Zimbabwe’s economy.  It is eroding the workforce, national savings and investments.

HIV/AIDS is the most politicised disease ever. Back in the early 1980’s, when the epidemic broke out in San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York), gay leaders’ successfully subverted the public health system to conceal the nature of the epidemic.

They specifically refused to close the breeding ground for AIDS – the sexual bathhouses. They opposed testing and contact tracing the traditional and proven public health methods for containing epidemics and promoted the false idea that AIDS was an ‘equal opportunity virus’, when in fact the virus was specifically threatening gays and intravenous drug users. The deception continues with the gay myth that AIDS is not predominantly a homosexual issue. Despite the growing volume of heterosexuals who contract the disease, homosexuals remain the most vulnerable group.

Explaining why misguided policies go unchallenged, Gabriel Rotello, a founder of ACT-UP who has had second thoughts about the wholesale discarding of public health methods observes, ‘gay leaders frequently made it plain to researchers that anyone who raised questions about gay sexual freedom for any reason, whether ethical or biological, would be equally accused of anti-gay bias. Few researchers were willing to venture into such a political and social hot zone, and the few who did found that they consequently lost influence within the gay male community, a bad position to be in if your research required a high level of cooperation from gay men.’

Now, psychiatry and psychotherapy throughout the Western World have colluded with homosexual activist to declare homosexuality as ‘normal’. You may be surprised to learn the initial arguments rested strictly on political and not scientific advice? And why did it take nearly 20 years for WHO to follow suit?

In 1973, after several years of bitter dispute, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association decided to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. There was no scientific consideration of the data. Instead, psychiatrists were swept up in political controversy and the threatening tactics of homosexuals aided by sympathetic gay practitioners to change the pathological status of homosexuality. Reason gave way to a raving intemperate sexist ideology. Thus the Gay Liberation Front nobbled the APA and this had global reverberations in the coming years.

Of late, a new more virulent strain of HIV has been detected in New York. This new aggressive virus causes AIDS within months instead of nine to ten years. The nightmare super-strain has been dubbed 3-DCR HIV because it is resistant to three of the four HIV drug classes that are currently in use. Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden said that ‘…this strain… is difficult or impossible to treat’, and that it is potentially a ‘very serious public health problem.’ He said, ‘It’s a wake-up call to men who have sex with men, particularly those who may use crystal methamphetamine.’ It is said the patient has had sex with at least 100 men over recent months. Clinics throughout the US have set up surveillance systems for the new strain and health officials around the world are fearful it will spread.

A similar outbreak of hard-to-treat cases has reappeared in Seattle, USA in late 2006.  Medical authorities are describing the situation as scary.  Nationally, it is understood that between two and three percent of HIV strains people are infected with may be resistant to two to three classes of drugs.  Dr. Patrick Sullivan, a leading expert observes, ‘There’s a lot of complacency.  People need to know that some of these new infections may be impossible to treat.’

Even if the warning turns out to be a false alarm, many AIDS experts say it is only a matter of time before a supervirus does emerge. ‘You can’t have a core group of people having sex with large numbers of people without amplifying any sexually transmitted disease that enters the system,’ said Gabriel Rotello, author of Sexual Ecology: AIDS and the Destiny of Gay Men. ‘I don’t have any doubt that a resurgent HIV epidemic will hit the gay population in the near future,’ he said.  Even Peter Tatchell is scared.  Speaking to  the Independent he fears the practice of ‘barebacking’; men who have repeated unprotected often anonymous sex with men; could lead to a superstrain of HIV.  We will examine this practice in greater detail later.

Is it possible to be infected more than once? Until about 1994, it was generally thought that individuals do not become infected with multiple distinct HIV-1 strains. Since then, many cases of people coinfected with two or more strains have been documented.

All cases of coinfection were once assumed to be the result of people being exposed to the different strains more or less simultaneously, before their immune systems had had a chance to react. However, it is now thought that “superinfection” is also occurring. In these cases, the second infection occurred several months after the first. It would appear that the body’s immune response to the first virus is sometimes not enough to prevent infection with a second strain, especially with a virus belonging to a different subtype. It is not yet known how commonly superinfection occurs, or whether it can take place only in special circumstances.

In Britain, people with the HIV virus have one of the highest levels of drug resistance in the world, and the rate is increasing. The trend suggests a wave of infections from a drug resistant strain of virus may be on the way, according to a study just published in the British Medical Journal. The report by the UK Group on Transmitted HIV Drug Resistance warned that the reduction in effective drugs to treat patients represented ‘a major clinical and public health problem’.

Andrew Sullivan the gay HIV+ acclaimed Sunday Times columnist, distressingly notes that death in his community is less an event than an environment. He remarks, ‘Gay life and gay death are not separate issues, meeting occasionally at the bedside or the grave. They are wedded to each other.’ Does this disturb you? If you claim genuine empathy for homosexual men and women, it should!

But outside the question of containing deadly diseases, the most immediate and important threat we face is to the welfare of our children.

Radical gays and lesbians openly admit their ultimate aim is young fresh flesh. One lesbian author, Patricia Warren has frankly predicted, “Whoever captures the kids owns the future.”

Frightening incursions by gays and lesbians into schools in American, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere is already evident. The natural attraction between girls and boys has been so confused by public celebration of homosexuality and the various eroticisms of everyday life, that young people are now confused about something as simple and basic as heterosexual identity. The result is that health professionals in the USA are reporting more kids are doing worse things at a younger age.

Twelve year olds are getting together for group oral and anal sex parties.

You don’t believe it could happen here?

Peter Tatchell, now darling of the British Police since Pride 2005, has long called upon the government to allow schools to teach teenagers the advantages of mutual masturbation and oral sex. Astonishingly, that’s exactly what’s come about!

In its attempt to reduce adolescent pregnancies; the highest in Europe, and the ever-increasing prevalence of teenage sexual diseases; the government has now approved a syllabus that concentrates on non-penetrative sex in sex education classes. Moral, emotional and psychological considerations will be swept aside and the value of true relationships will be ignored.

This will result in greater sexual experimentation by teenagers that will add to their confusion and uncertainty.

In addition, in 2005 the government expects local education authorities to impose new guidelines that will expose school children to information on homosexuality. Little surprise they sneaked the instructions out surreptitiously on Christmas Eve. The rationale for this is to combat homophobia, but the real effect will be to promote homosexuality. At last, because it inhibited what is now happening, the gay lobby are delighted with the removal of Section 28!

It was announced in January 2006 that children, some as young as seven, are be taught gay history and other homosexual related topics during a Gay History month in February. This follows a campaign run by Sue Sanders, a lesbian activist who works as a diversity teacher for the Metropolitan Police and Paul Patrick, a former teacher and contributor to the Trotskyist Socialist Worker newspaper. The Schools Out organisation of homosexual teachers back them.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, who actively promotes ‘gay right’ has appointed 24 diversity advisers on £35,000 salaries. He has contributed £3,125 to the schools campaign. Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly has contributed another £20,000 and the Department of Education is backing the scheme. This puts pressure on school heads to take notice.

Lynette Burrows accused the organisers of ‘peddling poison’ and distorting history. The scientific and historical evidence is on her side.

At an education conference homosexual Stephen Twigg MP, then labour Schools Minister, stated it is ‘…not enough’ for schools merely to promote homosexuality. They are admonished to a ‘celebration of diversity encouraging differences of sexual orientation…’ This is a major shift of extreme importance because it truly exposes the gay agenda that wants to encourage homosexuality in our children. Another means of ‘encouraging differences of sexual orientation.’ Young school children will be taught the graphic and sordid details of queer sex and be involved in role playing in pretend gay families.

A Government quango, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, thinks that children as young as five should be taught about homosexual lifestyles and divorce.  Parents need to respond to this creeping pressure if they are to protect their children.  Children in local authority care or with same-sex parents will not be preserved from this influence.  Moreover, now comes a demand in 2006 from the National Union of Teachers that children as young as three should have lessons in homosexuality.  They appealed to the Department of Education, ‘It is particularly important to begin to make three to five-year-olds aware of the range of families that exist in the UK today, families with one mum, one mum and dad, two mums, two dads…’

As one celebrated gay Canadian candidly put it, homosexuals are going to ‘diddle’ with their little minds.

One clear consequence of this radical ideology in our schools will be to undermine the adaptive masculine and feminine position which creatively bonds to enhance progeny. Thus, the complimentary male and female role will be undermined..  The term mother or father will become dirty words.

Should we be surprised to learn of a ‘cuddle puddle’ in American High Schools where girls pet girls.  Exploring their sexuality school kids are coining new terms to describe themselves as polysexual, ambisexual, pansexual, polyfide, bi-curious, bi-queer, fluid , metroflexible, heteroflexible or simply heterosexual with lesbian tendencies..

The American National Center for Health Statistics claim that eleven percent of 15 – 19 year-old-girls are or have been involved in same-sex experiences, but one leading professor believes the true figure to be about twenty percent.

What are the potential consequences for our school children?  Well, two well designed major studies of young people with same sex attractions published in the American Archives of General Psychiatry revealed they were over 6 times as likely to have attempted suicide, 4 times as likely as their peers to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly 4 times as likely to experience conduct disorder, 5 times as likely to have nicotine dependence, 6 times as likely to suffer multiple disorders.

Some children have no moral compass and are afraid of being labeled as homophobic in a culture which, at every turn, encourages homosexuality as the norm.  

The Sexual Orientation Regulations outlaw any ‘homophobic’ discrimination.  The Department for Education and Skills already recommend some ‘anti-homophobia materials and gay right groups will want to expand their pressure on schools.  For children aged from five upwards, Government departments recommend 12 books including ‘Daddy’s Roommate’, ‘Hello Sailor and ‘The Sissy Duckling’.  Among the four books recommended for secondary-aged children is the sexually explicit novel ‘Strange Boy’, in which a ten-year-old boy has a sexual relationship with a 14-year-old boy.  The end result will be that schools will be compelled to teach about gay sex and to treat homosexuality as the norm.

Reflect for a moment on the 1985 ‘Labour Gay Rights Manifesto’ It is a direct threat to traditional family life and the welfare of our children for it states:-

‘’Children grow up under the power of their parents. As children, any behaviour which is obviously sexual in adult terms is repressed… A socialist society would supersede the family household… Gay people and children should have the right to live together… Children and young people should have the right to determine their own sexual lives… Marriage should be disestablished… Women need access to free contraception and abortion facilities; this applies just as much to young women as to ‘adults.’ Children should be able to divorce their parents… It follows from what we have already said that we favour the abolition of the age of consent.’

Some would argue that a paedophile couldn’t have put a better manifesto for children!

If you consider this extreme, then reflect for a moment on the fact that most of what is advocated has come about? Under current legislation the State now supersedes the family. Social Workers have more de facto control over children then parents. Free contraception and abortion is on hand for schoolgirls irrespective of the wishes of the parents. Health clinics within schools now issue free condoms or the morning-after pill.  Measures are in place that allow children to reject their parents in favour of the State. Conventional marriage is under threat from the so-called gay marriage arrangements. The age of consent for children to indulge in sexual activity, either straight or gay, has been lowered but not yet abolished. A consequence of this is that we now have more deeply troubled children whose lives are comprehensively impoverished.

It is now possible for gays and lesbians to adopt children. This despite the overwhelming scientific evidence that it can prove harmful to the child. It’s quite ironic, but individual members of British adoption panels could be accused of bigoted homophobic discrimination if they chose a heterosexual couple instead of a homosexual couple.  Thus, real discrimination is reversed against heterosexual people.

What, you might ask, is the evidence for teenager turmoil? Well, we have unprecedented rates of family breakdown, of lone-parenting and mushrooming welfare dependency by both the needy and greedy, the deprived and depraved, increasing school failure, indiscipline, anti social behaviour, drug abuse, mental breakdown, teenager violence and delinquency, homelessness, exploding teenager venereal disease and growing rates of teenager pregnancy and the prison population is getting younger. The social consequences of all this is unprecedented and catastrophic.

Bog housing estates, the modern gulags of dependency and deprivation, are inhabited by inadequate bog parents who’s children attend bog schools which lack discipline, certainty and value, leading to welfare dependency, crime and incarceration, ill-health, self-harm, substance abuse, mental breakdown, suicide and early death.

Despite the fact the situation was bad under successive Tory governments, it is immeasurably worst since Tony Blair has come to power. At every turn the State has blindly failed and continues to do so. We are an ignorant and cruel senior generation that has failed to understand that parental permissiveness is leading increasingly to childhood repression and anxiety. Little wonder they are angry? The Government throws money at problems hoping they will go away and by doing so leave the underlying causes untouched.

The idea of ‘Children’s Rights’ is a deceitful misnomer, but the industry is expanding and is the source of growing power and financial gain for some. It’s impact, however, is minimal.

It’s interesting to note that it was homosexual paedophiles who first suggested the idea of ‘Children’s Rights’ back in the 1970’s. Paedophile activist Roger Moody was instrumental in setting up the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) which gained the early support of the National Council for Civil Liberties until PIE was prosecuted and suppressed in 1982.

From that point, the ‘cause’ was pursued through respectful, enlightened, progressive, scientific research bodies and professional pressure groups. The first of which was The Children’s Legal Centre coordinated by one Peter Newell. Newell is not a paedophile but has a track record of pushing radical Left-wing ideas about the family and children’s rights with the financial backing of major charitable trusts. He is, or has been involved in at least fourteen such organisations over the years and is assisted by his partner, Rachel Hodgkin, the mother of his four children.

Paedophiles knew they would never get anywhere arguing for the right to have sex with kids. So what they did was to approach the idea from a different deceitful angle. They specifically developed the ‘liberal’ idea of children having ‘equality’ rights that they could more easily exploit once established.

Thus, homosexuality, extreme feminism and radical socialism conflate to bring about a revolution that will change the very basis of our community – the demise of the traditional family.  Our culture is blighted by postmodernism and the idea of moral equivalence in which anything goes.

Even gay pantomime Widow Twanky and now Gay Pride Patron, Sir Ian McKellen, who helped establish Stonewall to tackle Section 28, fully supports the infiltration of homosexual activists into the American Boy Scout movement ostensibly to challenge homophobia – the coded excuse for encouraging homosexuality.

The social construct of society and our heterosexual culture is to be undermined!  To quote the activist American law professor and executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission Paula Ettelbrick recently, ‘…queer means pushing the parameters of sex and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society.’  The objective of this minority group is clearly anti-democratic, if not totalitarian.

To suggest all gays have a fixated attraction for male children, or young men, is foolish. However, research repeatedly shows a disproportionate do! Studies show that heterosexuals molest most children generally. Gays are quick to point this out in order to conceal their behaviour. But the facts are against them! Homosexuals, as a defined group, are consistently and disproportionately over represented in male child molestation cases when compared with heterosexuals, as a defined group. Take, for example, the recent scandal of child sex abuse by 4,392 American Catholic priests.  An inquiry found that eighty percent were homosexual paedophiles who debased young boys.  Read the supporting evidence on this website.

English professor Karla Jay, Ph.D., and well-educated journalist Allen Young, both homosexual activists, conducted the first major survey on homosexuality in America in 1979. Their work is still cited in academic studies and involved over 5,000 homosexuals from all walks of life. Titled “The Gay Report,” the study published data on underage sex, disease, gross promiscuity, suicidal tendencies and more.

One cannot help but applaud the honesty of these two homosexuals in publishing the results of their study, which documented that “23 percent of respondents admitted to having had sex with youths aged 13-15, while 19 percent felt positive about sexual activity within this age group.” Tragically, 50 percent of the males in their survey experienced their first sexual encounter at age 15 or less.

In spite of the fact that two gay researchers produced “The Gay Report,” radical homosexual activists dismiss it as outdated. This is ironic considering they so often cite the much older 1948 “10 percent of society is gay” statistic from the oft-disputed Alfred Kinsey study.

But out of courtesy for their concerns, are there other esteemed elites drawing the same conclusions? Contrary to the homosexual assertion that heterosexual molestations outnumber those committed by homosexuals, Yale and Harvard-connected psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover states that “careful studies show that pedophilia is far more common among homosexuals than heterosexuals.” Satinover adds, “The greater absolute number of heterosexual cases reflects the fact that heterosexual males outnumber homosexual males by approximately 36 to 1. Heterosexual child molestation cases outnumber homosexual cases by only 11 to 1, implying that pedophilia is more than three times more common among homosexuals.”

Current research by Professor Gene G Abel of Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons reveals that on average 150.2 boys are molested per homosexual paedophile offender, whereas only 19.8 girls are molested per heterosexual paedophile. Incredibly, homosexual offenders admitted between 23.4 and 281.7 acts of molesting boys.

Here, for example; are some notable research findings

·	Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the preeminent sexual researcher in the history of sexual research, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.

·

A very recent (2000) study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles.”

·	Another 2000 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that”. . . all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories” for sexual activity;’ These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old.

·

Yet another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that “Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with two other statistically infrequent phenomena. The first of these is homosexuality . . . Recent surveys estimate the prevalence of homosexuality, among men attracted to adults, in the neighborhood of 2%. In contrast, the prevalence of homosexuality among pedophiles may be as high as 30-40%.”

·

A 1989 study in the Journal of Sex Research noted that ” . . . the proportion of sex offenders against male children among homosexual men is substantially larger than the proportion of sex offenders against female children among heterosexual men . . . the development of pedophilia is more closely linked with homosexuality than with heterosexuality.”

·	A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

·	In a 1984 Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy article, sex researchers found that “The proportional prevalence of [male] offenders against male children in this group of 457 offenders against children was 36 percent.”

·	Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals I have acted as “chicken hawks” — that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys.

·	In a 1992 study published in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, sex researchers K. Freud and R. I. Watson found that homosexual males are three times more likely than straight men to engage in pedophilia, and that the average pedophile victimizes between 20 and 150 boys before being arrested.

·	A study by sex researchers Alan Bell and Martin Weinberg found that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger.

Indeed, a significant minority of gays ultimately attest their introduction to the lifestyle by the predatory activity of mature homosexual men. This fact is consistently demonstrated over time and in separate surveys throughout the world.

And an unbiased reading of homosexuality history reveals the centrality of youth to its bizarre, chaotic customs. So, is there a link between the rise of gay culture and a global explosion of Internet interest in child pornography?

Do we have any evidence here of a connection between homosexuality and paedophilia?

Judge the recent events concerning Liam Lucas, 29, with Social Services in London.  He was just one of the many children, falsely branded as gay, who were abused by predatory peadophiles who took advantage of far-Left Islington Council’s childcare policies in the Eighties and Nineties, when it pro-actively recruited gay social workers.  Lucas suffered twenty-years of abuse.

Paedophiles exploited the Councils’ well-intentioned commitment to equal opportunities and soon most of Islington’s 12 children’s homes had child molesters on the staff that cynically pretended to be ordinary homosexuals. Numerous children and other staff made allegations of abuse, but were branded homophobes and ignored.

A lengthy investigation by the London Evening Standard, resulted in government-ordered inquiries, but at least 26 members of Islington social services staff, despite being accused of grave offences, were simply allowed to resign, often with glowing references.

During school holidays Lucas was fostered by a man later imprisoned for abusing another child in his care. When he was nine, Islington placed him in its children’s home in Grosvenor Avenue, run by two single males. Both were eventually accused of abuse but escaped investigation by moving to Thailand.

Last year, Thai police charged former deputy head, Nick Rabet, 57, with serious sexual offences against 30 Thai boys, the youngest six years old. He escaped trial by killing himself.  It was later discovered that his Sussex children’s centre was partly financed by convicted child pornographers and that he was part of a ring of wealthy well-connected child-molesters  

Peter Righton, former Director of Education at the National Institute for Social Work, had for many years openly advocated sex with boys in care.  Evidently, he got away with it and influenced social workers to this day, because they feared seeming ‘homophobic’ by challenging him.  Police later discovered he was a founder member of the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange that had campaigned for the age of consent to be reduced to four.  

Of course this may be considered a long time ago and that similar cases are not being repeated today.  Well, two men who became Yorkshire’s first gay foster carers were jailed in June 2006 for abusing four young boys placed in their care by Wakefield Council.  Ian Wathey, 41 and Craig Faunch, 32, were sentenced to five and six years.  The couple had been heralded as pioneers due to their willingness to foster the regions most troubled youngsters.  Both men denied all allegations in a two-week trial.

However, the UK’s largest inquiry into abuse in children’s homes resulted in only a handful of criminal prosecutions.  The inquiry into the sexual abuse of children at care homes in North Wales revealed the ‘appalling mistreatment’ of child-victims over a period of some 20 years during the 1970’s and 1980’s.  Twenty-eight former care workers, six of whom were convicted child abusers, were named in the Waterhouse Report.

The Waterhouse Tribunal – the largest child abuse inquiry ever set up in the UK – heard evidence from hundreds of victims.  The tribunal was established following decades of disquiet over the children’s home care system in North Wales.  The 500,000-word report by former High Court judge Sir Ronald Waterhouse contained 95 conclusions and made 72 recommendations.  Social workers, care home staff, local authorities and the Welsh Office were all severely criticised.

In all, Sir Ronald Waterhouse and his two fellow tribunal members heard evidence from 650 people who had been in care in north Wales since 1974.

Lost in Care – the report of the Waterhouse inquiry into child abuse in children’s homes in north Wales – recommended a massive overhaul of the care system after uncovering a paedophile ring that targeted hundreds of young people in care in the 70s and 80s.

Commenting on the report, Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons: ‘It is an appalling situation and an appalling catalogue of terror and tragedy inflicted on some of the most vulnerable children in our society.’  He pledged to introduce tougher safeguards in the running of care homes.

Over recent years the gay lobby has sought four major advances. First, that of equality and the de-criminalisation of all sodomy laws. Second, gay marriage and adoption which is now formally enshrined in law. Third, a reduction in the age of consent for lawful teenager sexual activity and fourth, the removal of Section 28 which prohibited local councils from advocating homosexuality. By any standard what they have achieved is quite remarkable. Note however, it is no accident that three of their demands involve children.

Parents in traditional families have yet to understand what is happening to their children! But if we repeat the American experience, which seems likely – they will wake up too late! Gay activism, solidly established in schools in the USA, is now spreading relentlessly via television into the nation’s living rooms.

In spite of its devastating potential, the Government foolishly thinks that homosexuality is equal, if not superior, to our time-honoured way of life. They are encouraged in this by a medical profession that quietly ignores a uniquely damaging sexual revolution of significant magnitude. The likely scale and depth of this change is without historical precedent. We are condemning future generations to sexual confusion and ambiguity which will result in dreadful dysfunction, dependence, despair and derogation.

Our political leaders show great concern for the nations health when it comes to smoking and want it banned as much as possible from public life, yet foolishly encourage a homosexual life-style which is more damaging to our health and infinitely worse for the fabric of our society. This is an unimagined contradiction and manifest folly of major proportions.

If they could, gays would ban websites like this because it reports on the terrifying truth of their distressing addiction. Already, it seems, the West Midlands and Staffordshire police have failed to close one Christian website critical of homosexuality in the police.  In fact, if Stonewall get its chance, and a Home Office Minister has promised more discussions in 2007/8, then homophobic remarks in song or other media will be criminalized.   Tony McNulty MP, at the Home Office is open for further discussion.  This could effectively shut down any debate on homosexuality per se.