Homosexual behavior has always existed. It was accepted throughout the ancient world, Roman emperors engaged in it, and the Jews were the first to forbid it.
Judaism’s prohibition of homosexuality, along with adultery, incest and bestiality, was a fundamental part of the new code of sexual morality it created.
“The revolution begun by the Torah, when it declared war on the practices of the [surrounding] world, wrought [along with ethical monotheism] the most far-reaching changes in history,” says noted author and talk-show host Dennis Prager. “When Judaism demanded that all sexual activity be channeled into marriage, it changed the world.”
About 150 years ago, some German sodomites coined the scientific-sounding word “homosexuality,” claiming that its devotees are born that way and therefore cannot help themselves. Other same-sex propagandists embraced the Spartan creed which saw same-sex relationships as more moral than the traditional man-woman marriage (a concept that became an important part of Nazi ideology). Both groups’ ideas were widely accepted, and homosexuality became known in Europe before and after World War I as the “German vice.”
In this country, a similar campaign to legitimatize homosexuality has created sweeping changes in public attitudes over the past thirty-five years. In 1987 two gay activists, Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill, described the campaign’s tactics. They saw the campaign’s first task as desensitizing the public about homosexuality so that indifference to it, if not acceptance, would replace the repugnance most people felt. Another tactic was to cast gays “as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector.” Still another was to talk “about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible…[since] almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it.”
After achieving sufficient public acceptance in a particular place, a final tactic was to get “tough with the remaining opponents, [who] must be vilified” by making “anti-gays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types.”
The AIDS epidemic has provided an important vehicle for the effective use of the above-mentioned tactics. Sympathetic news reporting and sentimental events such as “AIDS awareness” gatherings, which evoke pity for gays while obscuring the fact that it was the unimaginable level of promiscuity that facilitated the spread of AIDS in that community, have served to desensitize people to homosexuality, and even to win their acceptance of it.
“Get tough” tactics by homosexuals against those opposing them have been going on for years, almost always below the radar of the major media. In 1997, for example, a Christian group at Harvard Law School scheduled a meeting to mark “National Coming Out of Homosexuality Day.” Its main speaker was a now-married former homosexual, who, citing his own experience, came to offer hope “for those homosexuals who desperately seek a way to leave the lifestyle of self-destruction behind.?
Posters for the meeting were torn down within a day at this bastion of free speech, where so many of our top future judges are trained. They were replaced by others maintaining, among other things, that opposition to homosexuality is anti-Semitic. One new poster, imitating the original, read, “For those struggling with Judaism, there is hope in the truth. You can walk away (to the gas chambers).” Another read, “Open to the entire Harvard Community. Except you, yes, the Jewish-looking kid…Non-Aryans will be required to present proof of non-mongrel ancestry for at least four generations.”
At the meeting itself, gay activists thronged the entrance. Many wore T-shirts or held signs demanding “Stop the Hate” – as though the mere suggestion that gays can change is in itself hateful. To these politically correct law students, doubts that homosexuality should be eagerly celebrated almost makes one a Nazi.