10. Social Issues and Values

A Radical Centrist Vision for the Future > List of Amendments > Social Issues and Values (next)

10.1 Right to Truth

American citizens have the right not to be lied to by politicians, the media, or any other leaders or institutions. Arbitrary –or calculated, or de facto — censorship of opinion by the media, falsifications of fact by politicians, or institutional misrepresentations, shall be regarded as serious offenses and be liable to prosecution by terms of this Amendment as “misdemeanor falsification.” Penalties are to be determined by the House of Representatives during the first year from date of ratification.

This is not intended to be punitive; it is intended to be a deterrent against effects of false information, of misleading the public on matters it needs truth to resolve in an optimal way, and against fostering myths and fables that do no-one any good. With misdemeanor punishment would come public exposure and with that would come self-inflicted injury to one’s reputation. This should be sufficient to achieve the desired outcome.

Included in “outcome” is the principle that consensus is no substitute for objective truth. That is, even a “sea change” in opinion generally may mean nothing if conclusions were reached based on faulty “information,” or on one or another form of dishonesty. This Amendment is intended to help make truthfulness normative in American society more than has often been the case in the past, by penalizing falsehoods. Showing indifference to public lying is dysfunctional to all of society.

Honest errors shall be protected by law in all cases where those concerned can show that they have carried out serious research or investigation to seek to verify their contentions.

What is said here essentially applies to public statements, including commercials and other forms of advertising. This Amendment can also apply to private statements when it can be shown that such comments have unfairly injured the reputations of individual citizens or non-governmental organizations, including religious groups. In deciding cases brought before the bar, due process shall always be observed. This specifically means that such practices as black-listing must be regarded as serious offenses subject to libel law or laws against slander.

Finally, any American citizen shall have the right to see his or her file on record with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, upon request, free of charge except for any minimum fees required for duplicating expenses, postage, or the like, but not to include “handling” fees.

To ensure that this right is not abused, limits will be observed as follows:

  • Anyone with a record of a felony crime, excluding a request for information with respect to a current case and a defendant’s desire to prove innocence, will not have access to such files unless an attorney can show compelling cause.
  • Requests may only be made one time per year, maximum.
  • Anyone who can be shown beyond all reasonable doubt to belong to a subversive political or religious organization shall not have such access unless his or her legal counsel needs such information to prepare a defense in a court of law.
  • Non-citizens and minors have no such right. Nor do the clinically insane.
  • In the case of any on-going investigation for which there are reasonable fears for national security interests, NOT fears for political interests, where it is deemed that opening of files would jeopardize legal proceedings on the part of Government, anyone asking to see the file (or files) may be denied on condition that the information is provided within 30 days that, in fact, an investigation is current. No other explanation is necessary. However, under no circumstances may the FBI (or other relevant agency) deny such a request, for any separate investigation, for even one day beyond five years. This amount of time is entirely reasonable as a maximum necessary to prove a case against a possible offender. This provision explicitly denies the FBI a prerogative to “fold” an earlier change into a later one, or other such subterfuge, for purposes of evading its responsibility to disclose information to citizens.

Files provided to a citizen should be complete, with no blacked-out lines or equivalent, including electronic equivalent, unless agreed to, in writing, by at least one Justice of the Supreme Court.

It is presumed that the FBI will automate requisite data bases for expedited distribution. It is further presumed that any such system will have safeguards in depth, so that no-one other than a requesting citizen can access his or her file. Obviously, the citizen assumes full responsibility for what happens to a file after he or she has received it. Delivery shall be via registered US mail, or in the case of electronic “documents,” via a secure system to be designed as soon as possible after ratification, but no later than one year from that date.

For purposes of this Amendment, not as precedent for any other class of considerations, corporations and non-governmental organizations and labor unions shall have the same right to FBI information as individual citizens.

10.2 Outlawing Subversive Political Organizations

The Communist Control Act of 1954, which outlaws membership in the Communist Party has never been enforced, or only enforced “on the margins,” where a small number of court cases have decided on specifics in the law, such as a New Jersey Superior Court ruling, also in 1954, that membership in an illegal political organization did not allow a member of the Communist Party to have his name appear on an election ballot. However in the 1973 Blawis v. Bolin case brought before a Circuit Court in Arizona the opposite was determined and Communists were to be allowed to participate in elections.

However, the Act itself, which was passed with widespread bipartisan support and was signed into law by Dwight D. Eisenhower, is hereby affirmed as valuable and necessary for America’s vital interests, on the face of it. Moreover, this Amendment takes the view that the basic principles in the Act should be applied to any political organization which actively seeks to subvert the US Constitution, especially but not limited to, advocacy of violent overthrow of the US Government.

Membership in such an organization is sufficient probable cause for legal proceedings.

America as a democracy should not be in the position of facilitating its own destruction. Allowing subversive political organizations which seek to undermine or play havoc with the Constitution is the equivalent of accepting national suicide, albeit in the name of the First Amendment, a purpose for which that Amendment was never intended.

Therefore, to use contemporary examples on the understanding that the principles presumed here should be applied to other political organizations in the future should circumstances arise, this Amendment outlaws:

The Communist Party USA or its front organizations, splinter groups, or any other Marxist-Leninist party or other organization with similar objectives.

This Amendment may also outlaw related Communist-inspired groups although the name “Communist” by itself is insufficient for the purpose and is sometimes misleading, particularly since Marxist-Leninists may use nomenclatures of convenience to disguise their intentions and ideology. However, a “Communist” group which openly and unequivocally repudiates all views that can reasonably be construed as anti-Constitutional, shall be permitted to continue its activities.

It is assumed that various notorious Communist heads-of-state shall also be repudiated in substance as well as name, especially Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Kim Il-Sung.

Also outlawed are all Nazi or neo-Nazi organizations which advocate policies which are antithetical to provisions of the US Constitution. Political groups which may promote ideas sometimes associated with Nazis are not prohibited on the condition that they repudiate Adolf Hitler, or never regarded Hitler as a worthy leader or inspiration, and as long as anti-Constitutional views have never been intrinsic to their principles or, where applicable, are repudiated totally and unequivocally.

Note: Some Anarchist political organizations are suspect groups and the Congress shall have the authority to apply this Amendment to any such organizations, by whatever name they are known, should circumstances warrant.

Caution: This is of the utmost seriousness inasmuch as First Amendment freedoms are sacrosanct to all Americans. Any decisions apropos to this Amendment should be such that they are made only after painstaking investigation and, where reasonable, benefit of doubt extended where doubt exists.

10.3 Elimination of the Category of “Hate Crimes”

What counts in all criminal actions is the actual crime itself. There shall be no distinction in court proceedings or sentencing with respect to a defendant’s motivation. A murder is no worse for being motivated by bigotry than a murder not motivated by bigotry.

Abolition of “Hate Crimes” as a legal category is necessary inasmuch as there is no foolproof way to decide what is bigotry in all cases, what is opportunism, or what is any other criminal motivation. Moreover, it is unmistakably the case that the political Left has abused political power repeatedly in recent history to demonize others whose legitimate social objective are not acceptable to those under the spell of neo-Marxist multi-culturalism. Some organizations, most notably the so-called Southern Poverty law Center, have classified as “hate groups” a range of perfectly law-abiding organizations which have legitimate grounds under the Constitution to take stands which the Left opposes. This is completely unacceptable, and, hereby, all organizations which unfairly publicize other groups under a “hate” category, shall be liable to criminal prosecution under libel and slander laws.

As well, there is no guarantee that in the future this kind of abuse will not be indulged in by partisans of the political Right or by still other groups with unfair vendettas against political opponents or the like. This Amendment is intended to eliminate unwarranted defamations that can cause injury to the reputations of organizations or institutions which have violated no laws.

However, when there is legitimate cause, for instance when a group has repeated criminal violations to its discredit, when its spokesmen or women are known associates of subversives, or when it unequivocally promotes racial hatred, anti-Semitism, or similar prejudices, it is entirely within bounds to identify such organizations to the public. What is not valid is demonizing any group which has a reasonable claim to being based on free speech principles even when some members do, indeed, espouse otherwise socially objectionable views. As well, nothing said here is intended to curtail the rights of individuals to categorize any group as they see fit as long as laws against libel or slander are respected.

Law enforcement agencies and information services may use the category “bias crimes” in reporting statistics of law breaking as long as such compilations are neutral in character, with genuine attempt at objectivity, and are not simply reflections of Left wing or Right wing or some other special-interest political beliefs. Obviously, any organization may compile lists of groups which they oppose but may not do so if the effect is to unjustly stigmatize them and cause harm to their well-being.

10.4 Child Pornography

Courts have full discretion in prohibiting child pornography in reaching decisions. Legislatures at all levels have full discretion in prohibiting child pornography through enactment of laws and regulations.

To ensure that judicial decisions are not arbitrary, the reasoning of such verdicts shall be made explicit and published for the public interest. An appropriate Appeals Court shall have the authority to review possibly bias-based decisions of lower courts without complaints by a plaintiff or defendant and may throw out verdicts deemed without objective merit.

This does not preclude higher appeal, but it is assumed here that no judges would reverse a decision without conscientious review and that further appeal would ordinarily be pointless.

The principles and procedures outlined here only apply to child pornography cases and shall not be regarded as precedent for any other category of criminal conduct.

10.5 Social Costs and Benefits Accounting

All new laws enacted by the United States Congress shall include a researched estimate of expected social costs and benefits of the legislation. This addendum to each bill in intended to provide to Representatives or Senators, and others, a reliable guide to the expectations of the authors of legislation and help citizens evaluate their elected officials as objectively as possible. It should also tell future Congresses whether or not to repeal any laws which have fallen short of expectations, or whether to build upon successful laws in drafting new legislation.

Explanation: Social costs are those expenses to citizens which traditionally have seldom been factored into new laws. For example, laws which allowed for so-called broadform deeds, allowing minerals extraction companies to purchase vast underground coal deposits with unlimited access to these resources, were premised on the grounds that America needed fuel which could be recovered as economically as possible in order to effectively develop the nation’s industry. This proved to be true enough. But there were social costs of many kinds which befell land owners and whole communities that these laws never accounted for. Entire watersheds sometimes were polluted beyond restoration when these deeds were taken as approving surface mining, with the result being large sale health problems whose cost local communities and states became responsible for. Additionally, property values sometimes were severely impacted with resultant capital loss and diminished tax revenue, followed by secondary effects on education, county budgets, and social services.

While a working Representative or Senator may not have the time to draft such statements, given the fact that there are professional or professional level staffs assigned to each office holder, it is entirely feasible for such addenda to be prepared and attached to all relevant legislation.

10.6 Foresight in Government

No laws shall be passed without research concerning possible long-term effects of the proposed legislation. It shall be the responsibility of the relevant Congressional committees to make research findings available to members deliberating new law, prior to sending legislation to the floor of either the House or the Senate. Each new law shall have attached to it a set of informed opinions about intended outcomes and all forecasting evidence taken into account. This need not be elaborate, indeed, lengthy addenda are hereby discouraged, but such opinions should be substantive.


The purpose of this amendment is (1) to make deliberations about the effects of laws less partisan and more objective, and (2) to motivate Congress to make empirical forecasting intrinsic to governance because of its obvious value. Just as no-one sets out on a road trip without first checking weather forecasts, laws which effect all Americans and which often requisition public monies need to be examined in terms of best available projections of consequences.

It is assumed that some number of forecasts will not be accurate. Regardless, with forecasts on record it should become possible for all concerned to have better and better understanding of what methods work and which do not so that, in time, all members of Congress will develop a good sense of what policies have the best chance to achieve what Representatives or Senators actually intend.

10.7 English Language

English shall be the official language of the United States of America. English must be utilized for all Government documents and all other legally binding documents. This includes road signs for all Federal highways, signage at all Federally licensed airports, signage at ports, and at all other facilities underwritten with national revenues.

10.7 Elimination of Homosexuality from American Society

Homosexuality is a psychopatholgy which has damaging negative effects on society, on communities, on families of homosexuals, and upon homosexual themselves. This condition does no-one any good whatsoever and causes harm of many varieties, much of it extremely serious and some of it –in terms of abnormally high mortality rates for homosexuals– deadly. Therefore, homosexuality shall be recriminalized, as was true throughout the United States into the 1970s and well into the 1980s. It shall be illegal to promote or publicize such behavior, to seek its acceptance among any groups or individuals in the country, or to take part in any homosexual sexual conduct whatever its nature. All such violations shall be regarded as felony crimes, and certain classes of such crimes, such as seduction of children and homosexual rapes of others, shall be regarded as capital offenses.

The objective of this Amendment shall be to motivate homosexuals to commit themselves to radical programs of therapy which have shown proven high rates of success in eliminating homosexual desires from homosexuals, and which re-orient homosexuals to heterosexuality, so that, as soon as practicable, homosexuality is eliminated from American society.

Explanation: What has characterized public policy toward homosexuality throughout the 1990s and early 2000s can only be characterized as gross irresponsibility. Indeed, such irresponsibility was often the case in earlier decades. After all, in the years since the American Psychiatric Association took its first steps to declassify homosexuality from what it actually is, a mental illness, and reclassify it as something else, there has not been as much as one (1) Congressional hearing to determine the competency of the APA to render judgement on homosexuality –despite the fact that by now a whole literature exists which makes it very clear that the APA was effectively taken over by pro-homosexual interests in 1972. In effect, while the story is complex and not always easy to follow, no later than the 1990s, to use popular idiom, “the inmates had taken over the asylum.”

Yet the Congress and all recent presidents have taken it for granted as unarguable that the APA has uttered the last word on the subject, and the Courts have done likewise, such that the only arguments regarded as germane by decision-makers of many kinds are legal arguments about supposed “Civil Rights” –as such rights may be said to apply to homosexuals. All of which has been absurd and, in a very real sense, horribly immoral –perhaps more accurately amoral, but exactly when a strong sense of morality was most needed.

The case against homosexuality can be summarized in these words to telling effect: Homosexuality is not only immoral, it is unhygenic, fosters anti-social (nihilistic) values, promotes a variety of criminal behaviors as part of the “lifestyle” it endorses, viz such as pedophilia and sado-masochism, and is directly correlated with just about every dysfunctional form of conduct anyone can think of, from drug abuse and alcoholism to violence against others.

Indeed, the correlation between homosexuality and criminal and more general pathological behaviors is so strong that the only reasonable conclusion to draw is that it is what the greats of psychology always said it was, a mental illness, and what it now is and has always been.

What changed things was the rise of homosexual activism by about 1970 and homosexual tactics of violence and intimidation that led to the capitulation of the APA. That is, to accept the rhetoric of today’s homosexuals and their political supporters at face value, you would need to repudiate the conclusions of Sigmund Freud in his classic Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis, the findings of his daughter (also a world class psychoanalyst) Anna Freud, of the leading expert on the subject well into recent times, Irving Bieber, plus Sandor Rado and many others including Erich Fromm, in his era a man of the political Left. To reject all this wisdom is not something any rational man or woman should be asked to do.

To return to the subject of incidence levels of homosexual vs homosexual violence, it should be noted that these levels utterly dwarf so-called “fag bashing” by orders of magnitude. According to recent statistics (reporting criteria vary in different studies) roughly 1000 to 3000 cases of the latter vs approximately 100, 000 cases of the former -with one well known estimate produced by homosexuals themselves placing the “real” number of incidents of homosexual vs homosexual violence at between 250,000 and 1/2 million per year. As well, while no reliable statistics can be cited at this time, anecdotal evidence strongly suggests high rates of violence against heterosexuals on the part of homosexuals even if, for reasons of political expedience, these kinds of attacks are rarely documented.

Reference should be made to a 2005 study written by Dr Paul Cameron, “Violence and Homosexuality,” which shows conclusively that such practices as bondage, torture (including sexual torture), so-called “discipline” during which homosexuals use restraints such as chains to immobilize a partner for purposes of humiliation and inflicting physical punishment, whippings, and other similar behaviors are intrinsic to the “homosexual lifestyle” at rates which are unknown among heterosexuals, depending on the exact activity, at ratios as high as 7 or 8 to one. Further, homosexual violence is closely associated with murder, especially serial killing, to the extent that of the top 10 such murderers in US history no less than six were homosexuals (Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, etc) and that in a study of 518 murders committed between 1966 and 1983 which were sexual in nature, some 68 % were carried out by homosexuals.

Further, homosexual violence often extends to children, or coercion, with the result being that sexual abuse of the under-age is the greatest single predictor of adult homosexuality, although there are other factors of consequence.

Which is to say that causality for homosexuality can be any of several things, none of which are demonstrably genetic. Indeed, while the mass media in the 1990s widely publicized a number of much ballyhooed “scientific studies” which purported to demonstrate genetic causality, ALL: such studies were subsequently disconfirmed by actual scientists –about which the mass media, with few exceptions, remained silent, therefore leaving intact the impression that false arguments favored by homosexuals and the political Left continued to circulate in popular culture.

Recent studies show the real possibility that another causal factor is chemical, especially mercury poisoning as a result of ground water contamination in many parts of the country (which seems to be true of other nations as well). Added to this is the long established fact that trauma suffered by a mother during pregnancy can be a contributing factor, as can effects on young children raised in a dysfunctional family, and so forth. In all these cases, while after-effects of mercury ingestion or of a mother’s trauma and even of childhood abuse, there is no 1: 1 connection, there nonetheless are high degrees of probability, sufficient to conclude that all arguments to some other effect are utterly fallacious.

This also says is that there definitely are connections between these identifiable phenomena to homosexual pathology. For example, again depending on which statistics are used, a fourth or maybe a much higher fraction of victims of childhood abuse by homosexuals will, in fact, themselves become homosexuals.This also says that a majority of abuse victims have the inner resources to NOT become homosexual, but the linkages cannot be ignored. All of this has public policy consequences and all of which underscores the irresponsibility of elected officials and of the Courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States.

Because nearly all discussions on the issue are now framed in terms of legal rights, we now are confronted with an absurdity of massive proportions. This means that all programs either in schools or businesses or government which seek “equal rights” for the perverted are based, in part anyway, on the view that we should accommodate the effects of mercury poisoning instead of eliminating mercury pollution, —which is one predictor of homosexual condition– that we should accommodate the effects of maternal trauma, a medical condition, and not seek to treat that condition, that no-one need be overly concerned with childhood sexual abuse and let the effects of such criminality stand unchanged, and so forth, all of which, by any objective standards, is irresponsible in the extreme and immoral in the extreme also.

The reality is, contra the impression promoted relentlessly by the media and by pro-homosexuals in government and academia and elsewhere, homosexuality is closely associated with criminal behavior of many kinds, while in other instances it is linked with effects of medical conditions. Moreover, while homosexuality is a mental illness in its own right, it is associated with other forms of psychological disorder, especially substance abuse Hard drug and alcoholism rates are higher than for the population at large, that is, for heterosexuals, by vast differences, orders of magnitude in some cases.

In sum, homosexuals are, by inclination, irresponsible in the extreme, prone to “ordinary” criminal acts at rates far higher than for heterosexuals, and, when organized, seek to subvert just about every normative value upon which any healthy society rests.

It is no accident that virtually all the major religions of the world condemn homosexuality as a grievous sin. This includes all traditional forms of Christian faith, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, the Baha’i Faith, and Islam. Although it is true that relentless pressures which now date back more than 30 years have caused some religious groups to make various accommodations to homosexuals, it also says that such believers have been tragically misled by an irresponsible mass media, an irresponsible public education system, irresponsible university faculties, an irresponsible Congress and Executive, and an irresponsible Supreme Court.

To be sure, this does not exonerate the so-called “Religious Right” from irresponsibility of its own. Its spokesmen and women, including some elected officials, have all along chosen, with only very few exceptions, to try and make their case exclusively on moralistic grounds based on presumed truths of Christian faith, or as the case may be, within Orthodox Jewish tradition. But America is a religiously pluralistic nation and, in matters of public policy, there is no privileged position for any one religion, or pairing of religions, specifically Judaism and Christianity.

Regardless, it means something important when the testimony of the vast majority of relevant sources for believers in the world’s major religions agree that homosexuality is incompatible with values necessary for a moral society based on mutual respect.

For the government to ignore this, for the mass media to also ignore this, and many or most educational systems likewise, is inexcusable. The case would seem to be compelling, that religious consensus, to speak about all tradition-based faiths rather than, to use modern metaphors, California Buddhism or post-Christian Christianity or Self-hating Jews and their version of Reform Judaism or Wendy Doniger’s distortions of Hinduism, etc., that otherwise there is no real dispute. And for good reason, namely the well-being of society based on centuries or millennia of hard won experience. Nearly all of which is in the process of being rejected because a majority of members of Congress and all members of the Courts, plus the current president, are lawyers, are mostly incapable of thinking of the substance of sexual issues, and put the priorities of the legal profession ahead of the well-being of their country. This is not acceptable.

Additionally, to the extent that some form of religious faith is vital to the well-being of any organized community or nation, then toleration of homosexuality is no different than acceptance of a population that, in essence, seeks the destruction of all normative religions -either outright, as among those who are self-avowedly “queer,” or indirectly via so-called “transformation” of theologies or values by well-meaning dupes.

Nor is it acceptable for Americans in positions of power in government, or educators, or journalists protected by specific provisions of the First Amendment, to relegate to insignificance the values of the Founding Fathers and of American women of that time. Thomas Jefferson, it should be noted, wrote the Virginia Law that classified sodomy (the word “homosexuality” was not known in that era) as a serious felony crime, and it should also be noted that George Washington, while general at Valley Forge, directly oversaw the dishonorable discharge of the first American soldier convicted of homosexual conduct. It might be considered that Washington and Jefferson, who were living embodiments of the Enlightenment were, in fact, just that, and that various people of the early part of the 21st century who claim that legacy actually seek to destroy this heritage and replace it with Nihilism.

There are, as well, deleterious effects upon everyone else because of widespread toleration of homosexuality in the United states and because of political leverage which various homosexual pressure groups have gained for their causes.

Think of what toleration encourages, among other things, as David Horowitz pointed out in his 1998 book, The Politics of Bad Faith, spread of epidemic diseases like Hepatitis B, herpes, amoebiasis, etc, and, of course, AIDS, due to anti-public heath values of the “gay community” and made into law (or non-enforcement of law) due to pro-homosexual political leaders. AIDS, as of a decade ago, had claimed close to 500, 000 lives, nearly all of that number preventable, because the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control, caved in to homosexuals or their allies.

We might also think of things in terms of a neo-Freudian theory of anal-fixation, or anal-infantilism, as a major source of the phenomenon of male homosexuality. To say the least, rectal sex is a major component of male homosexuality with various studies estimating incidence levels in the 40 % range, some lower, some significantly higher. And just what does anyone think happens when anal-fixated homosexuals create values for the rest of the population via movies, TV shows, popular songs, rap “music” lyrics, and everything else ? Nothing happens ? Any such outcome is impossible unless the view is taken that advertising has no effects, or publicity, or public relations. In other words, there are serious bad effects on a daily basis throughout American society. To think anything else, that what homosexuals do in privacy is inconsequential, when their privacy involves sex play featuring an anus, or more than one anus, along with fecal matter and sex play with feces, would be irrational. Those private values inevitably migrate elsewhere– –such as into a child’s mind who has a homosexual teacher.

All of which may be ugly to think about, and extremely offensive, but unless such things are given due consideration the reality of homosexuality will not be seen for what it is and a serious mental illness will continue to be treated AS IF it was a matter of “rights.”

The libertarian argument about individual privacy fails even basic tests of credibility in such areas. Briefly, conspiracies are hatched in privacy by definition, yet government has obvious legitimate rights to know, which the law recognizes. The same is true for any other crime committed in privacy, such as violent misconduct.. A very similar principle applies to the case of perverted sexual behavior. (The word “pervert,” to designate homosexuals is a Freudian usage) Whether or not it takes place behind closed doors is irrelevant if it is damaging and incurs costs for others. That courts have decided otherwise because of doctrinal libertarian interpretation of the Law, which is, first, unfair to libertarians of conscience, and secondly is, in a word, sick.

Acceptance of homosexuality AS IF it was a legitimate Civil Rights cause for which the Courts should provide legal defense on behalf of homosexuals also is anti-science in essence. Such actions by the Courts have the effect of discrediting research findings by reputable scientific organizations, or individuals with requisite scientific (including the behavioral sciences) background and extolling the biased findings of pro-homosexual organizations which habitually produce “bad science” featuring self-serving propaganda AS IF it has objective merit.

The many empirical studies produced by NARTH, the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, are ignored by approximately all decision makers in government, in the law, in education, and in the mass media.

Similarly, the extensive work done by Dr Judith Reisman is overlooked despite her world class credentials and publications record, including a co-authored 1990 book, Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, which exposed unprecedented falsification of data on the part of Alfred Kinsey and, subsequently by The Kinsey Institute for research in Sex, Gender, and Reproduction at the University of Indiana.

About which one comment is in order here, namely, the fact that unwillingness on the part of journalists at the time of the (in-)famous Kinsey Reports led to the outcome that the American public was grossly misled about incidence rates of homosexuality in the United States, with distorted statistics becoming integral to probably all future discussions of homosexuality and bisexuality, preparing the ground for later acceptance of sexual perversions in public (which is also to say political) opinion. For the record, while Kinsey claimed that the rate was approximately 10 %, University of Chicago studies of the early 1990s, based on strictly applied research standards, demonstrated that the true figure was in the 3 % range, with other research indicating that the number had been lower in the past, hence to the effect that increased acceptance had opened to door to homosexual recruitment, much of which, clearly, was among the young.

Also ignored, largely because of the AIDS epidemic which began in the 1980s, homosexuals began to argue the exact opposite of their previous position, which was based entirely on “free choice” argument such that homosexuality was said to be a superior choice for some percentage of the population and that pathologies associated with this form of sexuality could be disregarded because of the “pleasures” of this “lifestyle.” However, it is worth pointing out that William Masters and Virginia Johnson published a 1979 book entitled Homosexuality in Perspective, based on years of research at their sex institute that showed conclusively that homosexuality was a treatable pathology with cure rates in the 60 % to 70 % range with known therapies then available. Needless to say, the reputation of Masters and Johnson was the opposite of anything remotely Right-wing. Yet, because homosexuals and their political allies, such as William Clinton, did not want the Masters and Johnson findings to be a consideration, effectively the book was squelched in the media, with Congressmen and Senators none the wiser.

To repeat, there was nothing which prohibited conservative political leaders from doing the necessary research and making an issue out of such things, but the influence of William Buckley, who had many homosexual friends, acted to snuff out interest in such research, and, besides, most people who framed the issue in terms of morality were squeamish in extremis about the subject matter and, anyway, were more interested in economic policy or foreign relations or still other subjects, and it saved everyone huge embarrassment by avoiding the issue altogether.

Regardless, the fact is that a wealth of hard research was unjustifiably ignored by decision makers, including the following books:

  1. Charles Socarides, Homosexuality -A Freedom Too Far, which is essential reading for anyone who has policy level responsibilities, and is, simply, the best available text on the issue to date, readable by almost anyone. 1995.
  2. Reubin Fine, Psychoanalytic Theory of Male and Female Homosexuality
  3. Karen Horney (pronounced Hor-Nay), Essays in Psychoanalysis, a classic study which points out the many indicators of pathology among homosexuals.
  4. Nathan Hale, The Rise and Crisis of Psychoanalysis in the United States.
  5. Kenneth Lewes, The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality.
  6. Judith Reisman, Sexual Sabotage, 2010.
  7. O. R. Adams, As We Sodomize America, 2001.

To summarize–

  • The entire homosexual rights movement is based on false premises. The assumption is that the 1973 decision of the APA (American Psychiatric Association) to declassify homosexuality from a mental illness to a lesser problem, and then as the result of a 20 year process during which about 1/3rd of the membership of the APA quit the organization primarily over this issue, as essentially “normal,” was a travesty.
  • Unless and until it can be demonstrated that homosexuality is psychologically healthy –which has never been done– then all talk about homosexual rights or “gay marriage,” etc, is out of bounds and absurd. Indeed this cannot be demonstrated because it is objectively false.
  • The empirical evidence available on the subject of homosexual psychology is overwhelming to the effect that homosexuality is a personality disorder, aka mental illness. This being the case, and the evidence is staggering, there is no excuse at all for appeasement of homosexuals, no excuse for homosexual rights legislation, or for pro-homosexual court decisions, and especially not for allowing homosexuals to serve in the US military or any intelligence agencies. “Don’t ask, don’t tell” should be thrown out not because homosexuals should be allowed to serve openly in the armed forces, but because they should be totally excluded under any and all circumstances. ALL homosexual gains in the years since 1973 should be voided and homosexuality made into a criminal activity on the basis of this Constitutional Amendment.
  • The entire corpus of political and other arguments made by homosexuals or made on behalf of homosexuals, is based on gross ignorance and is indefensible.
  • Homosexuality is a serious social and psychological problem that the US Government in co-operation with all reliable non-Governmental organizations with an interest, should do everything in its power to eliminate homosexuality from the United States. There is no such thing as “homophobia,” a neologism invented to smear all opponents of homosexuality as the equivalent of bigots, even respected psychology professionals. That is, the word homophobia is, in essence, an ad hominum attack with no objective value.

The real issue is the clinical heterophobia of homosexuals. This condition has been described in detail by Claude Crepault in the Summer 1995 issue of the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy and to different effect in a 2000 book by Daphne Patai, Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. The point is that homosexuality clearly is medically dysfunctional; male and female sexual organs are designed by nature to be joined and, likewise, male / female pair bonding ensures the continuation of the species, not to mention contributing to psychological health even though not all couples are successful as married persons. Nonetheless, men and women, it is entirely legitimate to say, are intended for each other. Accordingly any other sexual arrangement, except in cases of physical illness or infirmity, is anti-nature and unmistakably pathological and must not be tolerated in American society.

Concluding Remarks

The liabilities of toleration of homosexuality are made unmistakably clear, including obvious damages done to American society by such acceptance.

The point is made in many ways and in a variety of contexts, although primarily by implication, that proponents of so-called “homosexual rights” are ridiculously ill-informed and essentially ignorant of all relevant facts. That is, the proposed Amendment reverses the status of the”sides” to the debate as it usually is presented in the mass media and in the Courts and halls of government, to the effect that it is not opponents of homosexuality who have no arguments worth making, but the proponents. The entire facade now being maintained, that acceptance of homosexuality is “enlightened” and science-based is repudiated empirically and thoroughly, placing the burden of proof solidly on homosexuals and their fellow travelers.

This is anything but a whitewash of conservatives, however. The view is expressed in the strongest possible language that the religious and political Right contributed enormously to the successes of homosexual activists and their agenda through gross incompetence, through exclusively religion-derived arguments that had no lasting chance for success in the political arena, and through willful ignorance that handed everything on a platter to homosexuals and their allies on the political Left.

This is a proposed Amendment, however, not a research paper, and some references to scientific literature are essentially indirect even if you can be assured that there are such sources, sometimes in abundance. You would be well advised not to bet against summarizations of research findings mentioned in the text.

For now the presumed main value of this Amendment is to pull together into one reference, the most effective arguments which can be made in opposition to homosexuality, in cases new arguments of my own, and in all cases, hard-hitting and unambiguous positions on the issue. You will see that the approach taken in the Amendment is unlike any other set of arguments and you may well agree that it should place the entire debate in altogether new light –with the potential to change public opinion dramatically on homosexuality.

This is a subject which I have studied, although anything but continuously, since about 1990, and which I have written about in a large number of still unpublished articles and essays, including one book to be extensively revised, since the year 2000. That is, it is safe enough to say that I know what I am talking about and feel confident that the views presented here can withstand any challenge made on empirical grounds.

A Radical Centrist Vision for the Future > List of Amendments > Religion (next)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s