Sunday, April 24, 2011

The Sentinel & Enterprise publishes homosexual agitprop from Bonnie J. Toomey

It's Easter Sunday.  Catholics and other Christians are celebrating the Resurrection of their Savior.  And on this sacred day, when Christ's disciples remember the historic event of His reuniting His human body and soul which had been separated by His death on the Cross, the Fitchburg Sentinel & Enterprise has decided to publish homosexual agitprop in the form of an article written by Bonnie J. Toomey and entitled "Why should pink have us seeing red?"

Responding to the controversy which erupted when the president of Abercrombie & Fitch, Jenna Lyons, painted her five year old son's toenails pink, Ms. Toomey writes, " is a beautiful color, and I think it looks great on a guy.  It doesn't mean anything.  But why do we get so uncomfortable when it comes to boys and pink?  Traditions, religions and a patriarchal society have put pink where they want it, not necessarily where it rightfully belongs.  My sons wore their sister's costumes and dresses many times..But did it change their gender?...And what if it did?  Nature is not nurture, and no matter how hard you try, you can't hold back nature..."

But this is to suggest that homosexuality is genetic, dominant and irreversible.  If this were true, then no one would be responsible for deviant sexual acts.  The fact remains, however, that psychological therapy has proven to be very successful in diminishing, and in many cases even eliminating, same-sex attraction.  Personal testimonies from former homosexuals who were healed from the psychopathology may be found here and here.

Ms. Toomey insists though that, "homosexuality is determined by innate characteristics that contribute to sexual orientation and that cannot be changed through medical or psychiatric treatment."  That would indeed come as news to those who have recovered from the psychopathology.  But Ms. Toomey wouldn't be interested in their testimonies.  For these would produce a crack in her wall of conviction.  And Ms. Toomey is not interested in truth.  The fact remains, homosexuality is not innate. In fact, Dr. Francis S. Collins, one of the world's leading scientists who works on the cutting edge of DNA, has said that, "Homosexuality is not hardwired..." and "..there is an inescapable component of heritability to many human behavioral traits.  For virtually none of them is heredity ever close to predictive."  See here

It is unfortunate that homosexual propagandists like Bonnie Toomey continue to ignore the hard science about homosexuality.  Dutch psychologist Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, Ph.D., a specialist on homosexuality (unlike Ms. Toomey who has no expertise in this area), says that the claim that homosexuality is normal is one of those statements that are "so foolish that only intellectuals could believe them." It is like saying that anorexia nervosa is healthy. See here. Dr. Aardweg notes that, "The term neurotic describes such relationships well. It suggests the ego-centeredness of the relationship; the attention-seeking instead of loving...Neurotic, in short, suggests all kinds of dramas and childish conflicts as well as the basic disinterestedness in the partner, notwithstanding the shallow pretensions of 'love.' Nowhere is there more self-deception in the homosexual than in his representation of himself as a lover. One partner is important to the other only insofar as he satisfies that other's needs. Real, unselfish love for a desired partner would, in fact, end up destroying homosexual 'love'!" (Dr. Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg, The Battle for Normality, Ignatius Press, 1997, pp. 62-63).

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that 1 in 5 sexually active homosexual and bisexual men in America are HIV-positive but that 44% of them don't know it.  See here.  The health risks associated with the homosexual lifestyle are well documented (see here), but propagandists for the lifestyle - like Ms. Toomey - do not seem to be very concerned about these health risks.  For their goal is to convert others to the homosexal ideology through a planned psychological attack in the form of homosexual propaganda.

In her zeal to promote the sodomite cause, Ms. Toomey engages in one falsehood after another.  She writes, "It's time we accept the fact that as much as 10 percent of the homosexual." But the ten percent myth, which has been based upon research done by the now totally discredited Alfred Kinsey, has been refuted time and again.

For Ms. Toomey, propagandist for the sodomite culture, " not wrong."  And she is entitled to her beliefs.  As idiotic as they are.  I'm sure she actually believes the lifestyle is healthy as well.  But those of us who are Christian, Jew and Muslim are entitled to our beliefs as well.  Those of us who are authentically Catholic, as opposed to being Catholic in name only, accept the teaching of the Church's Magisterium, as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'  They are contrary to the natural law.  They close the sexual act to the gift of life.  They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.  Under no circumstances can they be approved." (2357).

And we do not appreciate a second-rate columnist with absolutely no background in theology or the science of DNA telling us that we are backward simply because we do not buy into her radical homosexual agitprop which insists that homosexuality is innate or hardwired.

That the Sentinel & Enterprise would publish such nonsense on Easter Sunday is shameful.  The publication has embarassed itself once again. 


Stewart said...

Toomey is a Christianophobic bigot who wants to cram her beliefs down the throats of Christians who accept the teaching of God's Word. I say boycott the Sentinel & Enterprise until it drops this bigot.

Wendy said...

Bonnie Toomey's promotion of the 1 in 10 myth s just ridiculous. Readers of the S & E do deserve better than mindless propaganda and homosexualist fantasies. Looks like the newspaper has scraped the bottom of the barrel in its search for filler material. What's next, Neo-Nazi propaganda?

Ashley Pelletier said...

I'm a mother. A Christian mother. According to Toomey, I'm stuck in the 20th century because I want my boys to be boys and my girl to be a little girl. I don't care very much for her views. If she didn't mind her boys wearing dresses and painting their toes pink, that's her affair. I can't see that. We're not all freaks. Some of us believe that boys and girls were created differently by God. And we embrace the differences. We embrace God's created order. Pink is chosen by the homosexual "community" (aren't these people generous to themselves - community?) as a sort of banner.

Bonnie, you obviously do not respect God's created order or His Commandments regarding homosexuality. As an American, you are entitled to your view. But there a great many Christians around the world who respect God's Commandments and who accept His Holy Word.

In the future, kindly refrain from insulting our beliefs.

T. Fields said...

Your notion that Kinsey's studies have been "totally discredited" seem little more than pious advertising jingles from the anti-sexual and largely Christian political right.

One can repeat something endlessly. But repeating it does not provide proof, not does presenting an incorrect citation or off-topic link.

Your link in this matter points to claims, not so much about Kinsey, but about charges that the "gay community" used the 10% homosexual figure in one Friend of the Court brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26, 2003 in the Lawrence v. Texas case.

In addition, no researcher has work discredited by having it misquoted. The exact figures Kinsey used, from p. 651 of "Sexual Behavior In the Human Male" was that 10% of white males were "more or less exclusively homosexual" for a "three-year period" some time in their life between the ages of 16 and 55. Kinsey's figure for white males "exclusively homosexual" was 4% (also on page 651.)

In addition, comparing Kinsey's studies to the current ones has an apples to oranges nature. For Kinsey recorded what people did throughout their lives, without regard to what they called themselves at a particular time; the most current reports are of what people called themselves at one point in time, not what they did throughout their lives.

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

The Kinsey Report was proven to be flawed. In his sample of 5,300 men he included several hundred prostitutes, 1,200 convicted sex offenders, high numbers of pedophiles and exhibitionists, and 25 percent of his sample consisted of prison inmates, who are disproportionately homosexual. (See A. Dean Byrd and Stony Olsen, “Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable?” Regent University Law Review, Vol. 14:513, p. 546).

Additionally, research by Edward O. Laumann and others debunked Kinsey’s ten percent figures, finding Kinsey’s figures much higher than those in population surveys. Laumann’s conclusion was that “2.8 percent of the men and 1.4 percent of the women reported some level of homosexual (bisexual) identity.”

Even the homosexual movement has largely abandoned the ten percent myth. According to Ed Vitagliano, a coalition of 31 homosexual advocacy groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, filed a brief in Lawrence v. Texas, in which the coalition used Laumann’s figures, that only “2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4 percent of the female population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.”

You seem to have a bias against what you refer to as the "Christian political right." I'm not surprised however. Slogans are the stock and trade of the intellectually lazy.

sam mace said...

your blog is disturbing, people can't be cured of being gay, me being gay myself knows this. The cause of homosexuality isn't down to experiences with mother or father or the community around you, it is down to genetical preferences within your body, it is a biological entity.

Your testimonies are completely flawed, they were either not sure themselves, or found it disturbing like an affront to nature. Kinsey states that very few people are truly gay or straight, that 98% of the population can be bisexual in one way or another. The 10% myth is exactly that i believe, it is consistently around 1-4% of the populous who identify as gay/lesbian or bisexual. However those who have had experiences one cannot guess the number.

If you want to continue this debate my email address is and would be willing to chat to anyone with thoughts on this nasty piece of literature including the author.

Robert said...

Individuals like T. Fields use terms such as "Christian Right" in a cheap attempt to dismiss any message they don't want to hear.

As for Ms. Toomey, she is simply a propagandist trying to sell homosexuality as "normal." But she crossed a line by insulting the religious beliefs of Americans who oppose homosexuality because of Divine Revelation and/or Natural Law.

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

Sam, you are mistaken. Based upon years of professional experience, Dr. Lawrence Hatterer wrote, "I have 'cured' many homosexuals....Any other researcher may examine my work because it is all documented on 10 years of tape recordings. Many of these 'cured' (I prefer to use the word 'changed') patients have married, had families and live happy lives. It is a destructive myth that 'once a homosexual, always a homosexual.'"

Even Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, who led the campaign within the APA to discontinue listing homosexuality as a psychiatric disorder, changed his view saying, "Like most psychiatrists, I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that's untrue - some people can and do change." ("Prominent Psychiatrist Announces New Study Results: 'Some Gays Can Change,;"

Here's another link for you Sam:

Jonathan said...

Isn't it amazing how the Sentinel & Enterprise will hire a Christianophobic bigot and supporter of homosexualist ideology but cannot tolerate the views of a Catholic apologist who stands with the teachings of his Church?

I attempted to leave a comment critical of Ms. Toomey's asinine article at the Sentinel & Enterprise feedback section, but it wasn't published.

The Sentinel & Enterprise isn't the slightest bit interested in giving the Roman Catholic viewpoint a hearing. Only the views of Secular Humanists and opponents of Christian morality.

Martin M said...

The UK TV station 'Channel 4', use a short programme on Easter Monday to attack the Christian teaching on homosexuality, with a short programme featuring a 'gay priest'. The link is here:

Martin M said...

The speel for the programme reads thus:

'This week, Prince William and Kate Middleton marry in Westminster Abbey. For some Christians, the idea of a couple having lived together before marriage goes against the word of God, as do gay weddings or even interfaith marriages. asks: who has the right to a church wedding? Church of England vicar Rev Colin Coward and his gay partner are angry that the church still refuses to allow gay couples to marry and continues to treat gay relationships as a taboo.''

ACatholicinClinton said...

The Sentinel is following the Telegram & Gazette down the road which leads to irrelevancy. With news and weather offered online, who needs these anti-God types.

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

A relevant post Martin:


Thanks for sharing the interesting links. Indeed, the forces behind the New Order will not tolerate the views of orthodox Christianity regarding fornication and homosexuality.

The persecution will soon become open and declared.

Paul Anthony Melanson said...

I received two comments here at La Salette Journey today (5-21-11) from the same person but using two different names. At 11:18 AM, a comment from "Bon." At 11:59 AM, a comment from "Natalie." The wording is exactly the same in both comments. How remarkable huh?

Both comments finished with this assertion, "she's [Bonnie Toomey] not an anti-Christian bigot pushing homosexuality as you all claim."

That just doesn't wash given Ms. Toomey's comments. I would encourage this dishonest person who has posted using two different names to examine his or her own motives.

Jennifer Goguen said...

Interesting Mr. Melanson. Is "Bon" really Bonnie Toomey? I wouldn't be surprised.

Site Meter