Homosexual activists such as Michael Bayly see Jesus as a "sissy." On the Dies Irae, they will learn the truth

In their zeal to promote the Cult of Softness and effeminacy in general, many homosexual activists attempt to portray the Lord Jesus as being soft and effeminate Himself.  For example, at the homosexual Blog The Wild Reed, Michael J. Bayly, referring to the work of Dr. David Rankin, writes, "I’ve had a cassette tape of Rankin’s talk, 'Jesus Was A Sissy,' floating around for years. I can’t recall when and how I obtained it, and an Internet search for Rankin provides little information about him or when and where he gave this particular talk. Listening to it again this evening I realized that it actually dates back to the 1980s, as Rankin mentions that Ronald Reagan is president.


Regardless of all of this, I found much of what Rankin had to say still very pertinent, and so thought I would share it on this day that we honor the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

A fraud

Rankin begins his talk by noting that perhaps, in a sort of secret way, we have always known that Jesus was a sissy. All efforts to align him with soldiers, marching, battles, banners, and wars (as, for example, in hymns like 'Onward Christian Soldiers') are part of a widespread fraud – 'a pious, well-intentioned fraud,' says Rankin, 'but a fraud nonetheless. For Jesus was a sissy.'

Rankin himself was taught from an early age that male success was synonymous with aggressive physical behavior. Indeed, he internalized this message so well that he became a professional fighter – 'Rocky Rankin'! 'Violence was rewarded,' he remembers, and all his teachers were proud of him.

He has since learned that human behavior has been 'arbitrarily categorized as masculine and feminine,' that societies have 'carefully defined sexual stereotypes that lead to victimization,' and that 'according to our own particular stereotypes, Jesus was not a ‘soldier marching to war,’ but an honest-to-goodness sissy.' To insist otherwise is to feed into a 'dangerous and damaging fraud.'...Rankin declares his thesis absolutely inescapable: Jesus was a sissy. After all, Jesus was able to feel and express a wide range of tender emotions. He wept without shame, even raved and screamed and moaned and won no battles. He was an intuitive thinker, often the victim of wild imaginings and flights of fantasy. He responded to beauty, embracing the birds of the air and the lilies of the field. He nurtured little children, relating to them in the manner of a mother. He freely touched other men and kissed them.

'Does Jesus really fit the American ideal of manhood?' Rankin asks. Can we imagine Jesus as a United States Marine? As a linebacker for the Detroit Lions? As the Marlboro Man? 'By almost every standard in our culture,' concludes Rankin, 'Jesus was a real live honest-to-goodness sissy.'" (See full post here).

What of this?  Was Jesus a "sissy"?  The Sacred Scriptures show otherwise.  In the wonderful Catholic classic entitled "My Meditation on the Gospel," published by the Confraternity of the Precious Blood, Rev. James E. Sullivan provides us with the following meditation on Christian Fortitude:


"After a few days' stay at Capharnaum, Jesus and Mary and the first five Apostles made the journey to Jerusalem for the Passover. When they entered the Temple, they heard its usual peace broken by a great uproar. Men were shouting and bargaining, oxen and sheep were bleating. Jesus stiffened, His Father's house made into a market place! A fierce, set look came over His features. His hands seized some cords and tied them into a whip. His eyes never left the scene before Him. He walked forward then, arms outstretched. 'Take these things away!' He cried out. His voice was strong, yet trembling with anger. An uneasy fear came over the crowd, as His eyes burned into theirs. They hurried away their oxen and sheep, those in back urging on those in front. The money-changers alone held their ground. Jesus seized the end of their tables and sent them flying end over end. They became panic-stricken then. They grasped what coins they could and ran. Jesus stood alone in the courtyard. Peace settled again over the Temple.

My Lord, how I admire You in ths scene! We are so liable to think that being a Christian means being a weakling and a 'mouse'! How wonderful to see that distorted notion so firmly dispelled by the example of Your magnificent courage! Your Father's house was being desecrated; there was reason for the fighting - so You fought! You didn't care what they thought or what they would say. His glory was primary! Nor did it matter to You that You were alone against them all. Your courage was so great and Your cause so just that the entire crowd fled before You."

Does the cleansing of the Temple come across as the action of a "sissy"?

Jesus' Apostles were hardy men.  They were men used to hard labor and were by no means effeminate in any way.  But Jesus rebuked them for being frightened when it appeared their ship would capsize in the story Sea of Galilee:

"He got into a boat and his disciples followed him. Suddenly a violent storm came up on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by waves; but he was asleep. They came and woke him, saying, 'Lord, save us! We are perishing!' He said to them, 'Why are you terrified, O you of little faith?' Then he got up, rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was great calm. The men were amazed and said, 'What sort of man is this, whom even the winds and the sea obey?'


The Apostles were afraid for their lives.  And they cried out to Jesus.  Sissy?  How many real men would cry out to a sissy for help when their lives are in danger?

Jesus is presented in the Gospels as one who taught with authority.  In fact, an evil spirit, so fearful of Him, instantly fled at His command:

"Then they came to Capernaum, and on the sabbath he entered the synagogue and taught. The people were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority and not as the scribes.  In their synagogue was a man with an unclean spirit; he cried out, 'What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!' Jesus rebuked him and said, 'Quiet! Come out of him!' The unclean spirit convulsed him and with a loud cry came out of him. All were amazed and asked one another, 'What is this? A new teaching with authority. He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey him.' His fame spread everywhere throughout the whole region of Galilee." (Mark 1: 21-28).

Jesus came to die for our sins.  And His death involved a level of torture that was almost indescribably horrific.  Hardly the actions of a "sissy."

No, Dr. Rankin's idea of Jesus as "sissy" is the one which is a fraud.  And on the Dies Irae (the Day of Wrath) those who bought into his asinine idea will learn just how wrong he was.  For the King of Kings, the Lion of Judah, is not going to return as the suffering and sacrificial Lamb.  He tells us:

"..Behold, I make all things new..I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.  To the thirsty I will give a gift from the spring of life-giving water.  The victor will inherit these gifts, and I shall be his God, and he will be my son.  But as for cowards [read sissies if you will], the unfaithful, the depraved, murderers, the unchaste, sorcerers, idol-worshipers, and deceivers of every sort, their lot is in the burning pool of fire and sulfur, which is the second death." (Revelation 21: 5-8).

Jesus a sissy?  Don't kid yourself.  The Word of God assures us that: "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Hebrews 10: 31). 

Now why would it be a fearful thing if Jesus were a "sissy"?

Stacy Trasancos, homosexual activists and dialogue...

Earlier this year I posted on how an Ontario panel, organized by the University of Toronto's Institute for Studies in Education, discussed how to silence religious opposition to LGBT propaganda in schools.  See here.  Although there are, of course, homosexual persons who are people of good will, the homosexual movement itself is totalitarian in nature and seeks to impose its agenda on all.  Even if this means silencing religious opposition.

Most of those who advance the radical homosexual agenda are simply not interested in authentic dialogue.  See here for example.  Stacy Trasancos discovered this recently when she blogged on homosexual activity and received many insults and even threats directed against herself and her family.  Readers of this Blog know that I have been threatened repeatedly.  One homosexual activist called the Mothertown News to tell them that he was going to kill me with his high-powered rifle because I had written a piece for that paper explaining the magisterial teaching of the Church regarding homosexual acts.

In his Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Missio (The Mission of the Redeemer), Pope John Paul II said that, "The Church proposes; she imposes nothing." (No. 39). Such was the teaching of Vatican II: "The Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles. By the same token, she also strongly insists on this right, that no one be frightened away from the faith by unjust vexations on the part of others." (Ad Gentes, No. 13). And Dignitatis Humanae, No. 10 teaches that: "It is one of the major tenets of Catholic doctrine that man's response to God in faith must be free: no one therefore is to be forced to embrace the Christian faith against his own will. This doctrine is contained in the word of God and it was constantly proclaimed by the Fathers of the Church. The act of faith is of its very nature a free act. Man, redeemed by Christ the Savior and through Christ Jesus called to be God's adopted son, cannot give his adherence to God revealing Himself unless, under the drawing of the Father, he offers to God the reasonable and free submission of faith. It is therefore completely in accord with the nature of faith that in matters religious every manner of coercion on the part of men should be excluded. In consequence, the principle of religious freedom makes no small contribution to the creation of an environment in which men can without hindrance be invited to the Christian faith, embrace it of their own free will, and profess it effectively in their whole manner of life."


But while the Church respects freedom of conscience and shuns any form of coercion, our Holy Father reminds us that, "We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires.

We, however, have a different goal: the Son of God, the true man. He is the measure of true humanism. An "adult" faith is not a faith that follows the trends of fashion and the latest novelty; a mature adult faith is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ. It is this friendship that opens us up to all that is good and gives us a criterion by which to distinguish the true from the false, and deceit from truth."

This dictatorship of relativism seeks to impose its immoral agenda on Christians in the name of "tolerance." But this "tolerance" is a sham. It is simply an attempt to make an idol out of a false conception of freedom. Again, our Holy Father explains that, "..what clearly stands behind the modern era's radical demand for freedom is the promise: You will be like God...The implicit goal of all modern freedom movements is, in the end, to be like a god, dependent on nothing and nobody, with one's own freedom not restricted by anyone else's...The primeval error of such a radically developed desire for freedom lies in the idea of a divinity that is conceived as being purely egotistical. The god thus conceived of is, not God, but an idol, indeed, the image of what the Christian tradition would call the devil, the anti-god, because therein lies the radical opposite of the true God: the true God is, of his own nature, being-for (Father), being-from (Son), and being-with (Holy Spirit). Yet man is in the image of God precisely because the being-for , from, and with constitute the basic anthropological shape. Whenever people try to free themselves from this, they are moving, not toward divinity, but toward dehumanizing, toward the destruction of being itself through the destruction of truth. The Jacobin variant of the idea of liberation...is a rebellion against being human in itself, rebellion against truth, and that is why it leads people - as Sartre percipiently observed - into a self-contradictory existence that we call hell. It has thus become fairly clear that freedom is linked to a yardstick, the yardstick of reality - to truth*. Freedom to destroy oneself or to destroy others is not freedom but a diabolical parody. The freedom of man is a shared freedom, freedom in a coexistence of other freedoms, which are mutually limiting and thus mutually supportive: freedom must be measured according to what I am, what we are - otherwise it abolishes itself."

In the name of "tolerance," the New World Order seeks to impose its rebellion from truth on all. It will not tolerate any dissent, any disagreement. Coercion is an acceptable tool in a dictatorship. Soon, the New Order will use violence to achieve its goals and not just coercion and propaganda. In the end, every dictatorship must rely on violence in its vain attempt to hold onto power.

Already the signs are emerging.  Catholics who oppose homosexuality on religious and moral grounds are being demonized.  So too the teaching authority of the Catholic Church.  See here for example.  Before a dictatorship can resort to violence, it must first demonize the group it wants to suppress or eliminate.

Conference seeks to normalize pedophilia

John Rossomando, in an article for The Daily Caller, is reporting that, "If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013. Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia.


The August 17 Baltimore conference is sponsored by B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile mental health professionals and sympathetic activists. According to the conference brochure, the event will examine “ways in which minor-attracted persons [pedophiles] can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process” and how the popular perceptions of pedophiles can be reframed to encourage tolerance..." (See here).

For years I have been warning that the Reign of Antichrist will witness a celebration of sin and perversion the likes of which few can imagine. Pleasure is the new principle par excellence. When I wrote [several years ago] that, "If pleasure can justify homosexual behavior (and increasingly that is what our sin-sick society is saying), then other deviant forms of sexual activity which are viewed as pleasurable by some will also be logically justified. This will include pedophilia, pederasty, ephebophilia, gerontophilia, necrophilia, sadism, masochism and bestiality," I was mocked by homosexual activists.

As noted here, Homosexual Alfred Kinsey, the USA's preeminent sexual researcher, found in 1948 that 37 percent of all male homosexuals admitted to having sex with children under 17 years old.


A recent 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 6-20 times higher among pedophiles.'

Another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that '... all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories.' These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old.

A third 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 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 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 'eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.'


Culture in crisis!

The well-documented and strong correlation between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse

Brian Clowes, in an essay entitled "Homosexuality and the Church Crisis," explains that, "Due to clergy sex abuse scandals centered primarily in the Northern hemisphere, the moral authority of the Roman Catholic Church has been subjected to an opportunistic siege by prominent individuals and organizations who see the chance to advance their goals, including the ordination of women and the suspension of the requirement for priestly celibacy.


There is also a strongly defensive element to this strategy. Opponents of the Church know that there is a well-documented and strong correlation between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse, but claim that there is no evidence supporting this connection.

And, of course, those who are currently attacking the Church hope that they can undermine its moral authority to preach on the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and weaken its opposition to ersatz homosexual 'marriage.'

This paper demonstrates that there is indeed a very strong link between male homosexuality and child sexual abuse. It also shows that there is a similar rate of child sexual abuse among other very large groups of adult males (e.g., Protestant clergy, who are usually married), thus proving that celibacy is not the root of the problem — homosexuality is...

A very small number of Catholic priests and other leaders have taken advantage of their positions of authority and influence in order to gain sexual favors or to take advantage of the helpless. The problem of clerical child sexual molestation, particularly in the United States and Europe, has been widely exposed and publicized over the past decade.

During the crisis currently being discussed, homophile activists within and outside the Catholic Church have done everything they can to divert attention away from even the possibility that there may be a higher percentage of homosexuals among the priesthood than in the general public, and that this may be the root cause of the problem of child sexual molestation within the Church. These activists particularly seek to deny the link between homosexuality and child sexual molestation.

For example, the dissenting organization 'Dignity USA' kicked off its 'Stop Blaming Gay Priests' campaign in 2002. The group said 'DigntyUSA [sic] is calling on the U.S. Catholic bishops to stop blaming gay priests for the clergy sexual abuse scandal. All credible evidence discounts any link between the molestation of children and homosexuality.'

More recently, Tarcisio Cardinal Bertone, the Holy See's Secretary of State, suggested that there is a link between homosexuality and child sexual abuse. 'Gay' groups all over the world reacted with horror and fury, and echoed what Dignity USA had said years before. As one example, Rolando Jiminéz, president of Chile's Movement for Homosexual Integration and Liberation, said that 'No reputable study exists to support the cardinal's claims.'

The situation has become so charged that anyone who even suggests that there may be a connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse is instantly and reflexively labeled a 'homophobe' and a 'gay basher.' The powerful homosexual lobby reacts instinctively to negative publicity and information by "ritually defaming" those who dare raise their voices. Organized homosexual groups and their supporters first attempt to ignore the evidence, or, if it simply cannot be disregarded, aggressively smear and discredit those who produced it.

Such wholesale dismissal of documented facts, and the accompanying refusal to even discuss the possibility of a link between an active homosexual lifestyle and child sexual abuse, is a grave disservice not only to the victims, but to society at large. Obviously, a proven link between homosexual orientation and child sexual molestation would badly damage the carefully crafted public relations image of the 'gay rights' movement. Therefore, instead of calmly and rationally discussing the issues, homosexual rights leaders subscribe to the axiom 'the best defense is a good [and loud] offense.' They remain in a permanent attack mode.

In general, the media and liberal groups seem almost pathologically careful to avoid stereotyping an entire group of people because of the actions of just a few. For example, we are told repeatedly that we must not perceive jihadists as representing Islam. Yet, when dealing with the Catholic Church, the media and others cast even the vestiges of decency and restraint to the wind. As one example, a writer described the Vatican as 'an international criminal conspiracy to protect child rapists.' Naturally, the Pope is singled out for the most vicious and ridiculous abuse. According to The Irish Times, 'Pope Benedict has made worse just about everything that is wrong with the Roman Catholic Church and is directly responsible for engineering the global cover-up of child rape perpetrated by priests.'

The only way to get at the root of the problem of priestly child molestation is to ignore this smear campaign and proceed methodically. We must first objectively study all facts relating to the situation, and then muster the courage to respond by taking the appropriate steps. If this is not done, any effort to address the problem, no matter how well intentioned or vigorously pursued, will be utterly squandered.

Certainly we owe it to the victims — and to the Catholic Church itself — to determine the truth behind this volatile topic...Dignity USA and other homosexual groups strenuously deny any connection whatever between a homosexual orientation and child sexual molestation. They repeatedly claim that 'All credible evidence discounts any link between the molestation of children and homosexuality.'

Yet these groups seem curiously reluctant to cite this 'credible evidence.'

In fact, a number of studies performed over a period spanning more than half a century — many of which were performed by homosexuals or their sympathizers — have shown that an extremely large percentage of sexually active homosexuals also participate in child sexual molestation.

This is not 'homophobia' or 'hatred.' This is mere scientific fact. For example:

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

A recent 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 6-20 times higher among pedophiles.'

Another recent study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that '... all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories.' These age categories were fifteen and twenty years old.

A third 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 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 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 'eighty-six percent of [sexual] offenders against males described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.'

A study by The Institute for Sex Research, which was founded by Alfred Kinsey, determined that 25% of white homosexual men have had sex with boys sixteen years and younger.

There are occasional desultory attempts to deny or obscure the fact that a disproportionately high percentage of active homosexuals sexually molest children. These studies are invariably afflicted with one or more fatal flaws.

A typical example, oft quoted by 'gay rights' activists, is the July 1994 Pediatrics article by Jenny, Roesler and Poyer that says 'Using the data from our study, the 95% confidence limits of the risk children would identify recognizably homosexual adults as the potential abuser, are from 0% to 3.1%. These limits are within current estimates of the prevalence of homosexuality in the general community.'

The fatal flaw of this study is that it examined sexually abused children with a mean age of just 6.1 years. Children this young are usually targets of true pedophiles, those persons with no sexual attraction to adults of either sex. By contrast, homosexual pedophiles are usually classified as 'ephebophiles,' persons sexually attracted to pubescent or post pubescent children."  See full essay here.

The dishonesty of the homosexual hate movement continues unabated.  One radical homosexual propaganda Blog is a prime example of this.  See here.  Last year I documented how a priest from the Archdiocese of Boston criticized Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone for saying that homosexuality is at the root of the clerical abuse crisis.  See here.  Father Emile Boutin was later arrested and charged with indecent assault against another male.

If it's the truth which sets us free (John 8:32), why is our culture so afraid of pursuing the truth about male homosexuality and child sexual abuse?

Archbishop John C. Nienstedt denies Holy Communion to Homosexual Activists

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, warns that even where homosexual unions have been legalized, "clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." (No. 5).  This important document stresses that, "any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws" and even any "material cooperation on the level of their application" must be avoided.  "In this area," states the document, "everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection."

Considerations makes it abundantly clear that, "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to considerations of homosexual unions." (No. 11).  In other words, there can be no doubt that all Catholics have a moral duty to oppose the homosexual agenda.  Homosexual activists are not properly disposed to receive the Eucharist, which is "properly the sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1395; Canon 915, CIC).

Since all Catholics have a moral duty to oppose the homosexual agenda, Father Thomas Massaro's involvement with the Cambridge Peace Commission may be seen as all the more disturbing.  As I noted in a previous post:

It should be noted that Father Massaro is a member of the Cambridge Peace Commission, an organization intimately linked with the GLBT agenda.  Recently the Cambridge Lavender Alliance honored Cathy Hoffman of the Cambridge Peace Commission for her "exemplary activism."  Additionally, this past May the Cambridge Peace Commission held its 12th Cambridge Peace and Justice Awards and an award was given to Sarav Chidambaram of the Cambridge GLBT Commission.  Mr. Chidambaram "was chosen for his work as an advocate and activist within the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender community." 

Mr. Chidambaram is on the Board of Directors of MassEquality, a radical homosexual activist group which promotes same-sex "marriage."  Did Fr. Massaro vote for Mr. Chidambaram to receive an award for his homosexual activism?  Is Cardinal Sean O'Malley concerned at all about this?

The Homosexual Hate Movement: Another form of totalitarianism

Pope John Paul II, in "Memory and Identity: Conversations at the Dawn of a Millennium," notes how, "If, on the one hand, the West continues to provide evidence of zealous evangelization, on the other hand anti-evangelical currents are equally strong. They strike at the very foundation of human morality, influencing the family and promoting a morally permissive outlook: divorce, free love, abortion, contraconception, the fight against life in its initial phases and in its final phase, the manipulation of life. This program is supported by enormous financial resources, not only in individual countries, but also on a worldwide scale. It has great centers of economic power at its disposal, through which it attempts to impose its own conditions on developing countries. Faced with this, one may legitimately ask whether this is not another form of totalitarianism, subtly concealed under the appearances of democracy." (p. 48).

The Homosexual Hate Movement is indeed totalitarian. It seeks to impose its agenda and to punish those who refuse to accept or condone illicit same-sex relationships. For example, British and Canadian homosexual activists want to punish the African State of Malawi because it will not recognize same-sex liaisons. See here.

Radical homosexual activists are engaged in a psychological attack in the form of propaganda aimed at those who are opposed to homosexuality. Their goal is to convert the mind and the will. As homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen explain in their book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90s," "Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference; Jamming attempts to blockade pr counteract the rewarding 'pride in prejudice'..by attaching to homohatred a pre-existing, and punishing, sense of shame in being a bigot....Both Desensitization and Jamming...are mere preludes to our highest - though necessarily very long-range - goal, which is Conversion. It isn't enough that antigay bigots should become confused about us, or even indifferent to us - we are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this...By Conversion we actually mean something far more profoundly threatening to the American Way of Life, without which no truly sweeping social change can occur. We mean conversion of the average American's emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack , in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media." (p. 153).

The Homosexual Hate Movement is, by its own admission, engaged in psychological warfare through the use of propaganda to convert people to its agenda. And even that this conversion is "profoundly threatening to the American way of life." And when these radical activists fail to get their way, as we've witnessed in California and in other parts of the country, they can become violent. Indeed, this hate movement will use and all means - including economic sanctions - to impose its ideology. And that is totalitarianism.

Related reading here.