Johns Hopkins pediatric neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson got his scalpel in a wringer last Tuesday when he told Sean Hannity of Fox News that “marriage is between a man and a woman. No group, be they gays, be they NAMBLA, be they people who believe in bestiality, it doesn’t matter what they are, they don’t get to change the definition.”
John Fund, in the National Review Online, relates how Dr. Carson’s “… inappropriate comparison of gays to members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association and those who practice bestiality, along with his pointed criticisms of liberal policies at the prayer breakfast, prompted a petition demanding that he be replaced with another commencement speaker.”
Carson responded by telling the Baltimore Sun:
I think people have completely taken the wrong meaning out of what I was saying. First of all, I certainly believe gay people should have all the rights that anybody else has. What I was basically saying is that as far as marriage is concerned that has traditionally been between a man and a woman and nobody should be able to change that.
Now perhaps the examples were not the best choice of words, and I certainly apologize if I offended anyone . . . But the point that I was making was that no group of individuals, whoever they are, whatever their belief systems, gets to change traditional definitions. The reason I believe the way I do, I will readily confess, is because I am a Christian who believes in The Bible.
Was Dr. Carson’s juxtaposition of ‘gay’, ‘NAMBLA’ and ‘bestiality’ really a comparison? Even if it was, should it be summarily dismissed as ‘inappropriate’ without any examination of the history of the “gay rights” movement and its now very well hidden underbelly? Why worry about offending gays when gays often go out of their way to offend or be “in your face”? It’s often their modus operandi as should be obvious from this posting about a subsidiary of San Francisco’s Folsom Street Fair, the 2008 “Up Your Alley” frolic, about “The Politics of Exhibitionism and Public Sex.” (Not for the faint of heart or weak of stomach.)
Criticism of the gay political agenda, including any mention of what really comprises the gay “lifestyle,” has essentially been stricken from the public record. This is most unfortunate at a time when the Supreme Court is considering the issue of gay marriage and there exists a very real possibility of it being imposed upon society, whatever the consequences. And so, I have taken it upon myself to provide access to what is not otherwise easily found.
In the Spring of 2002, the Regent University Law Review published an issue titled “Homosexuality: Truth be Told.” I happened upon it and download the articles in February of 2005 prior to the time they went behind a paywall. Here’s the editor’s introductory note:
We did not aspire to publish these articles. We did not seek them out. They sought us out. They sought us out because their ideas are shocking-too shocking to be printed elsewhere. They are shocking because they speak the truth, a truth that certain groups do not want to be told and will hate us for printing.
Somebody had to tell the truth. We take no pleasure in it. We would rather these articles had been published elsewhere. Elsewhere they might have been afforded more credibility. Some well-intentioned people may dismiss these articles because they are associated with a Christian law school. Some ill-intentioned people may maliciously label our law review and the authors as bigots, religious homophobes, or much worse. We are nothing of the sort. And the authors are all intelligent, highly-credentialed professionals. For example, Dr. George Rekers is Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science in the University of South Carolina School of Medicine; Dean Byrd is a clinical professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Utah School of Medicine. And the list goes on.
We apologize in advance for the graphic nature of this publication. We say that, not out of some affected prudishness, but because we are genuinely appalled. We are appalled at the virtual sewer of source material that our staff had to wade through in order to verify the authors’ research. We are most appalled, however, to discover that this graphic sexual material is being involuntarily foisted on school children.
By failing to tell both sides of the story, law reviews have abdicated their responsibility to the legal community. Law reviews are meant to be dialogues on the law. Freedom of thought and speech suffer, however, when one side of a debate is dismissed for not being politically correct or is suppressed by a powerful lobby. We find the Orwellian implications of this academic taboo quite disturbing. Ultimately, the law and society will be the worse for it.
So we are left with the unpopular job of setting the record straight. The legal community has a right to know, among other things, that a link exists between homosexuality and the sexual abuse of children, that the American Psychiatric Association was hijacked by homosexual activists, that homosexuality is being marketed to children, that studies claiming that homosexual parenting does not harm children are questionable, that homosexuality is not immutable, and that homosexual advocates are calling for the legalization of pedophilia. This issue of the Regent University Law Review is intended to provide a forum, a voice for this crucial information that might not otherwise be printed. Therefore, we present, “Homosexuality: Truth be Told.”
David Lee Mundy
Here’s footnote no. 1 to Mundy’s note:
This issue of the Regent University Law Review features several articles that were previously slated to appear in a homosexual rights symposium published by the Stanford Law & Policy Review, 12 STAN. L. & POL’Y REV 1 (2001), but were summarily rejected because of their conservative perspective. See Ty Clevenger, Gay Orthodoxy and Academic Heresy, 14 REGENT U. L. REV. 241 (2002).
So much for Stanford as a Fountain of Truth. (Puddle of Veritas in Harvard’s case?)
Dr. Judith Reisman’s article, “Crafting Bi/Homosexual Youth,” starts out:
Based on its free speech privileges, the American press is charged with providing a “window to the world” by which the polity may locate the source of a social malaise, evaluate and correct it. But, if establishment media–news and entertainment–broadcasts disinformation and conceals adverse information about a matter or malaise, then the Fourth Estate becomes an unelected fifth column directing law and public policy. Philip Kotler’s classic work Marketing Management documents how controlled news is used to “both stimulate public opinion and miseducate” it. Rodgers and Kotler report that in a media campaign, two and one-half percent of our social leaders often sway roughly thirteen percent of the public early-on who later move another thirty-four percent, and so on until a majority accept and adapt to the proffered new product or idea.
Media portrayal–positive or negative–can have a profound impact on public perception. For example, the 1969 Stonewall Riots in New York are widely considered to have been a turning point for homosexuality. The riots are widely perceived to have been a response to police harassment of innocent homosexual patrons in a gay bar. However, the riots actually were the result of a police raid on a center for drug trafficking, boy prostitution, and pederasts. In that vein, this article will offer evidence of widespread media and academic censorship and misrepresentation, the end result of which is a controlled and distorted public debate about homosexuality, now called “gay” rights.
If you have an interest in the full series of articles, they may be download here. However, shelf life is uncertain.