New government data show homosexuality is far less common than most LGBT activists claimed for decades, and a fraction of what most Americans believe
A Convenient Lie:Homosexual activist Kevin Jennings is just one of many homosexual activists who used the “10 Percent” myth, rooted in Alfred Kinsey’s discredited research, to greatly exaggerate the number of homosexuals in America. Jennings’ book title would be far less compelling if it were “One Teacher in 45,” to better represent the actual number of homosexuals and bisexuals in society.
By Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH Special Report
The first-ever major U.S. Government survey to present “nationally representative data on sexual orientation” finds that only 1.6 percent of Americans identify as “gay” or “lesbian,” while .7 percent identify as “bisexual.” This is about considerably less than the much-ballyhooed, decades-old LGBT claim that 10 percent of society is “gay.”
Almost 98 percent of the 35,557 survey respondents identified themselves as “straight” or “not gay,” according to the survey by the federal National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). It also found significant health and behavior disparities between heterosexuals and self-described gays, lesbians and bisexuals. For example, the latter were much more likely to be heavy drinkers than straights.
So much for ‘10 percent’
The 2.3 percent gay-lesbian-bisexual figure is far below the “10 percent gay” number that has been advanced for decades by homosexual activists and their allies—dating back to the discredited sex research of Alfred Kinsey, who vastly over-sampled sexual adventurers and deviants (including criminals). The “10 Percent” ploy suggested homosexuality was far more common—and hence “normal”–than it actually was. Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, homosexual authors of the influential 1989 book After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in 90s (and relying on Kinsey’s fraudulent estimates), demonstrate how the myth was used for PR purposes:
If we must…pick a specific percentage for propaganda purposes, we may as well stick with the solidly conservative figure suggested by Kinsey decades ago: taking men and women together, at least 10% of the populace has demonstrated its homosexual proclivities so extensively that the proportion may reasonably be called ‘gay.’….
Straights do not appreciate that, with at least one-tenth of the public extensively involved in it, the practice of homosexuality may be a more commonplace activity in America than, say, bowling (6%), jogging (7%), golfing (5%), hunting (6%), reading drugstore romance novels (9%), or ballroom dancing (2%) on a regular basis. (Ballroom dancing—not that’s abnormal.)…
You should grasp clearly why America’s persistent underestimation of the number of homosexuals in its citizenry and core institutions is so dangerous to the cause of civil rights….Literally, the more the better. As Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Martin explain dryly in their classic study, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male
“To those who believe, as children do, that conformance should be universal, any departure from the rule becomes immorality. The immorality seems particularly gross to an individual who is unaware of the frequency with which exceptions to the supposed rule actually occur.”
Thus, when it comes to fighting the charge that homosexuality is statistically abnormal hence immoral, there is strength in numbers. [pp. 16-17, emphasis theirs]
Here I call it a myth, but the defiance with which homosexual activists like Kirk and Madsen so aggressively promulgated their “10 percent gay” factoid suggests that it could more aptly be called a lie, perhaps a useful political lie—which is to say, propaganda. (Another LGBT activist distortion is the oft-repeated claim that homosexuals, and now transgenders, are “born that way” despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.)
For example, Kevin Jennings, the founder of GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network, and a former Obama Department of Education appointee, titled one of his books, “One Teacher in Ten” (see graphic above)—which is far more compelling, from a “gay” activist perspective, than “One Teacher in 45.”
I have two observations about this excellent piece by my friend, Barbwire.com founder, and AFTAH Board Member Matt Barber: 1) I wish all Christians could possess Matt’s resolve in defending Truth; and 2) only a tiny minority of believers understand what is coming down the pike, persecution-wise, from the combination of treating homosexuality as a “civil right” and the court-imposed legalization of “gay marriage.” This is Big Government imposing immorality on us all, and we must fight it with great vigilance. – Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH.org
The Coming Christian Revolt
By Matt Barber, July 21, 2014
From behind a smoking sniper rifle high atop his ivory tower peers the secular “progressive.” He surveys his many victims, strewn across the American landscape below and mockingly sneers, “War on Christianity? What war on Christianity?”
Though there are many, it is plain for all to see that abortion and “sexual liberation” remain the two principal theaters in the ongoing culture war battlefront.
To fully advance the causes of radical feminism, abortion-on-demand, unfettered sexual license, gay marriage and the like, the pagan left must do away with religious free exercise altogether. Under the guise of “anti-discrimination,” Christians today face discrimination at unprecedented levels.
Let’s see if we can make this abundantly clear. Christians, true Christians—regenerate, Bible-believing Christians who strive their level best to maintain fidelity to the word of God and honor His commands—will not—indeed cannot—participate in, approve of, facilitate or encourage certain behaviors deemed by the Holy Scriptures to be immoral or sinful.
Court’s defense of religious liberty for profit-making companies could help Christian small businessmen oppressed by “gay rights” laws
Current U.S. Supreme Court: left to right in back: Sotomayor, Breyer, Alito, Kagan. Front, left to right: Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg. Alito wrote the Hobby Lobby decision, and Kennedy is lionized by “gay” activists for writing last year’s decision striking down DOMA. Click to enlarge.
By Peter LaBarbera
It’s easy to understand why hard-core feminists with their frenzied, overblown “War on Women” rhetoric would be outraged by the Supreme Court upholding Hobby Lobby’s right as a Christian-run corporation not to be forced to provide abortifacients to its employees through an Obama-care mandate. (See Hillary’s misinformation on the decision HERE.) But why are liberal “gay” activists freaking out over the Hobby Lobby ruling?
The case was never about denying women birth control, but you wouldn’t know that from the “reporting” by liberal media and hyperventilating “progressive” bloggers. Hobby Lobby still provides 16 forms of birth control as a health benefit to its employees, but its founders—along with another Christian-owned corporation, Conestoga Wood Specialists—sued HHS over being forced to provide four contraceptive methods that could terminate a fertilized egg.
Hobby Lobby’s founders, David and Barbara Green, are committed Christians who believe that life begins at conception and should be protected. To quote the Court decision, “Hobby Lobby’s statement of purpose commits the Greens to ‘[h]onoring the Lord in all [they] do by operating the company in a manner consistent with Biblical principles.’” So strong is the Greens’ commitment to Jesus Christ that they have lost countless millions of dollars in profits over the years by closing their 500 craft stores nationwide on Sunday.
Now, one would think that obtaining cheap, subsidized contraception would be low on the priority list for homosexuals, seeing that two men or two women by themselves cannot produce a child. Nevertheless, Big Gay Inc is in a tizzy over the Supreme Court decision—because Burwell vs. Hobby Lobbyisn’t really about contraceptives but rather whether Americans like the Greens will be free to live out their religious convictions.
Immediately after the decision, feminists flew into a rage, circulating crude versions of Justice Ginsburg’s dissent and distortions about women being denied birth control by their “male bosses.” Too bad most Americans will never read the actual Hobby Lobby decision—which lays out two diametrically opposed, competing visions about freedom of conscience and the role of government in these United States.
Freedom of conscience vs. Big Government
Hobby Lobby’s owners, David and Barbara Green, seek to use their business to glorify Jesus Christ. Their 500 stores across the country are closed on Sundays, costing the Greens many millions of dollars in profits.
On the side of preserving and even expanding Americans’ religious liberty were five judges: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas. In his concurring opinion Kennedy writes:
“In our constitutional tradition, freedom means that all persons have the right to believe or strive to believe in a divine creator and a divine law. For those who choose this course, free exercise is essential in preserving their own dignity and in striving for a self-definition shaped by their religious precepts. Free exercise in this sense implicates more than just freedom of belief….It means, too, the right to express those beliefs and to establish one’s religious (or non-religious) self-definition in the political, civic, and economic life of our larger community.”
On the other side—of Big Government overriding citizens’ religious beliefs, restricting conscience exemptions to federal mandates, and putting federal power behind expanded access to entitlements–were Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Breyer and Kagan. In fact, Ginsburg spends nearly two pages in her dissent [see pp. 24-25] defending the idea that Obama-care’s provision of subsidies for IUD’s (intrauterine devices) –one of the four contraceptives resisted by Hobby Lobby as a potential abortifacient—is a “compelling government interest.”
As much as Ginsburg believes the majority’s “immoderate” reading of Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is too broad, hers is too narrow: she ends by arguing that exemptions under the RFRA should be limited to explicitly religious organizations—leaving for-profit Christian businessmen like the Greens unprotected.
The bigger government gets–in both its “social justice” mission and the amount of goodies it gives out as “entitlements”—the greater the threat to Americans’ right to freely exercise their faith. This is precisely why homosexual activists are nervous about Hobby Lobby’s victory. If the nation’s highest court grants that even very large “closely held” family businesses like Hobby Lobby (which has more than 13,000 employees) possess a religious liberty claim under RFRA, then surely small family businesses like Elane Photography in New Mexico—owned by Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin—should have the right not to use their creative talents to serve homosexual “weddings,” which violate their Christian faith.
Jack Roeser, a phenomenally successful entrepreneur, leading Illinois conservative philanthropist and a faithful AFTAH and pro-family benefactor, passed away June 13 at the age of 90.
I got to know Jack long after he had achieved his business success. I remember a decade ago when he gave me a tour of Otto Engineering–which he started humbly in his basement in 1961 in Park Ridge, Illinois (childhood home of Hillary Rodham Clinton)–and which makes specialty electronic and communications products, including control switches for American fighter jets. Though by this point Jack was retired from day-to-day operations at Otto, he was hardly detached as he proudly explained the history of Otto, including products he invented that were still key to the company’s success.
It was Jack’s ingenuity and determination that builtOtto. A friend, relaying a conversation with Jack, told how he was awarded a coveted supplier contract by simply out-hustling much larger, competing corporations and by demonstrating Otto’s ability to rapidly turn around his innovative switch design. Jack was truly a classic American success story–a living testimony of what one person can accomplish in a free society that rewards hard work and creativity. [See this Breitbart tribute to Jack.]
A little-known legacy of Jack’s is how Otto’s continued growth and success dramatically transformed the small town of Carpentersville, Illinois, where it is based. Otto, now run by Jack’s son, Tom, employs around 600 people in its beautifully-restored factory complex on Main Street along the Fox River. In 2008, Tom and Jack launched a remarkable home renovation project, Homes by Otto, that has rejuvenated Carpentersville, one gutted-and-rebuilt house at a time. It is a model for private industry and charity doing efficiently what governments the world over have failed to do despite their profligate spending of taxpayer dollars (think HUD projects). [See this FOX News interview with Tom Roeser.]
So Jack’s legacy of productive and compassionate conservatism lives on through his son. I guess the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree after all.
You can watch a short video celebrating Jack’s fascinating life produced before his death below.
Fighting the Left
Jack was an engineering genius with more than 50 patents, but he was no fan of the Left’s social engineering. He possessed the wisdom and common sense of a more grounded and God-fearing generation that instinctively knows the difference between right and wrong. Scoffing at the idea of legal “same-sex marriage,” he didn’t need to be convinced of the immorality of homosexuality–and the folly of promoting it through the government as a “civil right.”
No ray of sunshine, no warm ocean breeze rustling through the palm leaves can bring cheer to Isla Vista. A cloud of sorrow covers the picturesque college town and seeps though every fastened gate, through every locked and bolted door, and pierces every bewildered heart.
Nothing is more precious than the life of a young woman who eagerly awaits the joys of life. And no hurt exceeds the pain of a father or mother who sees a cap and gown replaced by a funeral shroud.
America should weep bitter tears over this. America must. Like the Prodigal Son who abandoned his father’s ample table to feed on the husks of swine, America has exchanged traditional views on marriage and the family for an unworkable code of sexual liberation. Under this dubious code, each man and woman becomes a law unto himself. If anyone doubts this, let him contemplate the words of the perpetrator. In his final message to society, Elliot Rodger declared himself to be beyond the commands and prohibitions of any law, human or divine.
Elliot Rodger’s understanding of human existence and sexual morality was gleaned at random from pop culture, lurid movies, and violent video games. Far from regarding women as a helpmate, life-long companion, and future mother of his children–which is the Christian view of marriage–Rodger saw women as a potential sexual conquest, a sort of prey.
In my 30-year battle for the family and marriage, insofar as God gave me the strength and wisdom to do so, I warned of the extreme danger which results from a wrong understanding of human sexuality. My warnings were rejected, both by society at large and by the pro-family movement, as alarmist, intolerant, and divisive.
Even since the recent recording of this video interview by Monte Larrick of the Illinois Family Institute (published June 21, 2014 and recorded the week before), yet another Republican governor has capitulated to judicial activism on same-sex “marriage.” Go HERE for a local CBS-Pittsburgh TV news report on Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett deciding not to appeal U.S. District Court Judge John Jones III’s ruling imposing homosexual “marriages” on Pennsylvania. Note that Corbett–like Illinois GOP gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner, as well as Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder–does not want to discuss “gay marriage” publicly. Since when did defending marriage as between a man and a woman become the third rail in Republican politics?–Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH
Thank you to AFTAH Board Member John McCartney for concisely injecting some clarity into the recent tragic resignation of Brendan Eich as Mozilla CEO in the face of a pro-homosexual pressure campaign. The following open letter was sent to Mozilla employees in the last couple of weeks:
An Open Letter to Mozilla Employees
This letter is addressed to those who agitated against Brendan Eich’s promotion to Mozilla Firefox’s CEO. Considering that he was the business’s co-founder and the provider of your livelihood, right order would have required you to resign in protest, but that would have taken courage of your convictions, which was apparently in short supply at the time.
The issue: Eich’s donating $1,000 to [California's 2008] Proposition 8, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman, which is what marriage has generally been throughout the ages and ever should be. Same-sex “marriage” is an absurdity (Pope Francis calls it anthropological regression), which even “gays” joked about in the ’70′s. Proposition 8 was the people’s initiative opposing institutionalizing a man’s using another man as a woman, and a woman’s using another woman as a man. This has neither the support of nature, morality, normality, even health. Three hundred twenty-five thousand (325,000) men having sex with men (MSM) have died of HIV/AIDS since 1980. Of the 1.2 million HIV/AIDS victims in the United States, 532,000 are MSM–who comprise a mere 2 percent of the population. The malady is now spreading fastest among MSM 13-29 years old. What’s homosexual “marriage” going to do for this?
What the media don’t know and the “gay” community won’t admit (the American Psychiatric Association’s non-scientific pronouncement notwithstanding), is that “gay” activists are forcing on this country an adaptation to earlier trauma and/or emotional deprivation. Instead of focusing on the source of such, thereby gaining understanding leading to freedom, they are using politics and media to make it the norm. From this: Spare us, O, Lord.
President, Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (AFTAH)
For Mother’s Day Starbucks released the commercial below, voiced by Oprah Winfrey and hawking a new “Oprah Chai” tea. The ad celebrates all sorts of moms–including the “two moms are better than one mom”–shown with the affectionate lesbian “moms” at right and the “M’s” in “MOM” in what I suppose is an alphabetic homoerotic embrace (see :24 point in ad). [Watch ad on Starbucks YouTube page HERE.]
Messages like this no long shock a post-Christian America shaped in part by decadent corporations pandering to the highly organized LGBT lobby. Starbucks already has sold its corporate soul (is that an oxymoron?) to the homosexual agenda. Its executives made that clear in 2012 when they defiantly rebuffed a boycott threat by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and affirmed that support for homosexual “marriage” is a “core” Starbucks value.
The NOM “Dump Starbucks” boycott that followed seems anemic two years later (only 68,200 pledges)–but Starbucks [877-421-9062] remains a plump target for a more effectual and better organized boycott. Let’s face it: finding substitutes for overpriced yuppie coffee is pretty easy. We’ll see what happens, but one thing is certain: Starbucks execs are not backing down in their support of sexual sin and they surely aren’t acting like they fear the consumer power of mobilized religious conservatives.
As for the content of the ad, Oprah and Starbucks are dead wrong: Two lesbians “moms” are NOT better than one mom–especially one raising children with her husband and their father in a real marriage. And if higher numbers are better, wouldn’t three or four lesbian moms be best? We used to take it for granted that kids do better with a married mother and father, but now that’s a point of contention and marriage itself is being radically redefined. The reality is, this liberal social engineering is bad for kids: Kansas State professor Walter Schumm confirmed ”[Paul] Cameron’s (2006) hypothesis that gay and lesbian parents would be more likely to have gay, lesbian, bisexual or unsure (of sexual orientation) sons and daughters.”
As for single moms, our hearts go out to the many women who find themselves struggling to provide for their children with no dad in the house. But at least in most cases, single moms did not set out to deny their kids a father–just as single straight dads–unlike homosexual two-”dad” households–did not intentionally create motherless homes. And unlike those snuggling Starbucks lesbians in the ad below, single moms are not modeling deviant and immoral behavior condemned by God to their innocent children. –Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH