WIXLIB

PRELIMINARY REMARKSIn writing this book, we have no intention to defame ordisparage anyone. We are not moved by personal hatredagainst any individual. In intellectually opposing individualsor organizations promoting the homosexual agenda, our onlyintent is the defense of marriage, the family and the preciousremnants of Christian civilization in society.As practicing Catholics, we are filled with compassion andpray for those who struggle against unrelenting and violenttemptation to sin, be it toward homosexual sin or otherwise. Indescribing the physical, moral and spiritual consequences ensuingfrom sins of the flesh, we hope to counsel them away from sin,and provide them with insight to the necessity and beauty of thevirtue of chastity that some may have never known.We pray for those who fall into homosexual sin out ofhuman weakness, that God may assist them with His grace.May they rise again, healed by a gaze from Our Divine Savior,to fall no more. In denouncing the ideology that pervades thehomosexual movement, we hope to help them see how themovement may be exploiting them in its pursuit of ideologicalobjectives with which they may not agree.We are conscious of the enormous difference between theseindividuals who struggle with their weaknesses and strive toovercome them and others who transform their sin into a reason for pride, and try to impose their lifestyle on society as awhole, in flagrant opposition to traditional Christian moralityand natural law.However, we pray even for these. Yes, we pray for the radicalactivists pushing the homosexual agenda, even as we do everything permitted by law to block their efforts. We pray that,through the intercession of Mary Most Holy, the grace Godgave Saint Paul on the road to Damascus be given them aswell, so that they may come to see the errors they promote,sincerely reject them, convert to God and join us.

xviPRELIMINARY REMARKSIf, in the heat of the debate, what some might consider asharp expression or caustic remark slipped by, it is not intentional. In this debate of national magnitude, dealing with amost grave and complex issue rife with delicate philosophicaland theological nuances, one is not always successful informulating ideas with the required needlepoint precision. Thisdifficult task is further complicated by the time constraintsimposed by galloping events.In short, according to the famous expression attributed toSaint Augustine, we “hate the sin but love the sinner.”1 And tolove the sinner, as the same Doctor of the Church explains, isto wish for him the best we can possibly desire for ourselves,namely, “that he may love God with a perfect affection.”2* * *We will also not use the word gay as a synonym of homosexual, except when quoted, because the universal acceptanceof this usage is a victory for the homosexual movement. In itsbattle for public acceptance, the movement shunned the wordhomosexual because of its association with morally reprehensible behavior. While efforts to replace it with the wordhomophile were not successful, the acceptance of the word gaywas a valuable homosexual victory in the Cultural War. Prof.Livio Melina of the Pontifical Lateran University in Romeclaims the word gay “is highly politicized and does not simplymean a homosexually oriented person but one who publiclyadopts a homosexual ‘lifestyle’ and is committed to having itaccepted by society as fully legitimate.”3* * *1. Cf. Commentary on Psalm 119, www.ccel.org/schaff/npnf108.ii.CXIX.xv.html.2. St. Augustine, Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, no. 49, www.newadvent.org/fathers/1401.htm.3. Prof. Livio Melina, “Christian Anthropology and Homosexuality: Moral criteriafor evaluating homosexuality,” L’Osservatore Romano, weekly English edition,Mar. 12, 1997, p. 5.

xviiThe indiscriminate use of the word homosexual and itssynonyms has generated much confusion in the public.Many times, it is unclear if it refers to someone with same-sexattraction only or if it refers to someone who practiceshomosexual acts.This confusion favors the homosexual agenda. We cannotequate people with same-sex attraction who resist it and arechaste with those who engage in homosexual behavior. Theseare two distinct and essentially different moral realities.Thus, we will use homosexual to refer only to those whopractice homosexual acts and thereby deserve moral reprobation.* * *References to or quotes from persons, organizations, institutions or publications do not necessarily mean that we agreewith their philosophical or religious positions. We adherefirmly to the Catholic Faith and morals and to the philosophiaperennis, especially in its Thomistic expression.* * *For documentation purposes, we reference some web sitesand publications with objectionable content and, therefore,feel obliged to warn the reader.

INTRODUCTIONThe Supreme Court’s June 26, 2003 decision in Lawrencev. Texas effectively denied the existence of God’s EternalLaw and natural law, and established its own atheistic andanarchic “morality.”1The 6-3 majority recognized liberty as the supreme norm ofhuman thought and action. “At the heart of liberty is the rightto define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of theuniverse, and of the mystery of human life.”2 In the name ofthis absolute freedom, the Court established a constitutionallyprotected right to the private practice of sodomy. Moreover,the bench erected the legal constructs for a future decisiongranting constitutional protection to same-sex “marriage”when it made the following assertions:Liberty presumes an autonomy of self thatincludes certain intimate conduct .3Adults may choose to enter upon this relationshipin the confines of their homes and their own privatelives and still retain their dignity as free persons.When sexuality finds overt expression in intimateconduct with another person, the conduct can be butone element in a personal bond that is more enduring.The liberty protected by the Constitution allows1. Emmanuel Kant formulated this anarchic “morality” in all its radicalism: “Aperson is properly subject to no other laws than those he lays down himself,either alone or in conjunction with others.” Emmanuel Kant, Introduction to theMetaphysic of Morals, ethics.acusd.edu/Books/Kant/MetaMorals/NS/KantMM NS.htm.2. Lawrence, Opinion of the Court, p. 13. Here the Court quotes its decision inPlanned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey. In this book, quotes from theSupreme Court’s decision in Lawrence v. Texas are from the slip opinion available at df and are cited as “Lawrence,” the specific judicial opinion, and the opinion page number.3. Lawrence, Opinion of the Court, p. 1.

2INTRODUCTIONhomosexual persons the right to make this choice .4Persons in a homosexual relationship may seekautonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexualpersons do.5Given the premise of absolute liberty and “autonomy ofself,” the ruling’s limitation of the new right to the practice ofsodomy to people within “the confines of their homes” cannotbe logically or long maintained. As Justice Antonin Scaliarightly noted in his dissenting opinion, this Supreme Courtruling effectively decreed “the end of all morals legislation.”6A CLASH OF TWO AMERICASJustice Scalia further observed in his dissent that theSupreme Court had taken “sides in the culture war.”7This Cultural War divides America.On one side, there is a large sector of the American publicwhich has long grieved over the abandonment of God’s morallaws. These are Americans who subscribe to the generalunwritten rule held since our founding that God must berevered, not offended, and that the source of our greatness isthis reverence, and obedience to a Christian moral code basedon the Ten Commandments and natural law.For this Ten Commandments America, it is only too obviousthat if America turns its back on God and His law, God willturn His back on America.On the other side, there is a liberal America that subscribesto the philosophical principle of absolute liberty. This leads tothe establishment of an atheistic and anarchic “morality,”which shows increasing intolerance for what still remains of4.5.6.7.Ibid., p. 6.Ibid., p. 13.Lawrence, Scalia, J. dissenting, p. 15.Ibid., p. 18.

3Christian civilization and the natural order in our culture andsociety. Among these precious remnants are the sacred institutions of marriage and the family.SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE,” A DECISIVESTEP IN THE HOMOSEXUAL OFFENSIVECiting Lawrence as precedent, the Massachusetts SupremeJudicial Court ruled November 18, 2003, in Goodridge v.Department of Public Health, that two men or two womenhave a right to marriage under the constitution of the Bay State.Like Lawrence, the Massachusetts Goodridge decisionreverberated throughout the land. It multiplied the problemscreated five months earlier by the Supreme Court’s decisionand riveted the attention of all on the homosexuality debate.Both decisions were of vital importance to the homosexualmovement. Indeed, the movement must persuade public opinionthat homosexuality is normal, albeit different. However, homosexuality will never be fully accepted as normal as long ashomosexual partners cannot “marry.” Thus, the movement gradually strives to reach this psychological milestone. Since it cannot achieve same-sex “marriage” immediately, the movementworks for civil unions, domestic partnerships or partnership benefits, all of which are packaged as concessions, but actually arestepping stones across the river of public opposition.STRATEGIES FOR VICTORYThe successful defense of traditional marriage and thefamily by Ten Commandments America will halt the homosexual offensive. However, to be victorious, the broad coalitionnow defending marriage and the family in this Cultural Warmust work hard to dispel the confusion shrewdly spreadaround the issue by the homosexual movement. We must refutethe sophisms, myths and doctrinal errors that psychologically

4INTRODUCTIONhinder many Americans from joining us in the fray.The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Familyand Property (TFP) is publishing this book as a contribution tothe coalition’s overall effort. In this work, we will delve into thehomosexual movement’s agenda and its short- and long-termobjectives. We will discuss its tactics, answer its arguments anduntwist the misleading spin romanticizing the homosexuallifestyle. We will show how the movement has a worldviewbased on a false morality and a neopagan mystical eroticismthat is completely opposed to Christianity and natural law.SOCIETY’S MORALFOUNDATIONS MUST BE RESTOREDThe most profound reason for the homosexual movement’simpressive victories, however, lies not in its strength, but in ourweakness. This weakness is the result of a gradual decades-longeffort to blur the distinction between good and evil, or right andwrong. This effort has led to a generalized loss of the sense ofsin, and, consequently, declining standards of public morality.An effective reaction to the homosexual offensive muststrive, therefore, to reverse this underlying moral problem. Itmust reinvigorate society’s moral foundations, which must befirmly based on the Ten Commandments and unchangingnatural law. It must create the moral climate whereby homosexuality will be rejected.To the measure that Christian morality is restored inindividuals and society as a whole, the homosexual offensivewill weaken and eventually suffocate, like a raging firedeprived of oxygen.Then will God reign in the hearts of men, and the countrycan expect from His bounty every grace and blessing. Then,whatever courts may rule, America will in fact be “one nationunder God.”

PART IThe Homosexual Revolution

CHAPTER 1The Homosexual Movement:Imposing a Moral RevolutionThroughout history, groups of homosexuals have at timesacquired political and especially cultural influence.Perhaps the most striking example is the group of homosexualor bisexual artists and writers who left their mark on theRenaissance. They reintroduced the so-called Greek vice1 inliterature and the fine arts. This was particularly noticeable inthe latter where the obsession with masculine nudity led artiststo flaunt it in the most revealing poses. Both masculine andfeminine figures manifested a clearly androgynous note. Inspite of their bulging muscles, painting and sculptures of menshowed them with a soft and effeminate character, while thoseof women displayed unbecoming masculinity.2FOR THE FIRST TIME SOCIETYFACES A HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENTFor the first time, however, in the history of the ChristianWest, and perhaps humanity, society faces not just scatteredgroups of influential homosexuals, but an organized, visiblemovement of avowed homosexuals who not only boast oftheir habits but unite in an attempt to impose their ideologyon society.This is the homosexual movement—a vast network oforganizations, pressure groups, radical intellectuals and1. This is the name given to homosexuality because of its pervasiveness inancient Greece.2. Aretino, a humanist writer, wrote Michelangelo in 1542 praising his painting ofVenus because “it depicted a goddess whose female body had ‘the male’s musculature, such that she is moved by virile and womanly feelings.’” European -:Renaissance, www.glbtq.com/arts/eur art7 renaissance,3.html; Cf. James M.Saslow, Ganymede in the Renaissance: Homosexuality in Art and Society (NewHaven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1986); Luciano Bottoni, Leonardo el’Androgino (Milan: Franco Angeli, 2002).

8CHAPTER 1activists who strive to impose changes in laws, customs,morals and mentalities, so that homosexuality is not onlytolerated but also accepted as good and normal. Hence, movement activists pressure society to legalize both the practiceand the public manifestations of homosexuality, such as samesex “marriage,” while relentlessly assailing those who defendtraditional morals.3NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT,BUT A MORAL REVOLUTIONMany believe the cultural battle over homosexuality isstrictly a matter of civil rights. The homosexual movementdoes not despise the tactical advantages this perceptionsecures. However, it seeks much more: a complete inversionof public morality. Writing in the Chicago Free Press,homosexual activist Paul Varnell affirms:The fundamental controverted issue about homosexuality is not discrimination, hate crimes or domestic partnerships, but the morality of homosexuality.Even if gays obtain non-discrimination laws, hatecrimes law and domestic partnership benefits, thosecan do little to counter the underlying moral condemnation which will continue to fester beneath the lawand generate hostility, fuel hate crimes, supportconversion therapies, encourage gay youth suicideand inhibit the full social acceptance that is our goal.3. For example, the web site of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force offers abooklet titled Know Thy Enemy: Quotes About the Sodomy Ruling and theSame-Sex Marriage Backlash, July 28, 2003, by Michelle Klemens and Sheri A.Lunn. The site summarizes the book, saying: “The first in a series of compendiums exposing the vitriolic reactions of those who would deny lesbian, gay,bisexual and transgender people equal rights under the law. This report compilesquotes by everyone from Jerry Falwell to Rick Santorum and will be updatedonline on a regular basis.” www.ngltf.org/library/index.cfm.

THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT9On the other hand, if we convince people thathomosexuality is fully moral, then all their inclinationto discriminate, engage in gay-bashing or oppose gaymarriage disappears. Gay youths and adults couldreadily accept themselves.So the gay movement, whether we acknowledgeit or not, is not a civil rights movement, not even asexual liberation movement, but a moral revolutionaimed at changing people’s view of homosexuality.44. Paul Varnell, “Defending Our Morality,” Chicago Free Press, Aug. 16, ll37.html. (Our emphasis.)

CHAPTER 2Making the Link No One Wants to MakeTo understand the current homosexual revolution properly,we must see it within the broader picture of the sexualrevolution.Chastity, modesty and temperance—distinctive signs ofChristian civilization—have given way to an unbridled quest forcarnal pleasure and an unimaginable display of the human body.This obsession for the sexual permeates our culture. Be itliterature, fashion, entertainment, advertising or simplycommon speech and behavior, almost everything today isbranded with this erotic stamp. Today’s hypersexualizedworld has become a perfect hotbed for every form of sexualaberration.DETACHING SENTIMENT FROM REASONThe sexual revolution of the sixties was prepared by acentury of cultural developments where sentiment wasdetached from reason. In this regard, the Romantic School ofliterature and the arts celebrated a general exaltation ofemotion over reason and the senses over the intellect.In so doing, romance and love became the highest ideal. Inthe name of love and passion, every rule and social conventioncould be broken. When applied to morality, this mentality wasdevastating, since adultery and even prostitution could berationalized and even acclaimed.11. George P. Landow, Professor of English and Art History at Brown University,writes about the philosophical and religious implications of Romanticism: “Forthe first time, philosophers no longer urged that the healthy human mind isorganized hierarchically with reason, like a king, ruling will and passions.Reason now shares rule with feelings or emotions For art and literature: theemotions become the proper subject of the arts For religion: Christianity’sdoctrine of Original Sin and human depravity must be wrong. Christianity andreligion in general appear founded on an error.” Emotionalist Moral Philosophy:Sympathy and the Moral Theory that Overthrew Kings, www.victorianweb.org/philosophy/phil4.html.

12CHAPTER 2Such themes mark modern literature. Thousands of romanticnovels and films present highly emotive and sentimental plots.A typical example of this is Alexandre Dumas’s novel The Ladyof the Camellias (1848), which revolves around a glamorousupper class prostitute. Despite its blatantly immoral characters,the novel enjoyed huge success worldwide. Verdi turned it intoan opera, La Traviata (1853), which enjoyed equal success.Later, the novel inspired several Hollywood movies, the mostfamous being Camille (1936) starring Greta Garbo.THE SEXUAL REVOLUTION:FROM SENTIMENT TO CARNAL SENSATIONThis prolonged overemphasis on sentiment and the erosionof morals prepared the way for the next step: the unbridled,hedonistic pleasure of the senses. This was pleasure sought forits own sake—even when unaccompanied by sentiment oremotion—simply because it felt good.In 1953, Hugh Hefner founded Playboy. Unabashedly hedonistic, this magazine “was a seminal influence on the ‘sexualrevolution’ of the 1960s.”2Another contributing factor was the discovery and massmarketing of the contraceptive pill:In May 1960, the FDA approved the sale of a pillthat arguably would have a greater impact on Americanculture than any other drug in the nation’s history. Forwomen across the country, the contraceptive pill wasliberating: it allowed them to pursue careers, fueled thefeminist and pro-choice movements and encouragedmore open attitudes towards sex.32. S.v. “Hefner, Hugh,” in Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, www.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu 392129.3. www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/f

Resist Same-Sex “Marriage” and the Homosexual Movement, the TFP has raised issues which have long been suppressed in the dialogue over this question. It is an excellent primer for anyone wishing to understand the church's historical position on homosexuality. It is the definitive an