Homosexual Lobby Harasses Two Respected Professors Over Study Saying That Homosexuality Is A Lifestyle Choice

The homosexual movement has become very aggressive in the USA at the same time it has taken on an anti-intellectual character. Once just clamoring for “acceptance” and “love,” now the movement is demanding that people who express mere disagreement with their movement based on facts must be shunned and cast out even if they have no legitimate intellectual argument to counter and just feelings.

In a recent report, two major scholars are under heavy criticism by hundreds of fellow intellectual colleagues for criticising homosexual behavior, saying it was not something intrinsic but rather a lifestyle choice:

As previously reported, Paul McHugh, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins, and Johns Hopkins scholar-in-residence Lawrence Mayer authored a report on sexuality and gender published in The New Atlantis last August that, among other things, refuted claims that sexual orientation and gender dysphoria are caused by natural traits and innate behavior.

Although McHugh and Mayer’s report was not peer-reviewed, it cited many other peer-reviewed studies to help progress its arguments. The report also professes to be a “careful summary and an up-to-date explanation of research — from the biological, psychological, and social sciences — related to sexual orientation and gender identity.”

The report has been cited in a Supreme Court amicus brief filed by the conservative Liberty Counsel in support of a Virginia school district being sued by a transgender student for the right to use the bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with the student’s gender identity. The bill has also been cited by opponents of the proposed transgender bathroom non-discrimination legislation introduced in New Hampshire.

In light of the report being cited for justification to oppose proposed laws and judicial action, Lauren Beach, the the director of LGBTI Research at Vanderbilt University, released a letter signed by hundreds of scholars that criticizes The New Atlantis report because it is not peer-reviewed.

The letter claims that the report “misleads readers” and its “conclusions do not reflect current scientific or medical consensus about sexual orientation or gender identity research findings or clinical care recommendations.”

In an interview with The Christian Post on Tuesday, the 85–year-old McHugh said that “this is not a serious letter” because the objection that the signatories have to the report is not made clear.

“This letter is a very difficult letter to answer because the main point about this letter is that they just don’t like us,” McHugh said. “That’s all there is about this matter. I’m sorry they don’t like us but if they disagree with something specific, they should say so. They should make the specific objection clear to us. After all, we said in the article that we expected there to be ongoing discussion about our views, interpretation or even what the data should signify. Now, we expect something more than just saying, ‘We don’t agree with them and lots of other people don’t agree with them too.'”

The four-paragraph letter, which was finalized last Wednesday, was first reported on by The Daily Beast. Signatories include scholars and experts from Harvard Medical School, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, medical institutions, medical associations and various doctors and health professionals.

McHugh contended that the letter is just “an attempt to silence us and it won’t succeed.”

“That’s what it is. Left, right, center, what have you, I am disappointed that 600 people don’t like me,” he said. “But I would like them to explain what exactly in that article we got wrong and where the information is that we should have put in. We are not against anybody. We are a group of doctors talking about the treatment of patients.” (source)

The old doctor said the truth that was not meant to be spoken- there is nothing that can be answered because the argument being laid out is one of a difference of opinion and not a matter of fact.

Many years ago, there was a book written by Dr. Stanley Monteith about the AIDS crisis in the early 1980’s based on his experience in San Francisco as a doctor. The book was AIDS: The Unnecessary Epidemic, and copies of it can still be found around the Internet. In his book, which was veritably ignored at the time and even scorned to this day, he argued that the spread of HIV could be traced to the sodomite bath houses and homosexual activity, for which he argued that among other measures, at the very least the bath houses had to be shut down in the in the interest of public health. However, many other doctors and the state of California refused to heed anything he said, and as he noted by supporting the sodomite faction, they actively promoted the spread of HIV and created the AIDS epidemic today.

Dr. Monteith’s experience with standing up to the homosexual movement- even back in the late 1970s and early 1980s- found himself facing this problem that these doctors in this study today face. While they issues they are discussing are different, in both cases the medical facts that were the basis for their concern were not addressed at all but the person difference of opinion about the answer without presenting any facts in return. In spite of how many times such people will claim they “love science” and only want “the facts” in a situation, these people are not interested in facts unless they absolutely agree with their views and will condemn anything that disagrees with them.

I emphasize that the issue is not so much their disagreement with the facts or their opposition to it and having a different opinion whether or not their opinion is wrong or immoral- in truth, true freedom involves the ability to choose what is right which means that a man must be allowed to also reject it as well and likewise to be governed by the natural consequences of one’s decision. The issue with the homosexual lobby is that while they are choosing what is immoral and wrong, they are also attempting to at the same time prohibit people from making a choice different than theirs. They are attempting to use public opinion- peer pressure- to shame these scientists and anybody in general who disagrees with them into submitting to their viewpoints.

This also brings up another issue, which is the academic nonsense that is “peer reviews” as well as the emphasis on social acceptance of an opinion in order for it to be considered “truth” or not.

Bullying is not just for children

The basic concept of peer review- that another person should review academic papers as a second set of eyes and questions- is good and healthy because other people can often times offer a perspective which one may have not thought of. That said, what peer review has become is a formal process of academic, socially acceptable bullying through which dissenting views are crushed in the name of scholarship masquerading as a propaganda outfit. It is the formal version of what has been widely reported on many university campuses where students merely can dislike another person’s opinion without providing a factual basis other than their opinion, and then say their personal, baseless accusations are justification for attacking and literally attempting to ruin that person’s life through a campaign of public shame and harassment.

The question that every man must ask himself, especially about an issue that is of major importance, is what is the correct answer and for what reasons as opposed to others. In terms of Christianity, this is the reason why throughout the ages the Popes and great saints have often times faced great opposition even within the walls of the Church (let alone society), because as men have a tendency to sin and corruption, moral and divinely revealed truth can sometimes be ignored or suppressed. However, the fact that something is not discussed does not make it true, just not known.

St. Athanasius- he was bullied by most of the Church, but he held fast to truth because indeed, he was teaching the truth which the others were not

A case in point to recall is the great St. Athanasius. During the 4th century, he was one of only a handful of bishops who maintained the Catholic position that Jesus was, is, and always will be God because He is God. This was at a time when most of the Christian world and even more of the bishops were infected with the Arian heresy, started by the preacher Arius who denied Jesus’ divinity. He was excommunicated five times, had to repeatedly flee for his life, was attacked and denounced repeatedly. However, he held fast to truth and in the end, he prevailed while the memory of Arius has perished.

Fast forward to today, if the same situation happened in our modern times it would show the same events of the past but just in a modern context. St. Athanasius would, just like these scientists, have his statements and papers denounced by hundreds of bishops, priests, and people who consider themselves good Christians but who adhere to the heresy. He may lose his job, be mocked in the general culture, and have to go into hiding. There would be memes made about him calling him a “cuck” or a “cultural marxist” (for as everybody knows today, insults are levied at people simply as a means to defame them whether or not the insult being used actually fits the person it is targeted to). As for Arius, he would be on all the major Christian shows and websites, he would get lots of lucrative business deals, and he would make a lot of money and have plenty of fame while spreading his heresy. Nevertheless, the fact would remain that Arius’ views would be a damnable heresy in the eyes of God, because truth does not change with the social currents of any era.

The homosexual movement is indeed an anti-intellectual movement, as it has no basis other than in the license of the men who support it because, philosophically speaking, its purpose is to say that the value of a man’s actions comes from what he determines them to be for any reason because he can determine what is right and wrong. Likewise, the widespread popularity which today the homosexual movement has culled in society does not change the intrinsic evil of the actions. It does not matter how many people say what they think about something because in the eyes of God, no man’s personal feelings are relevant as a barometer of moral truth. It does not matter what you feel or do not feel, what you like or do not like. Truth is truth regardless and it is for man to conform himself to the standard because the author is God and not man.

The destruction of Sodom

This should concern any man. God is holy and all good. He rewards righteousness and punishes wickedness in every age. It does not matter to Him how many people He needs to punish or not punish- all that matters is whether or not man obeys. The story of Noah is a real-life example of this, for as the story states, the entire world was destroyed by flood because of their wickedness. If that is not enough, God destroyed the city of Sodom for the sin of sodomy except for a handful of people who refused to pollute themselves.

God is merciful, and He will save people who have been involved in the most wicked of sins so long as a man is willing to humble himself and turn to righteousness. However, if he refuses, as He is also perfect justice, he will execute justice upon the wicked.

God said after the Deluge that He would no longer destroy the world by flood. He did not say He would not destroy it again.

Hence I am very concerned about the vision of Our Lady of Akita. I have written about her before (here, here, here, here) as those who have seen the Third Secret of Fatima have said the vision of Our Lady of Akita is the same as that of Fatima, and Akita goes as follows:

As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests.

“The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other priests); churches and altars will be sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.

“The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them.

How interesting it is that Akita’s and really, Fatima’s revelation comes at a time when the sodomites, who were punished by fire from Heaven, are flooding the entire world with their perversity.

Just think about it. And prepare you own soul accordingly, because truth will always prevail no matter who opposes it. Don’t let yourself be found on the wrong side.