Marriage (Same Sex Couples)

Memorandum submitted by Alan J Williams (MB 109)

A Critique of the Political Movements Demanding Same Sex Marriage

Executive Summary

The political movements driving the demand for same sex marriage are based on totalitarian ideologies injurious to western democratic principles and practice.

Personal Details

Alan Williams is a contributor to Anglican Mainstream on the same sex marriage campaign and the Frankfurt School - MA - Philosophical and Psychological Problems in Education - Counselling - Dissertation on Self Concept and Self Esteem - Book reviewer

Campaign Critique - Summary

1. Two cultural/political movements underpin demand for Same Sex Marriage (SSM)

a. Gay Rights Movement. b. Neo-Marxist Counter Culture Movement (Frankfurt School)

2. Lenin/Mȕnzenberg - seduction of West's intellectuals - Lukacs - Sex 'Ed' for children

3. Lenin's concept of 'political correctness' used by elite for both movements.

4. Marcuse - Cultural Marxist- Critical Theory - attacks western democratic cultural traditions of family, Church and patriotism. Aim to replace capitalism with neo-Marxism.

5. Gramsci - Neo-Marxist ideologue urges activists to make alliances with 'victim' anti-establishment groups & infiltrate institutions. Change and control language.

6. Alfred Kinsey - Self appointed 'sexologist' - scientific fraud - Kinsey Institute - homosexuality as 'life style' - Forms of homosexuality - Sexual anarchy advocates

7. Homosexuality and the Law - Decriminalisation - Stonewall - political action groups - removal from list of psychological disorders - removal of Clause 28 - Civil Partnerships - Diversity and Equality legislation

8. HIV/AIDS threat to gay rights movement. - compassion for AIDS sufferers - initiative regained - After the Ball - propaganda campaign for homosexual equality - media strategy Desensitisation - Silencing critics with homophobia accusations (Jamming) - Conversion

9. Narcissistic nature of homosexual relationships. Gay 'marriage' a legal fiction.

10. Longer term consequences - sexual anarchy - social disorder - demands for 'strong' totalitarian government - loss of democratic freedoms - Huxley's vision

A critique of the psycho-political roots of the same sex marriage campaign

1. The demand for Same Sex Marriage (SSM) shocks many who believe that the establishment of Civil Partnerships for homosexuals was the end of their demands for legal recognition as couples. When supporters of natural heterosexual marriage contemplate the social implications of SSM they are greatly disturbed to discover that SSM legally:

· validates the false concept that children do not need both a mother and a father

· treats parenting roles as wholly interchangeable

· renders marital complementarity irrelevant

· contradicts the clear differences in biology and reproductive roles of males and females

· denies the right of any child born via IVF for same sex couples to know and be cared for by their biological parents as established by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child [1]

2. Many landmarks of western civilisation are being swept away in a riptide of radical social and political movements. The most obvious one is the Gay Rights Movement which has made increasingly strident demands for special legal rights and protections. This international political movement is organised through six major organisations; the Human Rights Campaign (HRC); the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD); the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF); Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG); the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Educational Network (GLSEN) and Stonewall. The movement is well funded with very powerful political connections. It claims the credit for UK homosexual rights legislation being passed after the year 2000.

3. The other movement, less obvious and less well known but even more influential than the Gay Rights Movement is the Counter Culture led by ideologues influenced by the neo-Marxist/neo-Freudian Frankfurt School. Tasked with covertly undermining western democratic capitalism the School was set up in the early 1920s in conjunction with Frankfurt University as the Institute for Social Research (ISR) [2] . It is the ISR which has given us Lenin's concept of 'political correctness' invented to control the Bolsheviks. [3]

4. After WWI Lenin realised the West's workers were not going to rise up against their capitalist overlords and install communism, so he decided to find other people to do it. Identifying the family, the Church, democracy and patriotism as the main points of resistance to international communism, he chose to seduce the West's political elite, the most gullible of whom came to be known as the 'useful idiots,' into betraying their civilisation. Two key players in this enterprise to make western civilisation 'stink' were Willi Mȕnzenberg [4] and Georg Lukacs. Mȕnzenberg recruited the 'idiots' into what he called his 'Innocents Clubs, manipulating them into promoting the foreign policy of the USSR and undermining their patriotism. [5] To destroy the natural traditional family Lukacs, the first Frankfurt School director, forged premature sex 'education' to young children to stimulate sexual experimentation and promiscuity. When Sheffield parents recently discovered their children were being given the same 'education' it caused a storm of protest. [6] Lukacs also encouraged easier divorce and access to contraception, pornography and 'free' love. Abortion on demand was legalised in the USSR in 1920. (With a Russian population crash forecast Putin is now supporting larger Russian families. He has also banned Americans from adopting any more Russian children because of the pro-homosexual adoption laws in some states.)

5. Berlin by 1930 was a byword for decadence. But in 1933 the Scholars had to move because Hitler had come to power and most of the academics, like Herbert Marcuse, were Jewish and Marxist. Eventually finding a new home in New York's Columbia University courtesy of communist sympathizer and leading educationalist John Dewey, they quickly became the highly influential gatekeepers of American academe and culture. Columbia played a leading role in educating America's public school teachers and this gave the Frankfurt School, now known as the International Institute of Social Research, prime access to them. [7] Here America's young elite learned Critical Theory. While posing as intellectual criticism of their culture, it was in fact cultural Marxism. They learned to attack the western cultural traditions which supported marriage and family life, respected the Christian Churches, protected democratic freedoms and encouraged patriotism. So when graduates entered the professions they were saturated with the values of 'Critical Theory.' Unwittingly they had become ambassadors for cultural Marxism.

6. It was during the 1930s that Antonio Gramsci, a highly intelligent Italian neo-Marxist, produced what came to be known as his Prison Notebooks. Smuggled out of prison they detailed how his followers could change the West's culture from being led by Christian tradition into one led by neo-Marxism. A key idea was for them to acquire 'soft power' by forming alliances with anti-establishment groups who saw themselves as 'victims' of prejudice and discrimination by society at large. These alliances were to last as long as they were useful. Activists were also encouraged to infiltrate institutions like the Law, the Trade Unions, the mass media, Education and the Church, to establish left leaning policies when they could. Gramsci also advocated the use of politically correct language claiming it was the way to abolish prejudice. Few know about its Marxist-Leninist assumptions.

7. In the 1940s and early 1950s Alfred Kinsey, a well respected zoologist, became a self designated 'sexologist.' But he had an undeclared agenda. He wanted to destroy Christian sexual morals. He was a sexual anarchist, who believed that orgasm, obtained in any way other than rape, was self justified. His father, a Christian, was overbearing and very demanding of him. And Kinsey hated him for it. Kinsey believed that if he could show that human beings were just like animals so far as sex was concerned, then he would free himself from any criticism of his own perverse practices and 'liberate' what he regarded as the prudish attitudes of his fellow Americans. So he 'cooked' the research he published in 1947 and 1954 on male and female human sexual behaviour. By selecting candidates who fitted his desired profile he was able to demonstrate by this ' statistical research' that people were just like animals when it came to sex. Criticised by other academics for his 'poor' methodology, the FBI wanted to arrest him for corrupting America's youth but they didn't know how to handle him or his 'statistics.' He died in 1956 believing he had failed. How wrong he was. His research wasn't thoroughly discredited until 1990 by Dr Judith Reisman et al. [8]

8. Unfortunately in the meanwhile Hugh Hefner, acknowledging his debt to Kinsey, had popularized the essence of Kinsey's heavy 'academic' tomes through Playboy magazine delivering a message every adolescent male wanted to hear; you don't have to be married to have sex! [9] And the same message has been delivered by other highly respected figures like anthropologist Margaret Mead, who also produced false findings in her seminal research, [10] and Helen Gurley Brown whose autobiographical Sex and the Single Girl (1964) inspired Sex in the City. Gurley Brown also edited Cosmopolitan. Before the 60s sexual revolution there were two major venereal diseases, today there are over two dozen! Tragically the Kinsey Institute became the world's leading authority on sex and how to educate children about it! Kinsey himself endorsed consensual homosexual behaviour as legitimate along with paedophilia and bestiality.

9. But Kinsey was not a psychologist. His idea that sexual polarity was like shoe sizes, with most people's sexual orientation being potentially bi-sexual and rightly placed near the centre of a Bell Distribution Curve is simply nonsense. Bi-sexuals are rare. Homosexuals are less so. Featuring disproportionately in the media gives a false impression of greater numbers. Some do have a high public profile. Nevertheless about 97% of people are heterosexual. A psychologist specializing in treating people with unwanted homosexual desire sees male homosexuality, for example, in two ways. Firstly, it is a psychological disorder, originating in childhood trauma, and secondly as opportunistic in the absence of women, hence its appearance in single sex institutions, and disappearance outside them. [11] Also Kinsey's estimate of the prevalence of homosexuality as 10% was a complete fabrication. Very large and well publicised surveys since carried out put it at 1.5 - 3.00%. And in any event prevalence does not justify it as a sexual practice, as Kinsey implied, just as a high proportion of murderers would not justify murder. Lastly homosexuality is not a personally benign feature like being left handed. While radical, it is not a fixed trait and renders practitioners very vulnerable to illness and disease. Those unhappily involved in homosexual practices can stop with the right help and begin a heterosexual life. [12]

10. Until 1967 homosexual acts were illegal in the UK. Since then homosexuals have gained more and more legal rights and now demand the right to 'marry.' There are some countries around the world which have endorsed same sex marriage but there are also others like Honduras and Latvia which have specifically banned it. Recently the Russian government has taken a very hard line against Gay Pride and the promotion of homosexuality. Not to be put off gay activists continue trying to 'make the whole world 'gay.' [13] In the UK they have achieved the removal of Section 28 which specifically forbade the promotion of homosexuality in schools; the introduction of Civil Partnerships and Sexual Orientation Regulations granting rights to services secured through the Equality Act, and other Parliamentary Acts favouring homosexuals. But by far the most important change in the social/political status of homosexuality was made by the world leading American Psychiatric Association (APA). In 1973 it was manipulated and intimidated by activists aided by Kinsey Institute personnel into removing homosexuality from its Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM III). [14] After that decision almost every professional psychiatric, psychological and health organisation in the West followed suit. Along with Diversity and Equality Legislation, which includes the new category of Sexual Orientation, homosexuals have the legal tools to trump any challenge to them obtaining their new 'rights.'

11. And all of this despite the emergence of a disease killing tens of thousands and incubated and spread so widely by homosexual activity that initially it was popularly referred to as the gay plague. Indeed so dominated were the first casualty lists by homosexuals that it was officially called the Gay Related Immunity Deficiency Syndrome or GRIDS. But gay rights activists were having none of it; because bi-sexuals and heterosexuals also became infected they insisted it be called Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) to remove any reference to homosexuality; and they got their way. But even today, and in spite of the safe sex message, most diagnoses in today's renewed epidemic are very much found in men who have sex with men (MSM). [15] So with this massive backlash by nature itself against homosexual activity how did the gay rights movement manage to stay on the rails?

12. It nearly didn't. Ironically public compassion for film stars like Rock Hudson, who millions saw virtually dying on TV, saved the day for the gay rights movement. Driven to do something by the crisis activists had a conference in 1988. The following year a plan of action was set out in After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear & hatred of Gays in the 90s. Written by gay activists, Kirk & Madsen, they described exactly how the mass media could be used to carry gay propaganda and capitalise on the public's compassion. They also set out to capture the mass media itself to control what the public knew about homosexual matters. Any negative item was to be squashed, anything positive was to be widely published. The success of the campaign surpassed their wildest dreams.

13. In the introduction they write, "AIDS gives us a chance…to establish ourselves as a victimized minority.. deserving … special.. care… "The campaign….of unabashed propaganda, (is) firmly grounded in.. principles of psychology and advertising." [16] Kirk was a neuroscientist and he knew similar propaganda had worked in communist China in the 1950s. After demanding that activists stop confronting the public with narcissistic displays, they proposed a three part strategy for what they called their "Waging Peace" campaign as they re-opened their front in the Culture War.

The Strategy

a. Desensitisation. Supported by gay entertainers and media professionals activists were urged to talk about homosexuality at every opportunity and claim equal civil rights. On no account was intimate homosexual behaviour to be shown, certainly in the early stages. Instead homosexuals were to be depicted as harmless, average young people from loving families. (NAMBLA The North American Man Boy Love Association was to be kept completely out of the picture.)

b. Jamming. Objectors were to be silenced using a special psychological technique used in totalitarian societies. They were to be accused of having a socially unacceptable attitude; 'homophobia.' (This rare psychological disorder actually describes an irrational fear of sameness or monotony - reminted the word means to have a bigoted hatred of homosexuals.) As no-one wants a reputation as a prejudiced bigot their silence avoids it.

c. Conversion. Lenin believed that films were vital in the making or the breaking of a nation's culture. [17] And by using films the emotions of susceptible people can be conditioned into actually liking homosexuals by stimulating their desire to protect innocent 'victims,' and by always associating homosexuals with them. Films like Philadelphia and Broke Back Mountain are Oscar winning examples. Also a myriad of today's TV soaps, sitcoms, drama series and even adverts selling beds, desensitise viewers further by showing homosexuals as unthreatening and normal just like everyone else.

This strategy is reinforced by activists being urged to use the following eight tactics.

i. Don't just express yourself; claim that gays deserve special protection.

ii. Appeal to the Ambivalent Skeptics.

iii. Keep talking about gayness.

iv. Keep the message focused; the issue is homosexuality.

v. Portray gays as victims not as aggressive challengers

vi. Give potential protectors a good cause.

vii. Make gays look good.

viii. Make the victimizers look bad. [18]

14. For the propaganda campaign to work the public had to accept that homosexuals are victims of circumstance because they are born gay. But the campaigners themselves knew this was false. As they write, "We argue that, for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay - even though sexual orientation, for most humans seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and adolescence." [19]

15. If homosexuals are not born gay then what is it that drives homosexual activists into demanding absurd things like gay 'marriage' and that their relationships be beyond criticism? Kirk & Madsen had the answer to this too but applied it only to certain 'sick' gays. It is a combination of histrionic and narcissistic personality disorders. As Kirk & Madsen write it is often associated with a homosexual arousal pattern … and such patients have a grandiose sense of self importance …fantasies of unlimited ability, power, wealth, brilliance, beauty or ideal love …are exploitative …have irrational, angry outbursts …tantrums…extreme self-centredness …exploitative … outright lying. And these few symptomatic behaviours are from a very long list. Contradicting themselves Kirk and Madsen make it clear that these characteristics don't just apply to certain 'sick' gays they are very common amongst homosexuals. [20]

16. If same sex marriage is legalised it will be an endorsement of an essentially narcissistic, disordered and sterile relationship in which the lover sees him/herself perfectly reflected in the beloved. As with Narcissus this vision is an illusion. So same sex marriage is not a relationship which can qualify as equal to heterosexual marriage in which the husband and wife complement each other in a potentially procreative union. Also whereas faithful heterosexual couples without previous sexual relations are not vulnerable to physiological damage and disease. So called 'faithful' homosexual couples are highly vulnerable, in part because in homosexual culture 'faithful' does not mean completely exclusive. [21] Homosexual marriage would be a legal fiction with no intelligible meaning and become the focus for social friction if its supporters attempt to force those who deny its legitimacy to accept it; and/or vice versa. [22]

17. In the longer term it would inevitably encourage those who wish to have their poly sexual relationships legally recognised too. [23] Such recognition will not be for the public good but it would be logically impossible to deny once the natural definition is rejected. This would encourage an increase in the level of sexual anarchy we suffer already and eventually more social unrest. Such a future would almost certainly lead to demands for 'strong' government to control the streets. And for that government to take any draconian action it would need totalitarian powers. So same sex 'marriage,' rather than strengthening heterosexual marriage as some would have us believe, could play a part in ending the democratic freedoms for which our forbears fought and died. As Aldous Huxley stated, in such a society people will come to 'love their servitude' [24] … and at least 60 percent 'would be drones existing in a miasma of unrestrained sex' [25] with maybe millions in Gulags.

March 2013

[1] Is There a Case for Same Sex Marriage? p. 98, R. S. Harris, Anglican Mainstream/Voice for Justice UK, 2012

[2] Cry Havoc! p. 31, Ralph de Toledano, Anthem Books, 2006

[3] On the Origins of Political Correctness (F. Ellis) Political Correctness and the Ideological Struggle: From Lenin and Mao to Marcuse and Foucault.

[4] Double Lives: Stalin, Willi M ȕ nzenberg and the seduction of the intellectuals, p19, Stephen Koch, Harper Collins, 1995 edn

[5] Ibid. pp. 12f,

[6] The Telegraph, Parents in protest over 'explicit' sex education, 17 / 1 1/ 2011

[7] Cry Havoc! p.80

[8] Kinsey, Sex and Fraud: The Indoctrination of a People, Dr J. Reisman, Edward Eichel ed. Dr J H Court & Dr J G Muir. Lochinvar Inc. 1990

[9] Mr Playboy: Hugh Hefner and the American Dream. p.47 Steven Watts, J Wiley & Sons, 2008

[10] Architects of the Culture of Death, p.258, D De Marco & B Wiker, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2004

[11] A Freedom Too Far, pp. 15-36, C Socarides, Adam Margrave Books, 1995

[12] Ibid , p.115,

[13] Ibid. p.30

[14] Ibid. , Chapter 6, & Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, R. Bayer, Princeton University Press, 1987

[15] The Shocking Second HIV Epidemic Among US Men No-one is Talking About: - 15/08/2012

[16] After the Ball: pp. xxv-xxvi, M Kirk & H Madsen, Doubleday, 1989

[17] Cry Havoc! p. 212

[18] After the Ball: pp.148-191, M Kirk & H Madsen, Doubleday, 1989,

[19] Ibid. p.184

[20] Ibid. pp. 296f

[21] One-in-three Americans has a sexually transmitted infection: Centers for Disease Control report. 16/02/2013

[22] Is There a Case for Same Sex Marriage? p. 71, R. S. Harris, Anglican Mainstream & Voice for Justice UK, 2012

[23] Ibid. p. 87

[24] The Ultimate Revolution: Aldous Huxley's speech a the Berkeley Language Centre 20/03/1960 Speech Archive SA 0269

[25] Cry Havoc! p.95

Prepared 13th March 2013