Did you know that by the time they are fifty 70% of Gay-perverts are straight again? And by the time they are sixty-five all Gay-perverts are straight again.
Gay-perverts are a threat for a number of reasons. One reason is that they brainwash children into believing that those children are Gay.
Gays have no reputable study supporting their claims. The Evelyn Hooker study was debunked years ago (see Satinover). Gays (they are actually Gay-perverts) stand on quicksand.
The second big fat lie of the Gay movement is that once Gay always Gay. The fact is that:
[Most of those who]…consider themselves homosexual or have same-sex experiences…will eventually change and stop having such experiences.
This quote is from Satinover (page 16), referencing the major study by Laumann and Laumann’s colleagues.
Reminder: Gays do not exist. So-called Gays are actually Gay-perverts.
This is what a Gay-pervert activist looks like on the inside:
Here is the outline for a sermon against Gays if the Supreme Court ever says you can’t preach against Gays:
1. A Gay person is supposed to be someone who can’t help themself. There is no proof such people exist. The so-called 1973 proof and later proofs were all written by Gays; so, what did you expect them to say.
2. If Gay people existed, there would still be Gay-perverts, people who simply choose to act like beasts engaging in perverse acts. This is the key point.
3. If Gay people existed, we would not condemn them but we would still condemn Gay-perverts.
WARNING: DO NOT LET THE SUPREME COURT GO THAT FAR. IT IS TIME TO FIRE THE LIBERAL MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT!
How do we destroy the Gay movement? With the truth.
Gays don’t exist and, if they did, they would, by definition, have no power to stop what they do. God does not oppose the powerless; therefore, logically, God would not oppose Gays. Therefore, when you are asked what your position on Gays is, answer, “If Gays existed, there would be no reason to oppose them.”
Footnote: This applies to the whole LGBT movement, as well.
UPAX’s CDSM-6 devotes five hundred pages to the discussion of homosexuality. Here are the most basic and most important principles relating to homosexuality, mental health, and morality:
We start by pointing out that there are two general types of homosexuality:
1. HW – Homosexual Weakness
2. HC – Homosexual Choice
HW – HOMOSEXUAL WEAKNESS – TYPE ONE
This type of Gay falls into four subcategories.
MDH – MENTAL DEFICIT HOMOSEXUALITY
“MDH Gays” are homosexuals who are mentally handicapped.There are two types:
MDH-1 Gays: this type does not have sufficient intelligence to know that what they are doing is wrong.
MDH-2 Gays: this type has sufficient intelligence to know that what they are doing is wrong.
DH – DELUSIONAL HOMOSEXUALITY
“DH Gays” are homosexuals that suffer from one or more delusions. DH Gays fall into two categories:
DH-1 Gays: This type of Gay once knew the truth but has deceived themself into believing that what they are doing is not wrong.
DH-2 Gays: Virtually all DH-2 Gays are children who have been raised to be Gay and are under the age of twelve. This type of Gay has believed all their usually short life that what they are doing is not wrong.
EWH – EMOTIONAL WEAKNESS HOMOSEXUALITY
“EWH Gays” are, for example, little children who have been forced into a homosexual lifestyle by more powerful, sexual predator Gay adults. These children, usually mentally, emotionally, and physically brutalized by these predator adults, are too terrified (hence, emotionally weak) to refuse to engage in the homosexual activity.
OH – OTHER HOMOSEXUALITY
The description of “OH Gays” is beyond the understanding of most people; so, we will not provide it at this time.
HC – HOMOSEXUAL CHOICE – TYPE TWO
“HC Gays” are people who know that homosexuality is wrong and freely and voluntarily choose to engage in homosexual activity.
It is time to remove Justice Kennedy and the fully liberal Justices from the Supreme Court for their pro pervert decisions because of their willful gross incompetence in evaluating research on human sexuality and discrimination in favor of perverts.
To Some Supreme Court Justices:
If you make even one decision forbidding us from condemning Gay-perverts:
We will remove you from office.
No, we don’t believe in the death penalty for Gay-perverts, though that is what they deserve. We just wanted to make the Gay-perverts hysterical. Why? Because they have been brainwashing millions of American children and young people into believing Gay-perverts are normal and because they have turned a number of American children and young people into Gay-perverts.
We’ve created the following graphic for the squeamish, who believe that Gay-perverts are normal people and don’t like to hear the word “Gay-pervert.”
Agent J, one of our spies at the APA (American Psychiatric Association), reported the following today:
As of today, Monday, February 24, 2014, the APA employs:
- 23 pedophiles (child rapists [7 with convictions and prison time])
- 17 rapists (adult rapists)
- 29 atheists
- 43 Gay-perverts
Are Gay-perverts mentally ill? Well, first, we must define the term “mentally ill.” “Mentally ill” means:
Being one who suffers from a disease (an internal cause of injury to oneself) of the mind.
Gay-perverts experience an immoral craving for same-sex intimacy. This immoral craving causes them physically and mentally injurious anguish and guilt. The mental injury takes the form of diminished cognitive (mental) ability. The physical injury is a degree of loss of physical health.
The claims that the anguish and guilt arise from external causes and, thus, that Gay-perverts have no mental disease is easily refuted by the fact that:
Gay-perverts experience anguish and guilt in decadent societies, which have no external causes.
Yes, Gays are mentally ill.
In 1950, the first Gay activists said:
We need a happy word to delude people into believing that homosexuals are not evil, wicked perverts. Therefore, let’s call ourselves “Gays.”
In 1950, the common meaning of the word “Gay” was “joyful.” Well, those 1950 Gay activists and later Gay activists were very successful in deluding many people.
Now, we needed to find an honest word to reeducate the deluded in the true nature of homosexuals. Since Gays are perverts we came up with the word “Gay-pervert.”
One’s political stance (position) should be informed (guided) by moral truth. However, political positions are sometimes informed (guided) by competing (conflicting) moral truths. In such cases, one must find the “righteous compromise” between the competing moral truths. Thus, the right to privacy keeps us from investigating Gay-perverts just because they claim to be Gay-perverts.
Have some Supreme Court Justices really discriminated in favor of Gay-perverts? Well, listen to someone who should know, Justice Antonin Scalia. Justice Scalia said that the Supreme Court has:
…largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda.
What should be our political stance on Gay-perverts?
We should not investigate them.
Leaders, teachers, educators, etc. that seek to brainwash our children into believing being a Gay-pervert is normal should be stopped by any means whatsoever, short of maiming or killing these brainwashers.
People should be educated in the truth about Gay-perverts and Gay-pervert activists from the public record – Satinover, Laumann, APA legal briefs, etc., etc.
Supreme Court Justices that have discriminated in favor of Gay-perverts should be removed from office.
Laws in favor of Gay-perverts should be rescinded (reversed).
One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958)
The U.S. Post Office and the FBI deemed One: The Homosexual Magazine, a lesbian, gay, and bisexual publication, obscene, and as such could not be delivered via U.S. mail. The publishers of the magazine sued, and lost both the first case and the appeal. The Supreme Court accepted the case and reversed it, marking the first time the Supreme Court ruled in favor of homosexuals.
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that consenting adults do not have a constitutional right to engage in homosexual acts in private, upholding a Georgia law. The majority said the “right of privacy” under the Due Process Clause does not give homosexuals the right to engage in sodomy. The “right to privacy” protects intimate marital and familial relations, but the Court said it does not cover gay sodomy because “no connection between family, marriage, or procreation on the one hand and homosexual activity on the other has been demonstrated.” This decision, considered a serious blow to the gay-rights movement, was overturned in 2003’s Lawrence v. Texas decision.
Romer v. Evans (1996)
In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down Colorado’s Amendment 2, which denied gays and lesbians protections against discrimination, calling them “special rights.” According to Justice Anthony Kennedy, “We find nothing special in the protections Amendment 2 withholds. These protections . . . constitute ordinary civil life in a free society.”
Boy Scouts of America v Dale (2000)
In another setback to the gay-rights movement, the Court ruled 5–4, that the Boy Scouts of America have a constitutional right to ban gays because the organization’s opposition to homosexuality is part of its “expressive message.”
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
The Supreme Court, 6–3, overruled a Texas sodomy law and voted 5–4 to overturn 1986’s Bowers v. Hardwick decision. “The state cannot demean their [gays’] existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime,” wrote Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion. In his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Scalia said the court has “largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda.”
United States v. Windsor (2013)
The Supreme Court ruled that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. In a 5 to 4 vote, the court ruled that DOMA violated the rights of gays and lesbians. The court also ruled that the law interferes with the states’ rights to define marriage. It was the first case ever on the issue of gay marriage for the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. voted against striking it down as did Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas. However, conservative-leaning Justice Anthony M. Kennedy voted with his liberal colleagues to overturn DOMA.
Hollingsworth v. Perry (2013)
The Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage opponents in California did not have standing to appeal the lower court ruling that overturned the state’s ban, known as Proposition 8. The ruling will remove legal battles for same-sex couples wishing to marry in California. However, the ruling did not directly affect other states.