New Old Homosexual Talking Points
Anti-gay means you're a closet homo
This saying has been around for over 40 years and now they are now bringing it back

By Jack Minor

A so called “new study” that claims opposition to homosexuality means a person probably is a closet homosexual, turns out to be nothing more than a rehash of propaganda used in the 1970s, according to a former liberal who warns of the latest “gay” media wave.

“This is so old-hat, they were saying this in the 1970s when I was a liberal progressive. This was standard indoctrination talking points about homosexuality even back then,” said Linda Harvey, founder of Mission America. “This has been around for 40 years and they are now bringing it back around.”

Science Daily reports a new study says “homophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires.”


By this same deluded logic Muslims who murder their wives in honor killings do it out of love. Or Muslims that murder Jews and Christians are wannabe Jews and Christians.


In this I hear a child’s response to name calling back when I was a child. “I know you are but what am I”? or “I’m rubber and your glue what every you call me bounces off me and sticks to you”.


This is an attempt to get the public to shut up concerning their opposition to homosexuality that it is abnormal, it is a mental sickness, that it is a defilement, that God and the bible are opposed to anyone who would do such things, that people do not want to be friends or associate with homosexuals, meaning that despite all their efforts being a homosexual still has a strong negative stigma in the US. And the harder they push to make it appear this abhorrent behavior is normal and healthy, the harder normal and healthy people push back against it.

Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex and the study’s lead author, says people who identify themselves as straight “may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves.”

Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality says the story is nothing more than junk science on steroids.

“Before it became ‘normalized’ and politically correct it was studied. In a healthy society pathology is studied but now everything has flipped and they are trying to make it so those who study homosexuality are the sick ones,” he said.

The article says the fact that “homophobes” are closet homosexuals explains the cause behind much of the bullying directed against “gays” and lesbians. It says media reports of these incidents claim the attackers perceived a threat from homosexuals and “people in denial about their sexual orientation may lash out because gay targets threaten and bring this internal conflict to the forefront.”

They cite the example of Ted Haggard, a prominent evangelical pastor who opposed homosexuality but was later found to be engaged in a “gay” sex scandal in 2006.

LaBarbera acknowledges that people such as Haggard exist but says that is far from being the norm and is more indicative of a sinful nature.

“Jimmy Swaggart preached against adultery and was later found to be having an affair. That doesn’t mean that all preachers who preach against adultery are secret adulterers,” he said.

The study was conducted using college students whose sexual orientation was determined by self-identification and how they performed a split-second task. They were shown words and pictures on a computer screen and asked to put them in “gay” or “straight” categories. Prior to the trials, the participants were shown either the word “me” or “others” for 35 milliseconds.

After this they were shown pictures of straight and “gay” couples and the words “gay,” “straight,” homosexual” and “heterosexual” while a computer tracked their response times.

According to the authors, people who had a faster reaction with words “me” and “gay” were deemed to be homosexuals regardless of their stated orientation.

The authors concluded people who declared themselves to be heterosexual, while the reaction time indicated they were homosexual, often reacted with hostility to “gay others.” The study claimed hostility to the “gay” lifestyle by these individuals reveals that homophobia is possibly a result of a suppressed homosexual orientation.

Study co-author Richard Ryan of the University of Rochester claimed there are dangers for people “who are at war with themselves.”

He cited the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming as an example.

“Homophobia is not a laughing matter. It can sometimes have tragic consequences,” he said.

Numerous reports attribute Shepard’s murder to his homosexuality. Police investigations, however, suggest that robbery was the motive for the crime.

LaBarbera said academia would never do any serious studies on issues within the homosexual community.

“We’ve got all these pathologies within the homosexual world – men who beat their partners, you’ve got high rates of STDs through the roof for men who have sex with men – and yet none of that merits a study that would come out and say that homosexual practice is wrong,” he laments. “There are no objective studies coming from academia on the subject of homosexuality because they are more interested in being politically correct.”

He continued, “This study will eventually be cited in some school textbook or be taught in California where they cannot say anything negative about the homosexual lifestyle.”

Harvey echoed LaBarbera’s concerns that the study will be used to teach children at a young age that if they are opposed to homosexuality because of their religious upbringing or normal impulses that the behavior is unnatural they are actually closet homosexuals.

“They want to target our kids and introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages to cause them to look at any type of relationship they may have with anyone whether it be other children or adults in sexual terms,” Harvey said.

She said the line of reasoning presented in the study was part and parcel of feminist teaching regarding sexual liberation in the 1970s when adherents were taught to turn the tables on those opposing homosexuality by accusing them of the very thing they were opposed to.

“It is clearly an intimidation tactic to convince the majority of people who know there is something wrong with homosexuality that there is something wrong with them instead. We did this in the 70s when Anita Bryant was sounding the warning cry against the homosexual movement,” she said. “This study is simply a re-packaging of the same things the homosexual movement was teaching in the 1970s.”

Harvey said that during the 1970s she was a volunteer for a brief time with Planned Parenthood.

“As a part of that they did a very thorough screening on you and asked you a detailed questionnaire. It was intended to see how liberal you were and questions were asked about homosexuality to see if you tolerated it or not. This is all part of radical feminism.”