an information resource
for orthodox Anglicans

Gay Rights and the Holy Spirit

By Alan J Williams

Hard Thinking by a Christian Liberal Democrat

"I solemnly urge you to preach the message, to insist upon proclaiming it (whether the time is right or not) to convince, reproach and encourage, as you teach with all patience." 2 Timothy 4:2

In 2013 the Liberal Democrat Christian Forum published 'Liberal Democrats Do God.' Ex-President Sir Andrew Stunell's contribution was called 'Three Reasons to Thank God – and not the usual ones.' His final provocative sentences were written with the present writer in mind. "Making Christians angry is easy. Making Christians think is the hard part." So this essay continues our previously informal discussions in a more formal way.

The first thing Sir Andrew thanks God for is living in a secular and pluralist society which tolerates different forms of worship. He rightly points out this has not always been the case even in Christianity's so called 'golden age,' and cites an ancestor who had to flee to Holland to escape Anglican persecution. But when he claims our secular society allows full participation in the 'determination of our country's future' he is challenged by fellow Liberal Democrat MP Greg Mulholland from his Roman Catholic perspective. He states in his essay that there is evidence of a 'dangerous and fundamentally illiberal drift to moral conformity in the party,' and a need to 'restore freedom of conscience to its rightful place at the heart of the party.' Secular 'tolerance' is found wanting from his point of view.

The second thing Sir Andrew would like to thank God for is the liberating work of the Holy Spirit. In support he refers to the abolition of slavery and the gaining of equal rights for women, which prompts the surprising comment that 'giving women their rights doesn't make people more likely to be women.' This turns out to be a pointer to his third contention for thankfulness that 'God … has more truth to break forth from his Word, that Christians should accept full rights for gays as it wouldn't 'make more people gay.' Here Sir Andrew assumes that the main problem for orthodox Christians is that the number of people engaged in homosexuality will increase if homosexuals gain full legal rights. So he sets out to reassure them that as gays are like women and ‘born that way' their fears should be allayed as legislation cannot increase their number! But such reassurances are bound to fail for orthodox Christians who believe homosexual practices themselves are sinful. And that the state redefining marriage to include same sex couples is actually blasphemous because it destroys God's purpose for natural marriage as the foundation of the family.

Then, after ignoring St Paul’s teaching that all believers, including slaves, are one in Christ, Sir Andrew picks a quarrel with St Paul for accepting slavery when he returns the runaway slave Onesimus to his owner, Paul's convert, Philemon. This is a clear attempt to reduce St Paul's authority in readiness for what he calls 'somewhat iffy references dredged up about gay behaviour' found say in Paul's letter to the Romans 1: 27 where he writes, and men…gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another for example, the meaning of which seems perfectly obvious to me.

In making the establishment of gay rights his third candidate for thanks to God Sir Andrew assumes that experiencing sexual attraction towards members of the same sex belongs in the same category as being female or black. That it is something given by nature which could not have been otherwise; that anyone could have been born 'that way' into an unfairly oppressed or disadvantaged minority. Unfortunately for his argument this is category misplacement. Indeed homosexuals identify themselves, and are identified generally in terms of their unregenerate sexual desires and behavior, not simply by their biological form and features. And Sir Andrew seems to admit this when he claims that homosexual behavior is less damaging than adultery to children and families. So a decision has to be made about the true nature of same sex attraction and activity. Is it genetically based like being a man or a woman or black, in which case no blame should be attached to monogamous homosexual couplings, or is it a form of sexual misconduct like adultery but more complex with both moral and psychological complications?

(As for homosexuals being an oppressed and disadvantaged minority research shows they have higher than average academic achievements, probably higher than average disposable incomes, and now with the lobbying power to redefine marriage and cultural power to stigmatise critics, they clearly have overwhelming political and social influence. Now the homosexual rights organisation Stonewall has persuaded even the Church of England to promote its campaign to make schools ‘safe for ‘gay’ children by indoctrinating their classmates to believe that as homosexuality, and its practices, are ‘normal’ and ‘harmless’ ‘gay’ classmates should not be bullied. Parents have not been consulted.)

But with the rise to prominence of gay rights issues there has been a parallel rise of interest in the nature of homosexuality and the possibility of it being genetically driven. So to resolve the question some researchers have focused on genetically identical twins and their sexual orientations. One of the latest studies concluded that less than 7% of male twins and less than 6% of female twins shared same sex attraction. No twin study has shown a 100% correlation, or indeed anything remotely near it. If same sex attraction was genetic identical twins should show a 100% co-relation and they clearly don't. Homosexuals are not a third sex. (If they ever were, Darwin’s survival-of-the-fittest principle would have eliminated them as a surviving variant long ago; an absolute homosexual gene would be the perfect self-extinction gene.)

This can only mean that deception has played a major part in persuading people that homosexuals are 'born that way.' And as it happens closer examination bears this out. The key work here is After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear & hatred of gays in the 90s by M. Kirk and H. Madsen (1989). This book is a practical manual for a propaganda media campaign by LGBT activists to get their movement back on track when the AIDS epidemic threatened to derail it. Used as a psychologically and politically sophisticated blueprint for obtaining special legal protection from discrimination, its strategies and tactics have been applied on a global scale to achieve a level of success undreamt of by the authors.

Marshall Kirk, a neuropsychiatrist, and Hunter Madsen, an advertising expert, knew perfectly well that homosexuality was not inborn. They write, “sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood and early adolescence." Nevertheless for the benefit of their campaign they had to claim it was inborn as a key plank in their propaganda. They write, "We argue that for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been born gay. This would then qualify them as 'victims of circumstance, … (who) no more chose their sexual orientation than they did, say, their height …. They continue, 'To suggest in public that homosexuality might be chosen is to open the can of worms labeled 'moral choice and sin' and give the religious intransigents a stick to beat us with. Straights must be taught that it is as natural for some persons to be homosexual as it is for others to be heterosexual: wickedness and seduction have nothing to do with it. And since no choice is involved, gayness can be no more blameworthy than straightness. In fact, it is simply a matter of the odds – one in ten- as to who turns out gay and who straight. Each heterosexual must be led to realize that he might easily have been born homosexual himself.

It is worth pointing out here that Kirk and Madsen were laboring under the misapprehension that the prevalence of homosexuality was 10-15% as stated by Alfred Kinsey in his 'research.' It has since been established that Kinsey preselected his samples to obtain the results he wanted. He ignored any criticisms at the time for 'poor' methodology. Unfortunately his work wasn't thoroughly discredited until 1990 by Judith Reisman et al, this meant the extremely well read Kirk and Madsen could not update themselves by yet to be published research. But what is so frustrating to those concerned about the truth of the matter is that the Kinsey figures are still widely believed. So the Guardian's attempt to set matters straight is much welcomed with its article quoting the 2012 British national survey. The statistics showed that the homosexual population is 1.5% overall with 0.4% for the over 65s, (which is consistent with homosexuality leading to a 20 year reduction in life span) and with 2.7% of younger people (16-24) self identifying as such. The latter figure argues against Sir Andrew's contention above that gay rights legislation would not make more people gay. In any event whatever the percentage of a behavior defined group is, it does not automatically make the behaviour morally acceptable. But more worrying is the parallel increase in STIs among young homosexually active men. A rise echoing the emergence of the HIV/AIDS epidemic which appeared after the American Psychiatric Association (APA) was manipulated into removing homosexuality from its list of sexual disorders in 1973. (It should be noted that the APA leadership has recently been under investigation for conflict of interest involving the pharmaceutical industry by the Senate Finance Committee.)

But Kirk and Madsen needed more than one plank to stand their deception on. They also wanted homosexuals portrayed as 'victims of prejudice' because 'Straights don't fully realize the suffering they bring upon gays, and must be shown: graphic pictures of brutalized gays, dramatizations of job and housing insecurity, loss of child custody, public humiliation etc.' Victimhood naturally stimulates compassion and the critical moment arose when homosexuals dying from AIDS brought – a gratifying sympathy.

This presented "an insurmountable opportunity" for gay activism. As Kirk and Madsen write; 'As cynical as it may seem, AIDS gives us a chance, however brief, to establish ourselves as a victimized minority legitimately deserving of America's special protection and care. They continue; “How can we maximize the sympathy and minimize the fear? How, given the horrid hand that AIDS has dealt us, can we best play it?” We do not have to wait long for their answer – it is by 'eating the media alive' and mounting an extremely sophisticated media propaganda campaign. They write: 'The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.'

This has brought great success in spreading false beliefs like, sexual orientation can never change, that attempts at change are harmful, that homosexuals do not have more psychological disorders or physical health problems than heterosexuals. They have shaped "what everyone knows" and "what everyone takes for granted" even if everyone does not really know and even if it should not be taken for granted. Soaps like East Enders and Coronation Street are now so openly used as platforms for the propaganda campaign they are even ridiculed by known homosexual critics. The scripts of sympathetic characters assume the desired 'new' view that homosexuals are 'normal' and 'harmless,' while the scripts of unsympathetic ones assume the opposite. Comments are made in other programs from the news to documentaries which normalise homosexuality; known homosexuals are presenters of flagship programs and heterosexual men declare their support by wearing pink shirts or ties. All these things shower viewers with a non-threatening pro-homosexual cultural bias sedating their ‘threat detectors’ which normally alert their sense of danger. This is desensitisation in action; the initial stage of propaganda used in totalitarian states. Presenting sanitized examples of the new 'normal,' blinds and deafens most viewers to the possible threats posed by adopting such changes in social attitude.

But there are always some challenging ‘sentries’ whose senses remain intact. So in the second stage of the propaganda process challengers to the new ‘politically correct’ view that homosexuality is normal are psychologically 'jammed' into silence by accusing them of ‘homophobia.' This deliberately takes the normal human response of doubt, shame or fear of rejection when expressing what appears to be a socially unacceptable attitude and sets it in opposition to the desire to be accepted and well liked; this ‘jams’ these mental processes into each other and usually silences the challenger.

As a new word with such remarkable stopping power ‘homophobia’ demands an explanation. Depending on its context it actually has three meanings. Using the normal Greek convention it is the name for a curable psychological disorder. In this context homophobia means an irrational fear or hatred (phobia) of sameness (homo) or monotony. (As a Latin/Greek hybrid it would mean the irrational fear of man.) So having homophobia in either of these senses would normally provoke sympathy. But when it is used as an Anglo/Greek hybrid by uniting the English abbreviation for homosexual with the Greek 'phobia' in the sense of hatred it removes the stigma from homosexuality as a sub-normality and transfers it to its critics. Sounding like a real psychological condition makes it difficult to spot as a contrived propaganda word because it has a Greek form like most psychological disorders. But once revealed as an ideologically engineered linguistic weapon to prevent any critical discussion, its stopping power vanishes like smoke. Phobias do not normally name hatred towards a class of people. The normal linguistic construction for that is to use the prefix anti- as in anti-Semitic. Thus the words ‘homophobia’ and ‘homophobic’ are a form of psychobabble engineered to silence challenges to gay rights propaganda.

There is a real irony here. Like the trickster tailors in the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes the homosexual rights lobby introduces the previously rare word ‘homophobia’ not to provoke sympathy for its ‘sufferers’ but to make critics fearful and silence them. Promoted as genuine currency by gay activist campaigning, it can be found in dictionaries published after about 1990 meaning hatred of homosexuals, but not before. Now fear of being branded a homosexual ‘hater’ has injected a perverse reality into the new meaning of the word. Belief in its power to kill debate was perfectly illustrated recently by the Reverend Colin Coward of Changing Attitude when he described anyone who refers to homosexuals euphemistically as having 'same sex attraction,' or who believes in the Biblical teaching on sexual relationships as 'homophobic'. His confidence is seriously misplaced.

The final stage of the emotional conditioning process involves converting the population to want a change in treatment of homosexuals from being objects of fear and/or hatred to deserving protection. This is most effectively done by films like Philadelphia which starred Tom Hanks as an ostracized homosexual lawyer dying of AIDS. Audiences go home feeling that homosexuals need to be protected from 'homophobia' rather than morally resolving to be sexually virtuous! In the new millennium sexual rights activists are demanding total sexual freedom and liberation, group ‘marriage,’ the end of the traditional one man/one woman family, the reordering of society, the weakening of marital norms and severing the connection of marriage with responsible procreation.

Now total success of this propaganda campaign is threatened not just by those who oppose it on grounds of faith or reason but by distressed homosexuals successfully freeing themselves from their same sex urgings through reparative therapy. Of course according to the new ‘understanding’ this should not be happening. Homosexuals should be happy with their homosexuality, so they should not even want to leave the ‘community.’ But leave they do and now ex-gays are organizing themselves into a counter movement and forming organisations like Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays (PFOX). To oppose this threat reparative counsellors are being expelled from their professional associations by gay rights activism. In response to one such case a distinguished psychotherapist severely criticised the association concerned comparing it to the way Soviet Psychiatry was used to silence dissidents. Also parliamentary campaigns are being conducted to ban reparative therapy offered by groups like the Restored Hope Network (RHN) and the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH). If these campaigns are successful, anyone wanting to leave the homosexual life-style would be prevented from getting any professional help to do so.

So, rather than thanking the Holy Spirit for progressing gay rights to legal equality, it is homosexual rights activists acting under the influence of unholy spirits who are responsible. They achieved their goal by exploiting the natural compassion millions felt towards Rock Hudson, Liberace and Freddy Mercury, as well as the tens of thousands of other homosexuals who died of AIDS in the 80s. But it has not happened in an ideological vacuum. It has built on the so called sexual ‘revolution’ which exploited the weakening moral influence of the Christian Church and the powerful sex drive of immature young people. This was a rebellion against civilized sexual ethics which has demanded a very heavy price in misery and sexually transmitted infections.

Some students of social change believe the activists have, in their turn, been exploited by others who wish to destroy western democratic capitalism, like neo-Marxist Herbert Marcuse. His book Eros and Civilisation promotes sexual anarchy to destroy the natural bonds of kinship which hold families together, and with them the fabric of western society. Coining the slogan ‘Make Love Not War’ in the 1960s to exploit and encourage student anti-war sentiment in the USA, Marcuse was a leading figure in the highly influential group of neo-Marxist/neo-Freudian academics in the Frankfurt School. This was the institution which brought Critical Theory to the West's universities exploiting and corrupting the liberal values of individual liberty and equality before the law , and introduced the toxic 'political correctness' into our everyday lives.

The Frankfurt School was set up in the early 1920s as the Institute for Social Research ostensibly as an adjunct to Frankfurt University. In reality it was a Marxist Think Tank instigated by Lenin to undermine western capitalism by finding ways to corrupt its intellectual liberal elite. This was the new strategy to replace Marx's prophesied revolution of the working classes as the road to international communism, a prophecy which failed to materialise when the perfect opportunity for it arose in WWI. (In the event only semi-feudal Russia fell to communism through Lenin's military coup.) The overthrow of the West would have to be by internal destruction brought about by the 'treason of the intellectuals.' With no faith in Marx's economics blatant Soviet propaganda would be ignored by the Frankfurt School. Instead his earlier ideas that the greatest obstacles to communism, patriarchy (strong father-led families), religion and patriotism came to the fore, and the Frankfurt School declared war on them all. They would be criticised to extinction.

Having established their targets for destruction, the Frankfurt School developed 'Critical Theory' and taught it to large numbers of students, the West's future cultural leaders. Tricked into believing they would be improving their societies with radical 'criticism' they became ambassadors for cultural Marxism. Then by introducing Lenin's 'political correctness,' which he developed to control the Bolsheviks, they slowly poisoned free speech and weakened resistance to 'critical' ideas. The Frankfurt School also promoted sexual 'freedom' foolishly believing the consequent social disharmony would deliver the West to communism's social order without a shot being fired. But they did not know what they were doing. Today we have the triple irony of the USSR falling in 1989 to western consumer capitalism; the West 'progressing' towards Lenin's evil and obsolete design for it, and the Russian government setting its face against the homosexualist propaganda program which originated in Moscow!

Marcuse joined the Think Tank in the early 30s. Its first director Georg Lukacs had already established its major principles. These included encouraging premature sexual activity by children through teaching them about sexual intercourse. Other academics like Adorno, Horkheimer, Fromm and Benjamin, also produced critical works which came to be lauded later in the West. Then Hitler's election in 1933 brought a crisis. The School's professors were Jewish communists; prime targets for the Nazis. So they fled to Columbia University courtesy of American academic and communist sympathizer, John Dewey, who minimized their Marxist backgrounds. There they re-established themselves as the International Institute for Social Research. Columbia played a leading role in training America's teachers and its new professors were held in very high regard. Marcuse had worked with Heidegger, continental Europe's pre-eminent philosopher (and a Nazi Party member from 1933-45). Swiftly becoming America's cultural gatekeepers, they lost no time in moulding its teachers to become radical critics of their hitherto hallowed Constitution.

The new way to spread communist ideology was supported by the theories of Antonio Gramsci whose Prison Notebooks detailing how to replace capitalism with communism were smuggled out of his Italian prison in the 1930s. He advocated gradually infiltrating all the institutions and forming alliances with unwitting and expendable minority groups, like today's gay 'rights' campaigners. He also realised that changing the way people thought of themselves was crucial. This meant displacing our traditional vocabulary based on Christian belief and ethics from our universities, schools, churches and mainstream media with a 'politically correct' one. In effect this meant de-Christianising the language and customs of the West. To gain the moral high ground the 'politically correct' affected to protect and dignify the innocent victims of society, like the poor, the young, the black, the female, the homosexual, while the oppressors, the Christian capitalist establishment was to be criticised for its lack of compassion. This is the hypocritical but powerful appeal of cultural Marxism. And high on the list of suffering for this hypocrisy are young, black women in the USA with a 48% infection rate for STIs. While on the global scale with 35 million AIDS deaths and 70 million incurable HIV infections so far disproportionately affecting homosexuals, 'political correctness' brings them no consolation or dignity. As Jesus said; “Beware false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.” Today their spirit pervades the political parties, the Church and the mainstream media. It is at the heart of Greg Mulholland's charge of a 'dangerous and fundamentally illiberal drift to moral conformity…'

Besides ‘political correctness’, Marcuse also promoted an 'aesthetic' of Narcissus; and his efforts have been richly rewarded. Today narcissism has reached epidemic proportions bringing Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) into prominence. Appearing in early adolescence many mental health professionals believe NPD is seeded in poor child rearing. They opine ' the disorder might develop as the result of excessive pampering,…On the other end of the spectrum, NPD might develop as the result of neglect or abuse …during childhood.' Accordingly NPD may develop from either an excessive sense of entitlement, or as a rebellion against being treated as worthless and having an overwhelming need for compensation. (Or indeed by a combination of both, by being pampered with material goods and by having emotional and spiritual needs neglected. Sadly this neglect is continually reinforced by teen targeted programming encouraging them to be either sexually aggressive and/or vulnerable to sexual advances.)

The main characteristic of narcissism is a need for narcissistic 'supply;' an inordinate demand for constant attention and admiration. Other symptoms include self pity, telling self glorifying lies; a preoccupation with remaining youthful; having no empathy with others and no limits to fantasies of great ability, beauty and power. Although most narcissists are heterosexual men when homosexuals are bewitched by Narcissus they can ‘see’ perfected images of themselves in each other and want to ‘absorb’ those qualities they feel they lack so they can feel 'complete.' This makes it easy for them to fall in 'love.' It also makes narcissists very vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation by those who recognise their 'needs.' And, according to leading homosexual activists, narcissism, alloyed with a histrionic personality, leads to hypersensitivity to criticism, a proneness to outbursts of uncontrollable rage and homosexual arousal. Of course there are substantial individual differences between those under and around the same sex attracted umbrella. They include those trying to re-orientate to heterosexuality, those under internal or external pressure to question their sexuality, the celibate, those struggling to control their desires, but failing, settled long term couples, and those determined to change society's values; the highly promiscuous and the social/sexual 'revolutionaries.'

But it is their intellectual narcissism and overwhelming desires for unlimited power which drives the ambitions of international neo-Marxists. As Skoussen indicated in 1958, their destructive objectives include;

  • weakening the traditional family
  • attacking the authority of the father while promoting the importance of the mother
  • leading schools to present sex outside marriage and homosexuality to young children as 'normal, natural and healthy’
  • breaking down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, films, radio and TV
  • undermining the moral authority of traditional schools and teachers
  • promoting excessive drinking
  • infiltrating and emptying the churches
  • infiltrating political parties
  • replacing revealed religion with 'social' religion
  • promoting an unreliable legal system with a bias towards the offender
  • gaining control of and dumbing down the media and state education
  • promoting continual change
  • encouraging mass immigration to destroy national identity
  • encouraging dependency on state benefits

Seen by many as substantially achieved, this is only a small fraction of the aims Skoussen listed, and desperate personal attacks from both the political left and right, leave his analysis untouched. The final question remains, will populations gladly give up their freedoms won for them by the sacrifices of their ancestors and come to 'love their servitude' in a society at least 60% of which 'would be drones, well fed and existing in a miasma of unrestrained sex?' Or will the Holy Spirit inspire a successful resistance to demonic assaults on belief in God, our sacred freedoms and our sacred institutions?


  1. Liberal Democrats Do God, p.31, Liberal Democrat Christian Forum, 2013, Editors Jo Latham & Claire Mathys
  2. Ibid., p. 31
  3. Ibid.
  4. Ibid., p. 30
  5. Ibid., p. 34
  6. Ibid., p. 33
  7. Ibid., p. 34
  8. Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3: 11
  9. Philemon, v-v 12-17
  10. Liberal Democrats Do God, p. 35
  11. Ibid.
  13. Community Marketing Inc., "Gay and Lesbian Consumer Index," Nov. 25, 2009:
  14. Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act passed BBC 17 July 2013
  16. Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Bruckner, "Opposite Sex Twins and Adolescent Same Sex Attraction" American Journal of Sociology, Vol 107, No. 5 (March 2002) 1179-1205
  17. After the Ball: How America will conquer its fear & hatred of gays in the 90s, p. 184, Doubleday, 1989
  18. Ibid.
  19. Ibid.
  20. Ibid.
  21. Ibid., p. 300
  22. Kinsey, Sex and Fraud – The Indoctrination of a People, Dr J A Reisman & E W Eichal, eds Dr J H Court & Dr J G Muir, Huntington House Publishers, 1990
  23. Psychological Reports (2005;96:693-697)
  24. Integrated Household Survey, April 2011 – March 2012, Office for National Statistics.
  25. Public Health England Report 5/6/2013
  26. A Freedom Too Far, C. Socarides, pp. 157-182, Adam Margrave Books, 1995 & Homosexuality and American Psychiatry, R. Bayer, Princeton University Press, 1987
  27.…/the-corrupt-alliance-of-the-psychiatric-pharmaceutical-industry 31/07/2013
  28. After the Ball, p. 184
  29. Ibid., p. xxv
  30. Ibid., p. xxiv
  31. Ibid., p. xxv
  32. Ibid., pp. 193-4
  33. Ibid., p. xxvi
  34. Ex-gays?A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change in Sexual Orientation, p. 369, S.L. Jones & M.A. Yarhouse, Downers Grove III.: IVP Academic, 2007
  35. "Retrospective self reports of change in homosexual orientation: A consumer survey of conversion therapy clients." pp.1071-88, J. Nicolosi, A. D. Byrd, R.W. Potts, Psychological Reports 86
  36. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 93. No. 6 (June 2003) p. 941
  37. Centre for Disease Control and Prevention: 2010
  38. The Top Ten Myths of Homosexuality, P. Sprigg, Family research Council, Washington D. C. 2010
  39. Age of Propaganda: the Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion, p.51, Anthony R Pratkanis & Elliot Aronson, (rev.ed 2001) as quoted by Paul Rondeau in his 'Selling Homosexuality to America' published in the Regent University Law Review, p. 444, vol. 14:443, 2002
  40.…/ Coronation- Street- to- hold- its- first- ever- gay- wedding….20/12/2010
  42. After the Ball, p. 176
  43. Ibid, p. 149
  44. Ibid,, pp. 150-3
  45. Ibid, p. 151
  46. Chambers 1998, Collins 1988
  47. Church of England Newspaper, Letters' column, 03/10/2013, In reply to the Rev Andrew Symes's letter on 19/09/2013
  48. /…/comment-the-same-sex-marriage-bill-isn’t-the-end-of-the-journey-towards-gay-rights 25/01/2013
  49. Ex-Gay Christian Counsellor Hounded Out by Psychotherapists Associations (UKCP/BPA), Christian Legal Centre, 11/10/13
  51. Parliamentary Early Day Motion entered on Banning Gay Conversion Therapy 11/06/2013
  52. Cry Havoc! Ralph de Toledano, Anthem Books, 2006
  53. Eros and Civilisation, p. 184, Herbert Marcuse, Vintage Books (Random House) 1962 (first ed. 1955)
  54. Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. p. 50, R. H. Bork, Regan Books, 1996
  55. Ibid., p.13,
  56. Ibid., p. 31
  57. On the Origins of Political Correctness (F. Ellis) Political Correctness and the Ideological Struggle: From Lenin and Mao to Marcuse and Foucault, part 1
  58. Eros and Civilisation, p. 31
  59. Ibid., p. 80
  60. Heidegger and Nazism, V. Faria (published in French 1987) Eng. trans. Temple University Press 1991
  61. Eros and Civilisation, p.85
  63. has-a-sexually …..
  65. Matt: C7: 15-16
  66. When One Door Closes, p.293, Peter Sissons, Biteback Publishing, 2010
  67. Eros And Civilisation, p.184,
  68. The Narcissism Epidemic – Living in the Age of Entitlement, J. W. Twenge & W. K. Campbell, Freedom Press, 2009
  70. A Freedom Too Far, p. 22.
  71. After the Ball, pp. 296-7
  72. After the Ball, p. 296
  73. The Naked Communist, pp.259-262, K. Cleon Skousen, Buccaneer Books, 1961 edition
  74. The Ultimate Revolution – Aldous Huxley's speech at the Berkeley Language Center 20/03/1960 Speech Archive 0269,
  75. Cry Havoc! p.95

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments are closed.