Religion is a Mental Illness

So, Pride Month is finally over. The flags, the rainbow bunting, the corporate drag shows, all of it is being wound down for another year, and many people will be breathing a sigh of relief. Gay people included.

For what began all those decades ago as an annual demonstration against homophobic bigotry held to commemorate The Stonewall riots of 1969, has descended into a month-long orgy of virtue signaling. Far worse than that, due to Pride's embrace of gender ideology, it has helped to fuel a new form of homophobia in faux progressive garb.

The impact of the riots at the Stonewall Inn in June 1969 has often been overblown. Those few summer days when the beleaguered gay community fought back against the police on the streets of New York is rightly considered a milestone in the struggle for equal rights. But gay equality was truly achieved by the activists who persisted in the aftermath, harnessing the energy of the uprising and changing the world forever. Perhaps a more important milestone was the march organized by a handful of campaigners a year later. Veteran gay rights activist Craig Rodwell wanted to hold a yearly commemoration of Stonewall, building on the annual reminder picket events he had been organizing on Independence Day in Philadelphia.

The first New York Pride March, as it was later rebranded, was held on the 28th of June 1970. It was called the Christopher Street Liberation Day and was organized by Rodwell, Fred Sargeant, Linda Rhodes and Ellen Broidy. It was an audacious display. Police hostility to gay people was rife at the time, the local media were overwhelmingly unsympathetic, and there were fears of violent repercussions from observers. Nevertheless, the day passed off peacefully, perhaps because of a general sense of astonishment that thousands of gay people would assemble so openly. At the head of the march, Fred Sergeant carried a bullhorn and called out instructions to the marchers as they made their way from the West Village to Central Park.

Fifty-four years later, and Pride has transformed from an important act of gay and lesbian resistance into an event full of heterosexuals calling themselves "queer" or "non-binary," desperate to identify into an oppressed group. Progress Pride flags flutter from every High Street store. This relatively new design, a kaleidoscopic eyesore that has replaced the traditional six stripe pride flag, is emblazoned on schools, universities, hospitals and civic buildings.

In the city of Arlington in Texas, this year's "family friendly" Pride event included displays of dildos, half- naked drag queens and human dogs in bondage gear. And it was all spon.sored by Lockheed Martin, the world's largest producer of military armaments.

In London, pedestrian crossings have been repainted with the Progress Pride motif. Police horses find walking across the colored stripes confused and disturbing, so the animals had to undergo special training to overcome their fears. After all, it is essential to address the rampant homophobia within the equine community.

What might the thousands who turned out on that summer day in New York in 1970 make of this distorted version of Pride? Those gay men and lesbians who risked social ostracism and physical violence to gather in public have little in common with this garish and unsettling facsimile.

A poll from 2021 determined that almost 40% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 now identify as LGBTQ. And given the vast majority of them identify as "trans," "non-binary" and "queer," this means that gay people are now the minority in this coalition. The early pioneers of gay rights didn't risk so much for their movement to be usurped by fetishistic heterosexuals with a martyr complex.

A recent poll on X asked a simple question: "Do you want Pride anymore?" The response was overwhelmingly negative. But while social media polls are notoriously unreliable, it is surely significant that this one was reposted by Fred Sargeant and that his answer was a resounding "no." That the man who led the first Pride March, bullhorn in hand, should now reject the annual event that he co-created is far from trivial.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” ― George Orwell, 1984

1. Did not start the Stonewall revolt. There was no one event, but an accumulation of episodes of harassment including multiple arrests (such as Stormé DeLarverie) and strip-searches, which built up into an unleashed mob revolt.
2. Was not even there when the Stonewall revolt began. He himself says he arrived at about 2am and the fighting and the fire were already well underway.
3. Was not "trans." he describes himself as a "boy" and a drag queen.

It’s time for gay people to turn our backs on Pride

This month-long orgy of virtue-signalling, fetishism and gender ideology is taking gay rights backwards.

spiked-online.com

The impact of the riots at the Stonewall Inn in June 1969 has often been overblown. Those few summer days when the beleaguered gay community fought back against the police on the streets of New York City are rightly considered a milestone in the struggle for equal rights in the West. But endless arguments about ‘who threw the first brick?’ have obscured the truth that gay equality was achieved by the activists who persisted in the aftermath, harnessing that energy and changing the world forever.

Perhaps a more important milestone was the march organised by a handful of campaigners a year after Stonewall. Craig Rodwell’s idea had been to make this a yearly commemoration that would supersede the ‘Annual Reminder’ picket events that he had been holding every Independence Day in Philadelphia since 1965. It would be known as the ‘Christopher Street Liberation Day’ – later retrospectively rebranded as the first New York ‘Pride’ march – and it was orchestrated chiefly by Rodwell, Fred Sargeant, Linda Rhodes and Ellen Broidy.

The march took place on 28 June 1970, and it was an audacious display. Police hostility to gay people was rife, the local media were overwhelmingly unsympathetic and there were fears of violent repercussions from observers. The day passed off peacefully, perhaps because of a general sense of astonishment that thousands of gay people would assemble so openly. A reporter for the Village Voice wrote that ‘no one could quite believe it, eyes rolled back in heads, Sunday tourists traded incredulous looks, wondrous faces poked out of air-conditioned cars’. At the head of the march, Fred Sargeant carried a bullhorn and called out instructions to the marchers as they made their way from the West Village to Central Park.

Fifty-four years later, and Pride has transformed from an important act of resistance into a month-long orgy of corporatism and virtue-signalling, full of heterosexuals desperate to identify themselves into an oppressed group with the help of trans ideology. ‘Progress Pride’ flags flutter from every high-street store. This relatively new design – a kaleidoscopic eyesore that has replaced the traditional six-stripe Pride flag – is emblazoned on schools, universities, hospitals, civic buildings. In the city of Arlington in Texas, this year’s family friendly Pride event included displays of dildos, half-naked drag queens and human dogs in bondage gear, all co-spon.sored by Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest producer of armaments. In London, numerous pedestrian crossings have been repainted with the ‘Progress Pride’ motif. Police horses find walking across the coloured stripes confusing and disturbing, so the animals have undergone special training to overcome their fears. After all, it is essential to address the rampant homophobia within the equine community.

What might the thousands who turned out on that summer day in New York in 1970 make of this distorted version of Pride? Those gay men and lesbians who risked social ostracism and physical violence to gather in public have little in common with this garish and unsettling facsimile. A poll from 2021 determined that almost 40 per cent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 now identify as LGBTQ. Given the vast majority identifying as such do so as ‘trans’, ‘nonbinary’ and ‘queer’, this means it is statistically certain that gay people are now the minority in this coalition. The early pioneers of gay rights didn’t risk so much for their movement to be usurped by fetishistic heterosexuals with a martyr complex.

It would be interesting to see polling data on how many gay people support Pride in its new ‘trans-inclusive’ incarnation. One recent poll on X asked a simple question: ‘Do you want Pride anymore?’ And although 93.5 per cent of respondents replied in the negative, social-media polls are notoriously useless and we would be unwise to draw any conclusions from them. Still, it is surely significant that this poll was reposted by Fred Sargeant, and that his answer was a resounding ‘No’. That the man who led the first Pride march, bullhorn in hand, should now reject the annual event that he co-created because of its embrace of gender ideology is far from trivial. Nor is it trivial that while handing out pamphlets critical of the trans movement at a Pride event in Vermont in 2022, Sargeant was physically attacked by trans activists.

He is not alone. Many gay people have expressed dismay at the metamorphosis of Pride and feel that it no longer represents them. This can be confusing for those who have not been paying attention to its ongoing political evolution, but there is a very good reason why groups of gay men and lesbians are now holding alternative Pride rallies this year. In August 2022, police insisted that lesbians leave a Pride parade because their banners, proclaiming that ‘lesbians don’t like penises’ and ‘trans activism erases lesbians’, were causing consternation. When gay people are being escorted away from Pride marches by the police, we can safely say that the movement has fallen.

Some might argue that the LGBTQIA+ explosion is an example of what happens when liberalism goes unchecked, that it is the natural consequence of an excess of tolerance and the rise of identity politics. Yet while identity politics in its current intersectional form has proven to be deeply illiberal and regressive, there have been sound reasons throughout history for people with shared characteristics to organise and resist. Unlike the various campaigns for imaginary victimhood that dominate today’s ‘social justice’ causes, being openly gay in the 1970s came at a huge cost. At the time of the first Pride parade, every state in the US with the exception of Illinois criminalised gay sex. In services and employment, discrimination against gay people was permitted, and even most progressives assumed that homosexuality was a mental illness. This is a world away from the exaggerated or fabricated grievances of the diversity, equity and inclusion industry today.

Now that gay people have complete equal rights under the law, the protest element of Pride has been appropriated by those with an apparent craving for oppression. Asexual activists, for instance, have taken centre stage at certain Pride events, even though nobody in the history of humankind has ever been burned at the stake for not wanting to have sex. It isn’t the case that those who identify as asexual are facing discrimination; it’s that nobody cares about what they don’t get up to in the bedroom. But of course, for those of a narcissistic temperament, there can be nothing more devastating than being ignored.

Many of those who call themselves ‘nonbinary’ are similarly vocal, but there is no serious comparison to be made between the historical persecution of homosexuals and experiencing some pushback when you demand that others refer to you as ‘they’ or ‘them’. Coming out as gay in 1970 increased the risk of being violently assaulted; coming out as ‘nonbinary’ today only increases one’s chances of being employed at the BBC.

Of course, all of this must be symptomatic of the developing cult of victimhood in the Western world. Ironically, there is now power in being the victim. Those who claim to be ‘marginalised’ are able to get people fired, drive them from public life, and harass and bully them in the name of ‘progress’. Who would have thought there was so much clout in being oppressed?

Far from being a collective gesture of unity, Pride is now widely interpreted as a celebration of homophobia. This is because it has become infected with gender ideology, which seeks to eliminate gay people from their own history. Although trans-identified individuals were rarely seen at activist meetings and events in the early decades of the gay movement, revisionists are now insisting that gay people owe their rights to the hard work of trans campaigners. We are told that a black trans woman, Marsha P Johnson, was the key figure at the Stonewall riots. This is wrong on many counts. The riots were overwhelmingly dominated by young gay men. Although Johnson took part in the demonstrations, he wasn’t present when the rioting began. Most significantly, by his own admission, he was a transvestite who didn’t identify as female.

Fred Sargeant has been much vilified for exposing the truth of what took place in these early years of the gay rights’ movement, and he is now a thorn in the side of activists whose worldview depends on a narrative that runs contrary to the truth. Recently he posted a link to the Digital Transgender Archive on the Third International Conference on Transgender Law and Employment Policy, which explicitly outlines how gay and trans movements in the 20th century were completely separate. The conflation of the LGB and T is an invention as recent as 2015. As the document explains, while the gay-rights movement in the US began in the 1920s, ‘the existence of a transgendered community that seeks reforms did not come into existence until the 1990s’.

The historical revisionism doesn’t end at Stonewall. Activists have attempted to claim that certain gay historical figures were mistaking their true trans identity for homosexuality. Just as Mormon priests have been known to baptise the dead and thereby convert them unwillingly to their cause, trans activists have been busy harvesting the annals of history for potential recruits. Those falsely claimed as trans include George Eliot, Dr James Barry, Radclyffe Hall and Joan of Arc. People who were gay and gender nonconforming are particularly vulnerable to this kind of retrospective ‘transing’. It’s very convenient for activists that the dead can’t complain.

While many trans campaigners consider themselves supportive of gay rights, overt homophobia is nonetheless often tolerated and encouraged within their circles. There are innumerable examples online of trans activists claiming that homosexuality is a form of transphobia and that only bigots have ‘genital preferences’. ‘If you’re a cis gay man’, writes one, ‘and your sexuality revolves around you not liking female genitalia I hope you die and I will spit on your grave’. A video recently went viral featuring an activist explaining to gay men why they should transition to female and that ‘maybe being gay is an outdated concept’. An online influencer called Davey Wavey uploaded his attempt at gay conversion therapy in a video entitled ‘How To Eat Pussy – For Gay Men’. One can imagine it being shown to young men at an evangelical Christian retreat for those who wish to find a ‘cure’ for their immoral urges.

This isn’t simply a case of a handful of lunatics on the fringe – this idea has also been normalised in mainstream gay culture. Australia’s Human Rights Commission prohibits lesbians from holding female-only events on the grounds that it discriminates against men who identify as female. Sall Grover, the founder of women’s app Giggle, is currently in a legal battle in Australia because she refused to allow a man to join. Stonewall has even redefined ‘homosexuality’ on its website as ‘same-gender attracted’. Its former CEO, Nancy Kelley, once suggested that women who don’t wish to date trans people are ‘sexual racists’. No, Nancy, they’re just gay.

We have seen all this before. In the 1980s, it was a common trope for gay men to be told that they ‘just haven’t found the right girl yet’ and to suggest to lesbians that they ‘just need the right dick’. The rights of homosexuals depend upon a recognition that a minority of people are attracted to their own sex. Once sex is eliminated from the equation, gay rights are no longer tenable.

The most obvious example of how gay rights have been threatened by trans ideology is that young gay people are disproportionately at risk of surgical ‘correction’. Given that between 80 and 90 per cent of adolescents referred to the NHS Tavistock Clinic were orientated towards their own sex, it is clear that in many cases homosexuality was being treated as gender dysphoria. I am usually mistrustful of accusations of various ‘phobias’ which can be used as a rhetorical technique to discourage disagreement. But if medicalising people for being same-sex attracted doesn’t qualify as homophobic, I’m not sure that anything does.

And so Pride and its accoutrements have come to represent an ideology that seeks not only to erase the foundations of gay rights, but also to re-conceptualise same-sex attraction as a condition that requires medical treatment. When police officers decorate their cars with the Pride colours, when NHS workers display the rainbow lanyard, when schools decorate their halls with bunting in solidarity, they are almost certainly doing so with the noble intention of promoting equal rights. But they are inadvertently promoting a movement whose end goal is the eradication of homosexuality.

This is not to deny that the ‘Progress Pride’ flag and all it represents have been embraced by many gay people. It is clearly the case that a majority have not realised the extent to which the flag has been hijacked for a cause that actively works against their interests. The situation has hardly been helped by prominent celebrities, often now referred to as ‘Vichy gays’, who have cheered on this sinister development. Homosexuals are not immune to the condition of useful idiocy.

Given that Pride has become so divisive, and given that so many lesbians, bisexuals and gay men now consider it to be an essentially hostile enterprise, it would be prudent for corporations and government bodies to stop pretending that there is a consensus on this issue. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. By flying the ‘Progress Pride’ flag, they are taking a side in a highly contentious cultural debate, one that alienates as many gay people as it attracts. Those who are serious about gay rights need to distance themselves from Pride once and for all.

"If you find men engaged in a homosexual act - kill the active one as well as the passive one."

Don't start asking: "Are you active or passive?" Just kill both.

The companions of the Prophet Muhammad unanimously agreed that homosexuals should be killed, but they had disagreements about the method of killing.

Some said that they should be burned alive. That was (the Caliph) Ali. Abu Bakr supported this ruling. Others said that they should be thrown off a high place and this should be followed by stoning. Yet others said that they should be stoned to death. Both Ali and Ibn Abbas agreed on this.

With regard to girls - people ask if the same ruling applies to lesbianism. The Islamic scholars have said, unanimously, that lesbianism is prohibited.

Some of them say: "I am not homosexual, I'm gay." They want it to sound nice. No! You are a homosexual, a sodomite, and a lesbian.

Narrated Abdullah ibn Abbas:

The Prophet (ﷺ) said: If you find anyone doing as Lot's people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done. Abu Dawud said: A similar tradition has also been transmitted by Sulaiman b. Bilal from 'Amr b. Abi 'Umar. And 'Abbad b. Mansur transmitted it from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who transmitted it from the Prophet (ﷺ). It has also been transmitted by Ibn Juraij from Ibrahim from Dawud b. Al-Husain from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas who transmitted it from the Prophet (ﷺ).

Homosexuality is one of the most disgusting sins and greatest crimes. God did not afflict any people with this before [He afflicted] the folk of Lot, and He punished them as He punished no one else. It is a vile perversion that goes against sound nature, and it is one of the most corrupting and hideous sins.

Homosexuality is forbidden. It is a great sin. The Qur’an and the majority opinion [of scholars] confirm the prohibition on it. The Qur’an states: “We also (sent) Lut: he said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? For ye practise your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds." [7:80-81] God the Most High said about His prophet, Lut: And to Lut, too, We gave Judgment and Knowledge, and We saved him from the town which practised abominations: truly they were a people given to Evil, a rebellious people. [21:74]

Muslims have been unanimous in prohibiting this practice.

Punishment

The punishment for homosexuality is death. Both the active and passive participants∗ are to be killed whether or not they have previously had sexual intercourse in the context of a lawful marriage. The Qur’an and the unanimous opinion of the Prophet’s companions show this.

The companions of the Prophet were unanimously agreed upon killing [those who commit this sin]. Ibn Qudamah said, “The companions of the Prophet were unanimous on killing, although they differed in the description, that is, in the manner of killing.”2 Some of the companions of the Prophet stated that [the perpetrator] is to be burned with fire. It has also been said that he should be stoned, or thrown from a high place. Other things have also been said.

What do studies reveal? According to studies, whoever becomes embroiled in homosexuality cannot walk out of homosexuality. They are stuck. They really are. Even if they become aware, noticed, asked for forgiveness, repented, or even cried at night. They could become aware of their situation, ask for forgiveness, repent, and even fast...

This was experienced by some people. I have heard of some people and know some others abroad. This happened to them. They became aware of it, started praying at night, crying, fasting, etc but to no avail. They are stuck.

Now, concerning such crimes that destroy the families and society, we have crucial provisions in Sharia, but here's the difference because a point should be mentioned here. If a person commits adultery, may it be a man or a woman, if they committed adultery and were unmarried, they shall be flogged and if they were married, in accordance with the ruling of a judge, they shall be killed.

In case of homosexuality, no distinction is made between an unmarried and married person. In case of homosexuality, from the first time even if they were unmarried they shall be killed.

So, I did a study abroad in the Middle East with Israel and Palestine.

Would you say you're pro-Palestine or pro-israel?

Pro-Palestine.

As a gay man, I would be punished and-or put in prison or killed if I were openly gay in Palestine. how do you react to that?

... I didn't know that.

It is illegal to be gay in Palestine. You are punished by prison in death.

In Israel?

No, Israel has gay pride. Israel is completely open to lesbian and gay people. Palestine puts them in prison or kills them. You weren't aware of that?

I was not aware of that, no. So, that does pose an interesting... aspect.

Have you seen the Queers for Palestine movement? It's a very common movement. But I don't see any Muslims for Queer movements.

Uh, yes. That's where i gets gray, right? Like...

Well, for me, it's not gray. I am fearful of Islam because there is no Islamic country on Earth that embraces me as a gay man.

So, OK, OK, so maybe I'm confused because Israel, which is still an Islam country, right?

No, no, no, Jewish.

OK. OK, OK, OK.

So, Israel is Jewish, Palestinians are Islamic.

OK.