Anti-Islam Solicitor Robert Remo Balzola loses again

Balzola looses again

Anti-Islam Solicitor Robert Remo Balzola
loses another NCAT encounter with anti-discrimination campaigner Garry Burns.

See below case law.
NSW Crest

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:
Burns v Sunol [2016] NSWCATAD 16
Hearing dates:
15 July 2015
Date of orders:
21 January 2016
Decision date:
21 January 2016
Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
A Britton, Principal Member
M O’Halloran, Member
M Murray, Member
1.   The complaint is substantiated.
2.   Within 14 days of the date of this decision the applicant must: (i) file with the Tribunal and serve on the respondent a document setting out the orders, if any, he seeks under s 108(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) and any evidence and submissions in support of that application; (ii) notify the Tribunal and the respondent in writing whether he consents to the issue of what orders, if any should be made, being determined “on the papers”.
3.   Within 14 days of the receipt of the material referred to in Order (2) the respondent must: (i) file with the Tribunal and serve on the applicant any evidence and submissions in reply; (ii) notify the Tribunal and the applicant in writing whether he consents to the issue of orders, being determined “on the papers”.
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY — homosexual vilification — whether a publication was a public act of the respondent — whether the publication had the capacity to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of homosexual persons
Legislation Cited:
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Cases Cited:
Burns v Sunol [2012] NSWADT 246
Burns v Sunol [2015] NSWCATAD 40
Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 284
Jones v Toben No 2 [2003] FCAFC 137; (2003) 199 ALR 1
Jones v Trad [2013] NSWCA 389
Margan v Manias [2015] NSWCA 388
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1997) 194 CLR 355
Sunol v Burns [2015] NSWCATAP 207
Sunol v Collier and anor. (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 44
Western Aboriginal Legal Service v Jones [2000] NSWADT 102
Principal judgment
Garry Burns (Applicant)
Christopher Sunol (Respondent)
G Burns (Applicant in Person)
R Balzola & Associates(Respondent)
File Number(s):


  1. In 2014 Garry Burns lodged a complaint with the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board (respectively “the President” and “the Board”) about John Sunol, the respondent in these proceedings. The complaint concerns content published on the internet, which Mr Burns contends vilifies homosexuals. Section 49ZT of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (the Act) makes it unlawful for a person, by a “public act”, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person on the ground that the person(s) is, or is thought to be homosexual.
  2. The material which is the subject of Mr Burns’ complaint was published on a website apparently operated by a third party, Luke McKee (the offending content). Mr Burns contends that Mr Sunol invited followers of his blog to view the offending content by placing on his blog a link to, and a commentary about, the offending content. Mr Burns also contends that as a consequence of this placement Mr Sunol was responsible in the relevant sense for the act of communicating the offending content to the public.
  3. Mr Sunol disagrees and submits that he is not responsible for the material appearing on Mr McKee’s website. He argues that Mr Burns is targeting him, not Mr McKee, because Mr McKee is “outside the jurisdiction of NSW”. Further he contends that Mr Burns’ actions in targeting him and not the “ultimate author” demonstrates that Mr Burns’ complaint is vexatious. He describes Mr Burns as a serial complainant.
  4. The issues that arise for determination are:
  1. Whether the communication of the offending content was a “public act” of Mr Sunol
  2. If so, whether the offending content incited or had the capacity to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of homosexual person(s), and
  3. If so, whether the requisite emotion was incited on the ground of the homosexuality of the person(s).
  1. If the answer to each of the above questions is yes we must also consider whether, as submitted by Mr Sunol, any of the exceptions listed in s 49ZT apply.
  2. For the reasons set out below we have found Mr Burns’ complaint to be substantiated.

Statutory framework

  1. Section 49ZT, makes it unlawful for a person to engage in a “public act” which amounts to homosexual vilification within the meaning of that section:

49ZT Homosexual vilification unlawful

(1) It is unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group.

(2) Nothing in this section renders unlawful:

(a) a fair report of a public act referred to in subsection (1), or

(b) a communication or the distribution or dissemination of any matter on an occasion that would be subject to a defence of absolute privilege (whether under the Defamation Act 2005 or otherwise) in proceedings for defamation, or

(c) a public act, done reasonably and in good faith, for academic, artistic, religious instruction, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of any act or matter.

  1. A “public act” is defined by s 49ZS to include:

In this Division:

“public act” includes:

(a) any form of communication to the public, including speaking, writing, printing, displaying notices, broadcasting, telecasting, screening and playing of tapes or other recorded material, and

(b) any conduct (not being a form of communication referred to in paragraph (a)) observable by the public, including actions and gestures and the wearing or display of clothing, signs, flags, emblems and insignia, and

(c) the distribution or dissemination of any matter to the public with knowledge that the matter promotes or expresses hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person or members of the group.

Legal principles

  1. The vilification provisions of the Act have been the subject of detailed judicial consideration, most recently by the NSW Court of Appeal in Sunol v Collier and anor. (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 44 (Sunol), Jones v Trad [2013] NSWCA 389 (Jones) and Margan v Manias [2015] NSWCA 388 (Margan). The following principles relevant to this matter may be distilled from those authorities:
  1. an objective test must be used to determine whether a public act had the capacity to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or serious ridicule of a person or group on the ground of their homosexuality (the relevant reaction) (Jones at [53])
  2. “incite” in s 49ZT means to rouse, to stimulate, to urge, to spur on, to stir up or to animate and covers conduct involving commands, requests, proposals, actions or encouragement (Sunol at [41]; Margan at [11])
  3. for a contravention of s 49ZT it is not necessary to establish that anyone was incited (Sunol at [41]), or to establish an intention to incite (Sunol at [41]; Margan at [12])
  4. it is not sufficient that the impugned public act conveys hatred towards, serious contempt for, or serious ridicule of homosexual persons; it must be capable of inciting those reactions in an ordinary member (or ordinary reasonable member) of the class to whom the act is directed/the audience or likely audience (Sunol at [41])
  5. the assessment of the capacity of the public act to incite the relevant reaction must be undertaken by reference to the context in which it occurs (Sunol at [61])
  6. in making that assessment the particular class to whom the act is directed/ the audience or likely audience, must be identified and considered (Sunol at [34]; [61]; Jones at [62], [63]).

The offending content

  1. Mr Burns complained to the President that the following material, which is reproduced at Tab 1 of the President’s report, appeared on Mr Sunol’s website on 2 December 2014:

image of content published on Mr Sunol’s website on 2 December 2014

text version of content published (50.3 KB, rtf)

  1. In his complaint, Mr Burns claimed that the above link takes the reader to the following page (Attachment A) maintained by Mr McKee who apparently uses the name, “Hojurka”.

Attachment A

text version of Attachment A (52.6 KB, rtf)

“No evidence of link” argument

  1. In written submissions, Mr Sunol asserted that there is “no evidence” that the link to Mr McKee’s website that Mr Burns claims was on his website (theoffending link), “ever existed” and, by the operation of “the rule in Jones v Dunkel”, the complaint must fail.
  2. In a statutory declaration provided to the Board dated 22 December 2014, Mr Sunol declared that:
  1. He was not the author of the “purportedly offensive material’ found in the “said link” [to Mr McKee’s website].
  2. He does not have control over “blocking other parties posting links upon my blogs but only the control of removing material or links that actually appear on my blog”.
  3. On or about 6 December 2014 he noticed and removed from his blog the link described by Mr Burns. He then placed the following note on his website, which shows that the “purportedly offensive material” had been removed:

These articles are put on to show the coming of agenda 21 (coming of the new world order) or a one-world government, and issues related. This is to put all it represents as put in the media and other places such as news papers ect. I will change my writings from time to time as I deem the necessity to do so. / and – (this blog)

[For convenience we will refer to this passage as “the disclaimer”.]

  1. When questioned in these proceedings Mr Sunol gave a different account. He not only admitted placing the offending link on his website but described to the Tribunal how he did so. He also admitted placing the commentary on his website that appears at Tab 1 of the President’s report.
  2. The suggestion in Mr Sunol’s statutory declaration that “other parties” might have posted the link on his website is implausible, unsupported and contradicted by his oral evidence.
  3. The submission that there is “no evidence” that the page on Mr Sunol’s website and the offending link “ever existed” must be rejected.

“Material does not exist” at time of complaint argument

  1. Mr Sunol contends that because the offending link was allegedly removed before the President notified him of the complaint on 15 December 2014, the President lacked jurisdiction to refer the complaint to NCAT.
  2. This argument is misconceived. There is the nothing in the Act that prevents the President from referring to the Tribunal, or the Tribunal from determining, a complaint where the alleged contravention of the Act has ceased. The only provision in the Act to impose a temporal requirement in relation to the making of a complaint is s 89B(2)(b), which provides that the President may decline a complaint if the alleged conduct occurred more than 12 months before the complaint was made.

The statutory construction argument

  1. Mr Sunol contends that to constitute a “public act”, the impugned act must satisfy either paragraph (a) or (b) and, in addition the second limb of paragraph (c) of s 49ZS — that the alleged vilifier had knowledge that the act promotes or expresses hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, a person or group of persons on the ground of the homosexuality of the person(s). In support of that contention, Mr Sunol points to the use of the word “and” at the end of paragraphs (a) and (b), which he submits operates to link or “hard wire” those paragraphs with paragraph (c). He cites in support of this proposition, Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 284 (Catch the Fire) at [16].
  2. This submission must be rejected. Section 49ZS sets out a non-exhaustive list of acts that constitute a “public act”. The definition lists three broad categories of “acts”:
  • any form of communication to the public, including speaking …, and
  • any conduct (not being a form of communication referred to in paragraph (a)) observable by the public…, and
  • the distribution or dissemination of any matter to the public…
  1. The use of the conjunction “and” at the end of paragraphs (a) and (b) simply indicates that the acts listed in each of the three paragraphs fall within the scope of the definition. This is made plain by the opening words of the definition: “Public act includes …”
  2. The literal meaning of the definition is that an act will constitute a “public act” if it satisfies any one of the three paragraphs listed in s 49ZS. While, as the High Court emphasised in Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; (1997) 194 CLR 355 at 381-2, 384, the proper approach to statutory interpretation is contextual rather than strictly literal, there is nothing in either the definition itself, its context or the language of the Act to suggest that the definition should be construed to mean that an impugned act caught by paragraph (a) or (b), must also satisfy the second limb of paragraph (c).
  3. The decision of the Court of Appeal of Victoria in Catch the Fire does not, as Mr Sunol contends, support the proposition he advances about the operation of the definition. The passage he cites relates to a discussion about the meaning of the word “incitement”.

The disclaimer argument

  1. Mr Sunol contends that the disclaimer posted on 6 December 2014 makes it clear that he was not endorsing the views expressed by Mr McKee but rather encouraging people to “make up their own minds”.
  2. While it is not entirely clear how long the material the subject of Mr Burns’ complaint was on Mr Sunol’s website before the disclaimer was posted, the available evidence indicates that it was at least a couple of days. Mr Burns testified that he saw the material (at Tab 1 of the President’s Report) on or about 2 December 2014. The length of time that the material appeared on Mr Sunol’s website before the disclaimer was posted may be relevant to the issue of relief, but it is otherwise irrelevant to our determination.

Is the offending communication a public act of Mr Sunol within the meaning of para (a) of s 49ZS?

  1. There is no argument that the publication of material on the internet, which as in this case is not password protected, is “a form of communication to the public”. Nor is there any disagreement that the communication of the offending content is a “public act” within the meaning of s 49ZS of the Act. The issue in dispute is whether its communication to the public is a public act by Mr Sunol.
  2. The definition of public act must be read in the context of the substantive provision, s 49ZT of the Act, which makes it unlawful for a person, by a public act to incite … Mr Sunol contends that the offending content was not a form of communication by him but rather a form of communication for which Mr McKee is responsible. Mr Burns, on the other hand, contends that by placing on his website the words “all should read this … all should read this and make their own decision” and providing a link to Mr McKee’s website, Mr Sunol was inviting or encouraging his “followers” to read the offending content. Mr Sunol disagrees and argues that the words on his website were nothing more than a “bald invitation” and are insufficient to attribute responsibility to him for the offending content.
  3. In support of their respective positions, both parties referred us to decisions of NCAT and one of its predecessor tribunals, the Administrative Decision Tribunal, in which both were parties.
  4. In Burns v Sunol [2012] NSWADT 246 (Burns 2012), the Tribunal (differently constituted) considered whether Mr Sunol had communicated to the public three publications, which appeared on websites maintained by third parties. The Tribunal reasoned (at [34]) that Mr Sunol was relevantly responsible for two of those publications because first, each contained material that he had composed and, second, Mr Sunol expressly invited users who had logged onto it to click on the requisite phrase and gain access to the publications. With respect to the third publication, the Tribunal held that Mr Sunol was not responsible for its communication to the public: “It is not clear from the evidence relating to [that] publication … that any such invitation existed on a website maintained by Mr Sunol”: at [35].
  5. More recently, in Burns v Sunol [2015] NSWCATAD 40 (Burns 2015), the Tribunal found that the publication of statements relating to a YouTube clip, which appeared on a website that was not maintained by Mr Sunol, nonetheless constituted a public act of Mr Sunol. The Tribunal found at [41] that the words posted by Mr Sunol on his website —“some very interesting videos on corruption from Luke McKee” — constituted an invitation to access those videos and taken together with the accompanying link made Mr Sunol responsible in the relevant sense for the impugned “public act”.
  6. Mr Sunol contends that the Tribunal in Burns 2015 misapplied the principles established in Burns 2012, which he contends establish the:
  1. First responsibility test
  2. Operator test
  3. Accessibility test
  4. Knowledge test
  5. Intention test
  6. Second responsibility test
  7. Composition test.
  1. If Mr Sunol is contending that Burns 2012 is authority for the proposition that the alleged vilifier will only be relevantly responsible for the publication of material said to vilify homosexuals appearing on a website maintained by third party, if each of the above “tests” is satisfied, we cannot agree. It is a misreading of Burns 2012 to suggest that the Tribunal held that where the impugned material is published on the website of a third party, the alleged vilifier will only be relevantly responsible if they were the operator of the third party website, primarily responsible for the publication of, or the author of the impugned material, or placed that material on that website.
  2. There is no evidence to contradict Mr Sunol’s claim that he was not the operator of Mr McKee’s website, the author of the offending content, or that he posted the offending content on that website. The real issue is whether his actions in putting the offending link and the surrounding words on his website, is sufficient to make him relevantly responsible for the communication of the offending material.
  3. Consistent with the approach taken by the Tribunals in Burns 2012 and Burns 2015, the determination of this issue requires consideration of the context in which the offending link appears, including any surrounding words and images.
  4. We agree with the submission made by Mr Burns that the words posted on Mr Sunol’s website constitute an express invitation to people visiting Mr Sunol’s website to click on the offending link and view the offending content. The statement “I think all should read this and make their own decision if they back it [the legalization of Phedofelia [sic]]” does not make the words appearing on Mr Sunol’s website any less of an invitation or encouragement to view the offending content. Read in context we find that the material appearing on Mr Sunol’s website constituted an express invitation to users to click on the offending link and access the offending content.
  5. We find that Mr Sunol was responsible, in the relevant sense, for the “public act” of communicating the offending content to the public. In reaching that conclusion, we note that the offending content could be accessed in a number of ways not just through the offending link on Mr Sunol’s website.

Did the offending material have the capacity to incite?

  1. We must evaluate whether the offending content had the capacity to incite — to rouse, to stimulate, to urge, to spur on, to stir up or to animate — hatred towards, serious contempt for, or serious ridicule of homosexual(s) in the ordinary (or ordinary reasonable) member of the relevant audience, on the grounds of their homosexuality.
  2. To undertake that task, consistent with the authorities, we must first identify the relevant audience and then consider the likely effect of the offending content on the notional ordinary or ordinary reasonable member of that audience.

Identification of the audience

  1. The relevant audience are internet users who viewed the offending content via Mr Sunol’s website. We have no evidence about who accessed the offending content via this path, apart from Mr Burns. According to Mr Sunol, his followers, who, he claims number just under 1000, represent a cross section of the community and include politicians, journalists and public commentators. We also think it likely that it includes people who share similar views on issues championed by Mr Sunol, such as opposition to same sex marriage. Mr Burns apparently follows Mr Sunol on the internet for the purpose of monitoring the type of material he promotes. According to Mr Sunol, Mr Burns is but one of a number of “trolls” who follow him on-line to “catch him out”.
  2. Given the ease with which sites can be accessed via the internet, we think it reasonable to assume that the audience probably also included people who put the term “paedophilia” into a search engine or otherwise stumbled across Mr Sunol’s blog.
  3. It is likely that members of the audience would hold a diverse range of opinions about homosexual people and same sex marriage, ranging from ignorance, support and strong opposition. We think it likely that a fair number of the audience would hold similar views to Mr Sunol about these issues. It is also likely that the audience includes people such as Mr Burns who hold opposing views, and people who hold no views about these issues.

Ordinary or ordinary reasonable member of the audience?

  1. As Bathurst CJ commented in Sunol at [32], there is a divergence of opinion as to whether the assessment of the capacity of the impugned act to incite is to be made by reference to the “ordinary”, “reasonable” or “ordinary reasonable” member of the relevant audience. The Chief Justice expressed a preference for the question to be answered having regard to the effect of the act on an “ordinary member” of the relevant group. He explained (at [34]):

[T]hat, of my view, can be measured only be reference to an ordinary member of the class to whom the public act is directed. To determine the issue by reference to a reasonable person without considering the particular class to whom the speech or public act is directed would, in my opinion, impose an undue restriction on the operation of the legislation.

  1. Allsop J, on the other hand, took the view that the question is ultimately one to be determined having regard to the context in which the offending act took place, reasoning (at [61]):

The question of the audience against which the public act is to be assessed for the purposes of s 49ZT(1) may be very important in any individual case. It will be intimately connected with the whole context of the public act. Thus, in an emotionally charged public meeting where reason has been pushed aside by passion or hatred, it may be inappropriate to posit the standard of the “reasonable” member of the class which may be aptly described as a group of impassioned bigots. The question is ultimately one of fact in the context in which the act takes place. If the general public is being addressed, bearing in mind the approach conformable with Brown and Coco, the ordinary and reasonable members of the public may be appropriate to consider.

  1. In Jones, Ward JA at [53] referred to, but did not determine, the issue characterising the test as the “ordinary member (or perhaps an ordinary reasonable member)” (at [61], [62]).
  2. More recently in Margan, the Court of Appeal appeared to endorse the approach taken by Bathurst CJ in Sunol, stating (at [76]) that the assessment should be made by reference to the ordinary member of the audience to whom the public act is directed, not the ordinary reasonable member.


  1. The offending content conveys a number of messages:
  • That US President Obama’s friends include “gay paedophiles”
  • That President Obama and the US Democratic party support homosexuals and same sex marriage and, as a consequence, paedophilia
  • That Barrie Drewitt Barlow [a homosexual man who announced that he had fathered a child using a surrogate mother] is a paedophile
  • That same sex marriage is a ruse being used to legalise paedophilia
  • That the “movers and shakers” in the campaign for same sex marriage are motivated so they can “get little boys to rape”
  • That gay men have a “sexual need” to rape children.
  1. In Western society paedophilia is unlawful and attracts strong moral condemnation. It is difficult to think of a more damaging slur or insult than to accuse a person of being a paedophile.
  2. Self-evidently the likely audience in this case is not a homogenous group. It is probable that a range of reactions to the offending content would be invoked. It is improbable that it had the capacity to incite Mr Burns or those who share his views about homosexuality and same sex marriage, to have hatred towards or serious contempt for homosexual persons. Nor in our opinion, is it likely to have the capacity to incite those reactions in uses who may not share Mr Burns’ views but are nonetheless rational and possess some basic understanding about those issues. As noted, we think it likely that the audience would include people, like Messrs Sunol and McKee, who are strongly opposed to same sex marriage. We think the use of intemperate language and the tone of the offending content was capable of stirring up, feelings of hatred toward and severe contempt for male homosexuals in the ordinary member of that sub-group.
  3. We find the offending content was capable of inciting the ordinary member of the relevant group to have hatred towards and severe contempt for male homosexuals.

On the grounds of

  1. We find that one of the “real”, “genuine” or “true” reasons for those reactions having the capacity to incite the notional ordinary member of the relevant audience to have hatred towards and severe contempt for male homosexuals, was their sexuality.

Do any of exceptions apply?

  1. Section 49ZT(2) operates to except certain public acts which might otherwise be unlawful by the operation of s 49ZT(1). Mr Sunol bears the onus of establishing that an exception applies (s 104 of the Act). He relies on s 49ZT(2)(c), which states:

(2) Nothing in this section renders unlawful:

(c) a public act, done reasonably and in good faith, or academic, artistic, religious instruction, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of any act or matter.

  1. Mr Sunol submits that his motivation in placing the offending link on his website was to encourage discussion in the public interest about the same sex marriage debate.
  2. To avail himself of the exception Mr Sunol must establish on the balance of probabilities that his action in communicating the offending content was done:
  • Reasonably and in good faith
  • For academic, scientific or research purposes or for other purposes in the public interest, including discussion or debate about and expositions of any act or matter.
  1. Mr Sunol asserts that there is scientific evidence that homosexuals have a propensity to “rape or sexually abuse children”. He was unable to point to any supporting material.
  2. There is a range of opinion within the community about whether same sex marriage should be legalised. The offending content goes somewhat further than voicing strong opposition to same sex marriage. It promotes the view that it should not be permitted because homosexual men have a tendency to sexually abuse children.
  3. Even if accepted, as claimed by Mr Sunol, that the offending act was done in good faith and not motivated by ill-will or other improper motive (see for example, Western Aboriginal Legal Service v Jones [2000] NSWADT 102; Jones v Toben No 2 [2003] FCAFC 137; (2003) 199 ALR 1), we are not satisfied having regard to the inflammatory tone and intemperate language of the offending content together with the lack of any evidence of steps taken by Mr Sunol to determine whether there was any basis for the proposition that male homosexuals have a tendency to sexually abuse children, that it could be said that his act in communicating the offending content was done “reasonably”.
  4. Mr Sunol has not discharged the onus of establishing that his public act was done reasonably. Therefore the defence in s 49ZT(1)(c) cannot be relied upon.


  1. The complaint made by Mr Burns is substantiated.


  1. At the hearing we decided to give the parties the opportunity to make submissions about what if any orders should be made under s 108(2) of the Act, if we determined the complaint was substantiated. We did so in part because Mr Sunol advised that he had lodged an appeal against the decision in Sunol2015 to order that he refrain from publishing material on his or third party websites material of the type the subject of this complaint. The appeal was dismissed: Sunol v Burns [2015] NSWCATAP 207. We direct:
  1. Within 14 days of the date of this decision the applicant must: (i) file with the Tribunal and serve on the respondent a document setting out the orders, if any, he seeks under s 108(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) and any evidence and submissions in support of that application; (ii) notify the Tribunal and the respondent in writing whether he consents to the issue of what orders, if any should be made, being determined “on the papers”.
  2. Within 14 days of the receipt of the material referred to in Order (2) the respondent must: (i) file with the Tribunal and serve on the applicant any evidence and submissions in reply; (ii) notify the Tribunal and the applicant in writing whether he consents to the issue of orders, being determined “on the papers”.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.


I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

DISCLAIMER – Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.

Decision last updated: 21 January 2016

Battling the ‘homosexual agenda,’ the hard-line religious right has made a series of incendiary claims. But they’re just not true.

Depicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality

Embed from Getty Images

By Evelyn Schlatter and Robert Steinback

Ever since born-again singer and orange juice pitchwoman Anita Bryant helped kick off the contemporary anti-gay movement some 40 years ago, hard-line elements of the religious right have been searching for ways to demonize gay people — or, at a minimum, to find arguments that will prevent their normalization in society. For the former Florida beauty queen and her Save Our Children group, it was the alleged plans of gay men and lesbians to “recruit” in schools that provided the fodder for their crusade. But in addition to hawking that myth, the legions of anti-gay activists who followed have added a panoply of others, ranging from the extremely doubtful claim that sexual orientation is a choice, to unalloyed lies like the claims that gay men molest children far more than heterosexuals or that hate crime laws will lead to the legalization of bestiality and necrophilia. These fairy tales are important to the anti-gay right because they form the basis of its claim that homosexuality is a social evil that must be suppressed — an opinion rejected by virtually all relevant medical and scientific authorities. They also almost certainly contribute to hate crime violence directed at the LGBT community, which is more targeted for such attacks than any other minority group in America. What follows are 10 key myths propagated by the anti-gay movement, along with the truth behind the propaganda.

MYTH # 1
Gay men molest children at far higher rates than heterosexuals.

Depicting gay men as a threat to children may be the single most potent weapon for stoking public fears about homosexuality — and for winning elections and referenda, as Anita Bryant found out during her successful 1977 campaign to overturn a Dade County, Fla., ordinance barring discrimination against gay people. Discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, the most ubiquitous purveyor of anti-gay junk science, has been a major promoter of this myth. Despite having been debunked repeatedly and very publicly, Cameron’s work is still widely relied upon by anti-gay organizations, although many no longer quote him by name. Others have cited a group called the American College of Pediatricians (ACPeds) to claim, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council did in November 2010, that “the research is overwhelming that homosexuality poses a [molestation] danger to children.” A related myth is that same-sex parents will molest their children.

According to the American Psychological Association, children are not more likely to be molested by LGBT parents or their LGBT friends or acquaintances. Gregory Herek, a professor at the University of California, Davis, who is one of the nation’s leading researchers on prejudice against sexual minorities, reviewed a series of studies and found no evidence that gay men molest children at higher rates than heterosexual men.

Anti-gay activists who make that claim allege that all men who molest male children should be seen as homosexual. But research by A. Nicholas Groth, a pioneer in the field of sexual abuse of children, shows that is not so. Groth found that there are two types of child molesters: fixated and regressive. The fixated child molester — the stereotypical pedophile — cannot be considered homosexual or heterosexual because “he often finds adults of either sex repulsive” and often molests children of both sexes. Regressive child molesters are generally attracted to other adults, but may “regress” to focusing on children when confronted with stressful situations. Groth found, as Herek notes, that the majority of regressed offenders were heterosexual in their adult relationships.

The Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute notes that 90% of child molesters target children in their network of family and friends, and the majority are men married to women. Most child molesters, therefore, are not gay people lingering outside schools waiting to snatch children from the playground, as much religious-right rhetoric suggests.

Some anti-gay ideologues cite ACPeds’ opposition to same-sex parenting as if the organization were a legitimate professional body. In fact, the so-called college is a tiny breakaway faction of the similarly named, 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics that requires, as a condition of membership, that joiners “hold true to the group’s core beliefs … [including] that the traditional family unit, headed by an opposite-sex couple, poses far fewer risk factors in the adoption and raising of children.” The group’s 2010 publication Facts About Youth was described by the American Academy of Pediatrics as not acknowledging scientific and medical evidence with regard to sexual orientation, sexual identity and health, or effective health education. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health, was one of several legitimate researchers who said ACPeds misrepresented the institutes’ findings. “It is disturbing to me to see special interest groups distort my scientific observations to make a point against homosexuality,” he wrote. “The information they present is misleading and incorrect.” Another critic of ACPeds is Dr. Gary Remafedi, a researcher at the University of Minnesota who wrote a letter to ACPeds rebuking the organization for misusing his research.

In spite of all this, the anti-LGBT right continues to peddle this harmful and baseless myth, which is probably the leading defamatory charge leveled against gay people.

MYTH # 2
Same-sex parents harm children.

Most hard-line anti-gay organizations are heavily invested, from both a religious and a political standpoint, in promoting the traditional nuclear family as the sole framework for the healthy upbringing of children. They maintain a reflexive belief that same-sex parenting must be harmful to children — although the exact nature of that supposed harm varies widely.

No legitimate research has demonstrated that same-sex couples are any more or any less harmful to children than heterosexual couples.

The American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry affirmed in 2013 that “[c]urrent research shows that children with gay and lesbian parents do not differ from children with heterosexual parents in their emotional development or in their relationships with peers and adults” and they are “not more likely than children of heterosexual parents to develop emotional or behavioral problems.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in a 2002 policy statement declared: “A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with one or two gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual.” That policy statement wasreaffirmed in 2009 and in 2013, when the AAP stated its support for civil marriage for same-gender couples and full adoption and foster care rights for all parents, regardless of sexual orientation.

The American Psychological Association (APA) noted in 2004 that “same-sex couples are remarkably similar to heterosexual couples, and that parenting effectiveness and the adjustment, development and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation.” In addition, the APA stated that “beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation.” The next year, in 2005, the APA published a summary of research findings on lesbian and gay parents and reiterated that common negative stereotypes about LGBT parenting are not supported by the data.

Similarly, the Child Welfare League of America’s official position with regard to same-sex parents is that “lesbian, gay, and bisexual parents are as well-suited to raise children as their heterosexual counterparts.”

A 2010 review of research on same-sex parenting carried out by LiveScience, a science news website, found no differences between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian parents. In some cases, it found, children in same-sex households may actually be better adjusted than in heterosexual homes.

A 2013 preliminary study in Australia found that the children of lesbian and gay parents are not only thriving, but may actually have better overall health and higher rates of family cohesion than heterosexual families. The study is the world’s largest attempt to compare children of same-sex parents to children of heterosexual parents. The full study was published in June 2014.

The anti-LGBT right continues, however, to use this myth to deny rights to LGBT people, whether through distorting legitimate research or through “studies” conducted by anti-LGBT sympathizers, such as a 2012 paper popularly known as the Regnerus Study. University of Texas sociology professor Mark Regnerus’ paper purported to demonstrate that same-sex parenting harms children. The study received almost $1 million in funding from anti-LGBT think tanks, and even though Regnerus himself admitted that his study does not show what people say it does with regard to the “harms” of same-sex parenting, it continues to be peddled as “proof” that children are in danger in same-sex households. Since the study’s release, it has been completely discredited because of its faulty methodology and its suspect funding. In 2013, Darren Sherkat, a scholar appointed to review the study by the academic journal that published it, told the Southern Poverty Law Center that he “completely dismiss[es]” the study, saying Regnerus “has been disgraced” and that the study was “bad … substandard.” In spring 2014, the University of Texas’s College of Liberal Arts and Department of Sociology publicly distanced themselves from Regnerus, the day after he testified as an “expert witness” against Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban. The judge in that case, Bernard Friedman, found that Regnerus’ testimony was “entirely unbelievable and not worthy of serious consideration,” and ruled that Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Despite all this, the Regnerus Study is still used in the U.S. and abroad as a tool by anti-LGBT groups to develop anti-LGBT policy and laws.

MYTH # 3
People become homosexual because they were sexually abused as children or there was a deficiency in sex-role modeling by their parents.

Many anti-gay rights activists claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder caused by some psychological trauma or aberration in childhood. This argument is used to counter the common observation that no one, gay or straight, consciously chooses his or her sexual orientation. Joseph Nicolosi, a founder of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, said in 2009 that “if you traumatize a child in a particular way, you will create a homosexual condition.” He also has repeatedly said, “Fathers, if you don’t hug your sons, some other man will.”

A side effect of this argument is the demonization of parents of gay men and lesbians, who are led to wonder if they failed to protect a child against sexual abuse or failed as role models in some important way. In October 2010, Kansas State University family studies professor Walter Schumm released a related study in the British Journal of Biosocial Science, which used to be the Eugenics Review. Schumm argued that gay couples are more likely than heterosexuals to raise gay or lesbian children through modeling “gay behavior.” Schumm, who has also argued that lesbian relationships are unstable, has ties to discredited psychologist and anti-LGBT fabulist Paul Cameron, the author of numerous completely baseless “studies” about the alleged evils of homosexuality. Critics of Schumm’s study note that he appears to have merely aggregated anecdotal data, resulting in a biased sample.

No scientifically sound study has definitively linked sexual orientation or identity with parental role-modeling or childhood sexual abuse.

The American Psychiatric Association noted in a 2000 fact sheet available on the Association of Gay and Lesbian Psychiatrists, that dealing with gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, that sexual abuse does not appear to be any more prevalent among children who grow up and identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual than in children who grow up and identify as heterosexual.

Similarly, the National Organization on Male Sexual Victimization notes on its websitethat “experts in the human sexuality field do not believe that premature sexual experiences play a significant role in late adolescent or adult sexual orientation” and added that it’s unlikely that anyone can make another person gay or heterosexual.

Advocates for Youth, an organization that works in the U.S. and abroad in the field of adolescent reproductive and sexual health also has stated that sexual abuse does not “cause” heterosexual youth to become gay.

In 2009, Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist at the Christian Grove City College,noted in an analysis that “the research on sexual abuse among GLBT populations is often misused to make inferences about causation [of homosexuality].”

MYTH # 4
LGBT people don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals.

Anti-LGBT organizations, seeking to promote heterosexuality as the healthier “choice,” often offer up the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians as reasons why they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt or foster children.

This falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled  “The Lifespan of Homosexuals.” Using obituaries collected from newspapers serving the gay community, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.

Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron’s statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News’ “This Week.”

However, like virtually all of his “research,” Cameron’s methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute,has called Cameron’s methods “just ridiculous.”

Anti-LGBT organizations have also tried to support this claim by distorting the work of legitimate scholars, like a 1997 study conducted by a Canadian team of researchers that dealt with gay and bisexual men living in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The authors of the study became aware that their work was being misrepresented by anti-LGBT groups, and issued a response taking the groups to task.

MYTH # 5
Gay men controlled the Nazi Party and helped to orchestrate the Holocaust.

This claim comes directly from a 1995 book titled The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party, by Scott Lively and Kevin Abrams. Lively is the virulently anti-gay founder of Abiding Truth Ministries and Abrams is an organizer of a group called the International Committee for Holocaust Truth, which came together in 1994 and included Lively as a member.

The primary argument Lively and Abrams make is that gay people were not victimized by the Holocaust. Rather, Hitler deliberately sought gay men for his inner circle because their “unusual brutality” would help him run the party and mastermind the Holocaust. In fact, “the Nazi party was entirely controlled by militaristic male homosexuals throughout its short history,” the book claims. “While we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism,” Lively and Abrams add. “To the myth of the ‘pink triangle’ — the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted — we must respond with the reality of the ‘pink swastika.'”

These claims have been picked up by a number of anti-gay groups and individuals, including Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, as proof that gay men and lesbians are violent and sick. The book has also attracted an audience among anti-gay church leaders in Eastern Europe and among Russian-speaking anti-gay activists in America.

The Pink Swastika has been roundly discredited by legitimate historians and other scholars. Christine Mueller, professor of history at Reed College, did a 1994 line-by-linerefutation of an earlier Abrams article on the topic and of the broader claim that the Nazi Party was “entirely controlled” by gay men. Historian Jon David Wynecken at Grove City College also refuted the book, pointing out that Lively and Abrams did no primary research of their own, instead using out-of-context citations of some legitimate sources while ignoring information from those same sources that ran counter to their thesis.

The myth that the Nazis condoned homosexuality sprang up in the 1930s, started by socialist opponents of the Nazis as a slander against Nazi leaders. Credible historians believe that only one of the half-dozen leaders in Hitler’s inner circle, Ernst Röhm, was gay. (Röhm was murdered on Hitler’s orders in 1934.) The Nazis considered homosexuality one aspect of the “degeneracy” they were trying to eradicate.

When Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party came to power in 1933, it quickly strengthened Germany’s existing penalties against homosexuality. Heinrich Himmler, Hitler’s security chief, announced that homosexuality was to be “eliminated” in Germany, along with miscegenation among the races. Historians estimate that between 50,000 and 100,000 men were arrested for homosexuality (or suspicion of it) under the Nazi regime. These men were routinely sent to concentration camps and many thousands died there.

Himmler expressed his views on homosexuality like this: “We must exterminate these people root and branch. … We can’t permit such danger to the country; the homosexual must be completely eliminated.”

MYTH # 6
Hate crime laws will lead to the jailing of pastors who criticize homosexuality and the legalization of practices like bestiality and necrophilia.

Anti-gay activists, who have long opposed adding LGBT people to those protected by hate crime legislation, have repeatedly claimed that such laws would lead to the jailing of religious figures who preach against homosexuality — part of a bid to gain the backing of the broader religious community for their position. Janet Porter of Faith2Action, for example, was one of many who asserted that the federal Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act — signed into law by President Obama in October 2009 — would “jail pastors” because it “criminalizes speech against the homosexual agenda.”

In a related assertion, anti-gay activists claimed the law would lead to the legalization of psychosexual disorders (paraphilias) like bestiality and pedophilia. Bob Unruh, a conservative Christian journalist who left The Associated Press in 2006 for the right-wing, conspiracist news site WorldNetDaily, said shortly before the federal law was passed that it would legalize “all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or ‘paraphilias’ listed by the American Psychiatric Association.” This claim was repeated by many anti-gay organizations, including the Illinois Family Institute.

The claim that hate crime laws could result in the imprisonment of those who “oppose the homosexual lifestyle” is false. The First Amendment provides robust protections of free speech, and case law makes it clear that even a preacher who publicly suggested that gays and lesbians should be killed would be protected.

Neither do hate crime laws — which provide for enhanced penalties when persons are victimized because of their “sexual orientation” (among other factors) — “protect pedophiles,” as Janet Porter and many others have claimed. According to the American Psychological Association, sexual orientation refers to heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality — not paraphilias such as pedophilia. Paraphilias, as defined (pdf; may require a different browser) by the American Psychiatric Association, are characterized by sexual urges or behaviors directed at non-consenting persons or those unable to consent like children, or that involve another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death.

Moreover, even if pedophiles, for example, were protected under a hate crime law — and such a law has not been suggested or contemplated anywhere — that would not legalize or “protect” pedophilia. Pedophilia is illegal sexual activity, and a law that more severely punished people who attacked pedophiles would not change that.

MYTH # 7
Allowing gay people to serve openly will damage the armed forces.

Anti-gay groups have been adamantly opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the armed forces, not only because of their purported fear that combat readiness will be undermined, but because the military has long been considered the purest meritocracy in America (the armed forces were successfully racially integrated long before American civil society, for example). If gays serve honorably and effectively in this meritocracy, that suggests that there is no rational basis for discriminating against them in any way.

Gays and lesbians have long served in the U.S. armed forces, though under the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy that governed the military between 1993 and 2011, they could not do so openly. At the same time, gays and lesbians have served openly for years in the armed forces of 25 countries (as of 2010), including Britain, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, according to a report released by the Palm Center, a policy think tank at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The Palm Center report concluded that lifting bans against openly gay service personnel in these countries “ha[s] had no negative impact on morale, recruitment, retention, readiness or overall combat effectiveness.” Successful transitions to new policies were attributed to clear signals of leadership support and a focus on a uniform code of behavior without regard to sexual orientation.

A 2008 Military Times poll of active-duty military personnel, often cited by anti-gay activists, found that 10% of respondents said they would consider leaving the military if the DADT policy were repealed. That would have meant that some 228,000 people might have left the military the policy’s 2011 repeal. But a 2009 review of that poll by the Palm Center suggested a wide disparity between what soldiers said they would do and their actual actions. It noted, for example, that far more than 10% of West Point officers in the 1970s said they would leave the service if women were admitted to the academy. “But when the integration became a reality,” the report said, “there was no mass exodus; the opinions turned out to be just opinions.” Similarly, a 1985 survey of 6,500 male Canadian service members and a 1996 survey of 13,500 British service members each revealed that nearly two-thirds expressed strong reservations about serving with gays. Yet when those countries lifted bans on gays serving openly, virtually no one left the service for that reason. “None of the dire predictions of doom came true,” the Palm Center report said.

Despite the fact that gay men and lesbians have been serving openly in the military since September 2011, anti-LGBT groups continue to claim that openly gay personnel are causing problems in the military, including claims of sexual abuse by gay and lesbian soldiers of straight soldiers. The Palm Center refutes this claim, and in an analysis, found that repealing DADT has had “no overall negative impact on military readiness or its component dimensions,” including sexual assault. According to then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in 2012, the repeal of DADT was being implemented effectively and was having no impact on readiness, unit cohesion or morale. Panetta also issued an LGBT Pride message in 2012.

MYTH # 8
Gay people are more prone to be mentally ill and to abuse drugs and alcohol.

Anti-LGBT groups want not only to depict sexual orientation as something that can be changed but also to show that heterosexuality is the most desirable “choice,” even if religious arguments are set aside. The most frequently used secular argument made by anti-LGBT groups in that regard is that homosexuality is inherently unhealthy, both mentally and physically. As a result, most anti-LGBT rights groups reject the 1973 decision by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality from its list of mental illnesses. Some of these groups, including the particularly hard-lineTraditional Values Coalition, claim that “homosexual activists” managed to infiltrate the APA in order to sway its decision.

All major professional mental health organizations are on record as stating that homosexuality is not a mental disorder.

The American Psychological Association states that being gay is just as healthy as being straight, and noted that the 1950s-era work of Dr. Evelyn Hooker started to dismantle this myth. In 1975, the association issued a statement that said, in part, “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities.” The association has clearly stated in the past that “homosexuality is neither mental illness nor mental depravity. … Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals.”

The American Psychiatric Association states that (PDF; may not open in all browsers) homosexuality is not a mental disorder and that all major professional health organizations are on record as confirming that. The organization removed homosexuality from its official diagnostic manual in 1973 after extensive review of the scientific literature and consultation with experts, who concluded that homosexuality is not a mental illness.

Though it is true that LGBT people tend to suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population, that is due to the historical social stigmatization of homosexuality and violence directed at LGBT people, not because of homosexuality itself. Studies done during the past several years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use.

Richard J. Wolitski, an expert on minority status and public health issues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, put it like this in 2008: “Economic disadvantage, stigma, and discrimination … increase stress and diminish the ability of individuals [in minority groups] to cope with stress, which in turn contribute to poor physical and mental health.”

Even as early as 1994, external stressors were recognized as a potential cause of emotional distress of LGBT people. A report presented by the Council on Scientific Affairs to the AMA House of Delegates Interim Meeting with regard to reparative (“ex-gay”) therapy noted that most of the emotional disturbance gay men and lesbians experience around their sexual identity is not based on physiological causes, but rather on “a sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment.”

In 2014, a study, conducted by several researchers at major universities and the Rand Corporation, found that LGBT people living in highly anti-LGBT communities and circumstances face serious health concerns and even premature death because of social stigmatization and exclusion. One of the researchers, Dr. Mark Hatzenbuehler, a sociomedical sciences professor at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, said that the data gathered in the study suggests that “sexual minorities living in communities with high levels of anti-gay prejudice have increased risk of mortality, compared to low-prejudice communities.”

Homosexuality is not a mental illness or emotional problem and being LGBT does not cause someone to be mentally ill, contrary to what anti-LGBT organizations say. Rather,social stigmatization and prejudice appear to contribute to health disparities in the LGBT population, which include emotional and psychological distress and harmful coping mechanisms.

MYTH # 9
No one is born gay.

Anti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of “special” civil rights protections to gay people similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way that people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against gay men and lesbians would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.

Modern science cannot state conclusively what causes sexual orientation, but a great many studies suggest that it is the result of both biological and environmental forces, not a personal “choice.” A 2008 Swedish study of twins (the world’s largest twin study) published in The Archives of Sexual Behavior concluded that “[h]omosexual behaviour is largely shaped by genetics and random environmental factors.” Dr. Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, said: “This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single ‘gay gene’ or a single environmental variable which could be used to ‘select out’ homosexuality — the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here — heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.” In other words, sexual orientation in general — whether homosexual, bisexual or heterosexual — is a mixture of genetic and environmental factors.

The American Psychological Association (APA) states that sexual orientation “ranges along a continuum,” and acknowledges that despite much research into the possible genetic, hormonal, social and cultural influences on sexual orientation, scientists have yet to pinpoint the precise causes of sexual orientation. Regardless, the APA concludes that “most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” In 1994, the APA noted that “homosexuality is not a matter of individual choice” and that research “suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics stated in 1993 (updated in 2004) that “homosexuality has existed in most societies for as long as recorded descriptions of sexual beliefs and practices have been available” and that even at that time, “most scholars in the field state that one’s sexual orientation is not a choice … individuals do not choose to be homosexual or heterosexual.”

There are questions about what specifically causes sexual orientation in general, but most current science acknowledges that it is a complex mixture of biological, environmental, and possibly hormonal factors but that no one chooses an orientation.

MYTH # 10
Gay people can choose to leave homosexuality.

Embed from Getty Images

If people are not born gay, as anti-gay activists claim, then it should be possible for individuals to abandon homosexuality. This view is buttressed among religiously motivated anti-gay activists by the idea that homosexual practice is a sin and humans have the free will needed to reject sinful urges.

A number of “ex-gay” religious ministries have sprung up in recent years with the aim of teaching gay people to become heterosexuals, and these have become prime purveyors of the claim that gays and lesbians, with the aid of mental therapy and Christian teachings, can “come out of homosexuality.” The now defunct Exodus International, the largest of these ministries, once stated, “You don’t have to be gay!” Meanwhile, in a more secular vein, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality describes itself as “a professional, scientific organization that offers hope to those who struggle with unwanted homosexuality.”

“Reparative” or sexual reorientation therapy — the pseudo-scientific foundation of the ex-gay movement — has been rejected by all the established and reputable American medical, psychological, psychiatric and professional counseling organizations. In 2009, for instance, the American Psychological Association adopted a resolution, accompanied by a 138-page report, that repudiated ex-gay therapy. The report concluded that compelling evidence suggested that cases of individuals going from gay to straight were “rare” and that “many individuals continued to experience same-sex sexual attractions” after reparative therapy. The APA resolution added that “there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation” and asked “mental health professionals to avoid misrepresenting the efficacy of sexual orientation change efforts by promoting or promising change in sexual orientation.” The resolution also affirmed that same-sex sexual and romantic feelings are normal.

A very large number of professional medical, scientific and counseling organizations in the U.S. and abroad have issued statements regarding the harm that reparative therapy can cause, particularly if it’s based on the assumption that homosexuality is unacceptable. As early as 1993, the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that“[t]herapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving change in orientation.”

The American Medical Association officially opposes reparative therapy that is “based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on an a priori assumption that the person should change his/her homosexual orientation.”

The Pan-American Health Organization, the world’s oldest international public health agency, issued a statement in 2012 that said, in part: “Services that purport to ‘cure’ people with non-heterosexual sexual orientation lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.” The statement continues, “In none of its individual manifestations does homosexuality constitute a disorder or an illness, and therefore it requires no cure.”

Some of the most striking, if anecdotal, evidence of the ineffectiveness of sexual reorientation therapy has been the numerous failures of some of its most ardent advocates. For example, the founder of Exodus International, Michael Bussee, left the organization in 1979 with a fellow male ex-gay counselor because the two had fallen in love. Other examples include George Rekers, a former board member of NARTH and formerly a leading scholar of the anti-LGBT Christian right who was revealed to have been involved in a same-sex tryst in 2010. John Paulk, former poster child of the massive ex-gay campaign “Love Won Out” in the late 1990s, is now living as a happy gay man. And Robert Spitzer, a preeminent psychiatrist whose 2001 research that seemed to indicate that some gay people had changed their orientation, repudiated his own studyin 2012. The Spitzer study had been widely used by anti-LGBT organizations as “proof” that sexual orientation can change.

In 2013, Exodus International, formerly one of the largest ex-gay ministries in the world, shut down after its director, Alan Chambers, issued an apology to the LGBT community. Chambers, who is married to a woman, has acknowledged that his same-sex attraction has not changed. At a 2012 conference, he said: “The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say they could never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction.”

Senator David Leyonhjelm in abusive email exchange with constituent

NSW Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm.
NSW Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm.

POTTY-mouthed Senator David Leyonhjelm is unrepentant after calling an abusive correspondent a “communist turd”.


The libertarian Senator has confirmed he also told a constituent to go away – in graphic terms – in an expletive-filled rant on his taxpayer-funded email account.

Senator Leyonhjelm’s correspondence was then published on a blog by the target of his abuse, who suggested his suggestion that he “go f— yourself’’ represented a suggestion that he “self harm”.

The row erupted after anti-discrimination campaigner and gay activist Gary Burns emailed NSW Senator Leyonhjelm and South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi.

In the email, Mr Burns opening salvo was to describe the MPs as “you two unAustralian pathetic little turds”.

He warned that if they allowed anyone to publish images ridiculing Jews or Muslims they would be in contempt of the anti-discrimination laws.

Senator Leyonhjelm returned fire, observing he was a “communist turd”, prompting some support from libertarians on Twitter.

But Mr Burns said: “This is the same imbecile calling for Australians to carry guns.”

“This boofhead is not a fit or proper person to represent the good people of NSW. I’ve been called many things in life but never a communist,” he said.

“When I received the offensive email from the Senator I was so shocked I clutched my pearls and reached for the smelling salts.”

Mr Burns has previously sued broadcaster John Laws under the Anti-Discrimination Act for calling gay men “pillow biters”.

“Senator Leyonhjelm’s credibility as a Member of the Australian Parliament wouldn’t be capable of buttering a plate of parnsips for the dinner table. The idiot should go and live on Gobo Island with a pet sheep,” he said.

In response, the NSW Senator fired off a second email to Mr Burns encouraging him to take the action he suggested earlier.

“Dear Gary. It appears you have not yet acted on my advice. Please do so. Go f— yourself as soon as possible. The world will be a better place,” it said.

A spokesman for Senator Leyonhjelm confirmed the emails were written by him.

The Naked “Orthodox Priests” Calendar Is Back With A Message For Anti-Gay Putin

The “Orthodox Priests” have returned for their third annual calendar, this year focusing on “Social Tolerance” as their theme.

The calendar’s organizers told The Huffington Post that the photos do not feature any actual priests. The models are gay-friendly members “of the Orthodox Church” who have stripped down for the shoot “because they believe – like us – in freedom of speech, tolerance, equality and human rights.”


Watch the provocative and sexy trailer below:

For more information –

BURNS WINS ! – Tess Corbett to apologise publicly for comments about homosexuals

Aug. 14, 2014, 11:05 a.m.

Tess Corbett's comments during the 2013 election campaign triggered outrage across the country, sparking legal action from anti-discrimination campaigner Garry Burns.
Tess Corbett’s comments during the 2013 election campaign triggered outrage across the country, sparking legal action from anti-discrimination campaigner Garry Burns.


FORMER Wannon political candidate and Lake Bolac grandmother Tess Corbett will have to make a public apology for her comments about homosexuals after her appeal was dismissed by a New South Wales tribunal.

Ms Corbett’s comments to the Hamilton Spectator during the 2013 election campaign triggered outrage across the country, sparking legal action from anti-discrimination campaigner Garry Burns.

After a hearing at the former NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal, now the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), on October 3 last year, Ms Corbett was found guilty of vilifying homosexuals on three occasions when she likened gays to paedophiles in an interview.

Ms Corbett chose not to attend that hearing and later appealed on the grounds that she had not been “given an opportunity to argue her case” and that the tribunal had not “(turned) its mind to the High Court authorities on the implied right to freedom of political communication”, according to NCAT’s appeal finding.

“The appeal is dismissed because the tribunal correctly construed the homosexual vilification provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act and was not required to refer to the implied right under the Constitution to freedom of political communication,” NCAT found.

“There is no justification for extending the appeal to the merits of the Tribunal’s decision because, among other things, Ms Corbett had an opportunity to put her case at first instance and chose not to do so.”

Ms Corbett was ordered to publish an apology in the Sydney Morning Herald and write a personal letter of apology to Mr Burns.

That penalty was reinstated with the appeal’s dismissal.

Mr Burns said the result was “very important”.

He said he had expected the appeal to be dismissed but added that “you never know in these situations”.

Ms Corbett had told the Hamilton Spectator that she didn’t want “gays, lesbians or paedophiles working in my kindergarten” and when asked if she considered homosexuals to be in the same category as paedophiles, she replied “yes”.

“Paedophiles will be next in line to be recognised in the same way as gays and lesbians and get rights, ” Ms Corbett told the Spectator.

The comments were republished on websites around the country, opening Ms Corbett up to legal action in NSW where Mr Burns was able to take the matter to NCAT.

Mr Burns said he had done so because Ms Corbett’s “statements incited hatred towards or incited serious contempt or incited serious ridicule of homosexual people on the ground of their homosexuality and that act was unlawful”.