Changes

The term “'''ideomotor'''” was introduced in 1854 by physician William Carpenter to describe phenomenon when we can all too easily fool ourselves.<ref name="Carpenter1852">{{cite web |title=On the Influence of Suggestion in Modifying and directing Muscular Movement, independently of Volition |author=William B. Carpenter |publisher=Royal Institution of Great Britain (originally) |year=1852 |issn=1430-6972|url=http://www.sgipt.org/medppp/psymot/carp1852.htm |quote=Materialien und Dokumente zum ideomotorischen (Carpenter) Effekt, hier die Originalarbeit. |accessdate=2 January 2016}}</ref> Our ability to fool ourselves is unparalleled, and the ideomotor effect is just one persistent way our own curious [[psychology]] can push us towards ''erroneous conclusions''. Ideomotor effect has to do with actions, behavior and mindset of a person being subconsciously influenced by suggestion and/or expectations, often without admitting such influence and even with trying to explain it away. In the original situation, the discovery of the ideomotor effect was used to demonstrate that there was no mystery underpinning the eerie happenings of late 19th and early 20th century séances – merely the heady mixture of ''delusion'' and occasionally, outright ''fraud''. [[Spiritism]] fascinated the 19th century public and was furiously debunked by scientists (such as, ''i.a.'' the prominent British scientist [[Michael Faraday]]<ref name="Faraday">{{cite journal |title=Experimental investigation of table-moving |author=M. Faraday |journal=Journal of the Franklin Institute |volume=56 |issue=5 |date=November 1853 |doi=10.1016/S0016-0032(38)92173-8 |pages=328–333  |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016003238921738 |quote=The object which I had in view in this inquiry was not to satisfy myself, for my conclusion had been formed already on the evidence of those who had turned tables,--but that I might be enabled to give a strong opinion founded on facts, to the many who applied to me for it. Yet, the proof which I sought for, and the method followed in the inquiry, were precisely of the same nature as those which I should adopt in any other physical investigation. The parties with whom I have worked were very honorable, very clear in their intentions, successful table movers, very desirous of succeeding in establishing the existence of a peculiar power, thoroughly candid, and very effectual. |accessdate=28 January 2016}}</ref>) who were exposing ''trickery'' and detecting ''bogus claims''. But modern “[[scientism|scientific]]” incarnations of the ideomotor effect are just as sinister.<ref>{{cite web |title=Science of the seance: why speaking to spirits is talking to yourself |author=David Robert Grimes |publisher=Guardian News and Media Limited |date=30 October 2015 |url=http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/oct/30/science-of-the-seance-why-speaking-to-spirits-is-talking-to-yourself |accessdate=2 January 2016}}</ref>

The term “'''ideomotor'''” was introduced in 1854 by physician William Carpenter to describe phenomenon when we can all too easily fool ourselves.<ref name="Carpenter1852">{{cite web |title=On the Influence of Suggestion in Modifying and directing Muscular Movement, independently of Volition |author=William B. Carpenter |publisher=Royal Institution of Great Britain (originally) |year=1852 |issn=1430-6972|url=http://www.sgipt.org/medppp/psymot/carp1852.htm |quote=Materialien und Dokumente zum ideomotorischen (Carpenter) Effekt, hier die Originalarbeit. |accessdate=2 January 2016}}</ref> Our ability to fool ourselves is unparalleled, and the ideomotor effect is just one persistent way our own curious [[psychology]] can push us towards ''erroneous conclusions''. Ideomotor effect has to do with actions, behavior and mindset of a person being subconsciously influenced by suggestion and/or expectations, often without admitting such influence and even with trying to explain it away. In the original situation, the discovery of the ideomotor effect was used to demonstrate that there was no mystery underpinning the eerie happenings of late 19th and early 20th century séances – merely the heady mixture of ''delusion'' and occasionally, outright ''fraud''. [[Spiritism]] fascinated the 19th century public and was furiously debunked by scientists (such as, ''i.a.'' the prominent British scientist [[Michael Faraday]]<ref name="Faraday">{{cite journal |title=Experimental investigation of table-moving |author=M. Faraday |journal=Journal of the Franklin Institute |volume=56 |issue=5 |date=November 1853 |doi=10.1016/S0016-0032(38)92173-8 |pages=328–333  |url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016003238921738 |quote=The object which I had in view in this inquiry was not to satisfy myself, for my conclusion had been formed already on the evidence of those who had turned tables,--but that I might be enabled to give a strong opinion founded on facts, to the many who applied to me for it. Yet, the proof which I sought for, and the method followed in the inquiry, were precisely of the same nature as those which I should adopt in any other physical investigation. The parties with whom I have worked were very honorable, very clear in their intentions, successful table movers, very desirous of succeeding in establishing the existence of a peculiar power, thoroughly candid, and very effectual. |accessdate=28 January 2016}}</ref>) who were exposing ''trickery'' and detecting ''bogus claims''. But modern “[[scientism|scientific]]” incarnations of the ideomotor effect are just as sinister.<ref>{{cite web |title=Science of the seance: why speaking to spirits is talking to yourself |author=David Robert Grimes |publisher=Guardian News and Media Limited |date=30 October 2015 |url=http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/oct/30/science-of-the-seance-why-speaking-to-spirits-is-talking-to-yourself |accessdate=2 January 2016}}</ref>

== People supposedly ‘born that way’ ==

Perhaps the most prominent – and damaging - modern offshoot of the ideomotor effect is the phenomenon of [[LGBT|LGBTI/gender ideology]].{{#tag:ref|cf. The social and behavioral sciences have a long history of being shaped and driven by politics and ideology. This is partly because researchers often choose to study issues implicating controversial questions of public policy. And it is partly because it is often impossible to perform the kind of objective observations and controlled experiments that are standard in the physical sciences. History is littered with notorious examples of false theories gaining wide acceptance among respected social and behavioral scientists, some of which supported pernicious public policies.<ref>{{cite web |title=The shaky science behind same-sex marriage |author=Harvey C. Mansfield and Leon R. Kass |publisher=Institute for Marriage and Public Policy |date=26 Mar 2013 |url=http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_shaky_science_behind_same-sex_marriage |accessdate=8 Feb 2016}}</ref>|group=note}} There is no special force or agent at play, and a conclusion can be made that far from being some bizarre supernatural event, acting out [[same-sex attraction]]s by intercourse with the person of the same sex is nothing more than ''‘a quasi-involuntary muscular action’'' that can be easily explained within the framework of the [[OCD]].

The reported cases of [[ex-homosexuals]] had revealed there is no mysterious force at play, natural or [[supernatural]], [[biological]] or otherwise – just a propensity for men and women to delude themselves. The evidence is clear – believing to be ''‘born that way’'' is nothing more than self-delusion buttressed by the ubiquitous ideomotor effect.

=== People supposedly ‘born that way’ ===

Perhaps the most prominent – and damaging - modern offshoot of the ideomotor effect is the phenomenon of the so called [[LGBT|LGBTI/gender ideology]].{{#tag:ref|cf. The social and behavioral sciences have a long history of being shaped and driven by politics and ideology. This is partly because researchers often choose to study issues implicating controversial questions of public policy. And it is partly because it is often impossible to perform the kind of objective observations and controlled experiments that are standard in the physical sciences. History is littered with notorious examples of false theories gaining wide acceptance among respected social and behavioral scientists, some of which supported pernicious public policies.<ref>{{cite web |title=The shaky science behind same-sex marriage |author=Harvey C. Mansfield and Leon R. Kass |publisher=Institute for Marriage and Public Policy |date=26 Mar 2013 |url=http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_shaky_science_behind_same-sex_marriage |accessdate=8 Feb 2016}}</ref>|group=note}} There is no special force or agent at play, and a conclusion can be made that far from being some bizarre supernatural event, acting out [[same-sex attraction]]s by intercourse with the person of the same sex is nothing more than ''‘a quasi-involuntary muscular action’'' that can be easily explained within the framework of the [[OCD]].

The reported cases of [[ex-homosexuals]] had revealed there is no mysterious force at play, natural or [[supernatural]], [[biological]] or otherwise – just a propensity for men and women to delude themselves. The evidence is clear – believing to be ''‘born that way’'' is nothing more than self-delusion buttressed by yet another variant of the ideomotor effect.

When it comes to [[homosexual]] alias sodomical lifestyle, there is no need for the agency of ''‘gay gene’''{{#tag:ref|cf. Bogus claim: "Xq28 - Thanks for the genes mom". ''T shirt sold in gay and lesbian bookstores in the mid-1990s.''<ref name="Ridley">{{cite book |author=Matt Ridley |title=Genome |publisher=Fourth Estate Ltd. |place=London |year=2000 |chapter=Chromosomes X and Y |pages=107 |isbn=978-1857-028355 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=LVdQfSYU4AUC}}</ref> In 1991, J.M. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard examined how widespread is homosexual alias sodomical lifestyle among twins when at least one sibling declares to be "homosexual". They reported to have found that 52 percent of the identical twins considered themselves to be "homosexual". From this they suggested that genetic makeup [[Logic of possibility|may]] be the reason so many identical twins were feeling to be "homosexual," i.e. following the homosexual alias sodomical lifestyle. For their hypothesis to be fact, however, there should ''never'' be a case when one identical twin would be so called "homosexual" and other heterosexual. It is genetically impossible since both identical twins share 100 percent of the same genes.<ref name="Satinover1996">{{cite book |title=Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth |author=Jeffrey Burke Satinover |publisher=Baker Books |date=1 February 1996 |pages=83 |isbn=9780801056253 |url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/62588.Homosexuality_and_the_Politics_of_Truth}}</ref> Should sodomical behaviour be genetic, then both identical twins would always be either "homosexual" or heterosexual. Bailey and Pillard's findings of only 52 percent discredits their own hypothesis thus in fact they have showed that nongenetic factors play a significant part in shaping so called "sexual preference".<ref name="RBC">{{cite book |title=When Passions Are Confused |author=Jeff Olson |publisher=RBC Ministries, discoveryseries.org |year=1996 |pages=14 |url=http://jesus-revolution.com/Documents/When_Passions_Are_Confused_Understanding_Homosexuality.pdf}}</ref> The scientific community realises that ''“our genes do not make us  

When it comes to [[homosexual]] alias sodomical lifestyle, there is no need for the agency of ''‘gay gene’''{{#tag:ref|cf. Bogus claim: "Xq28 - Thanks for the genes mom". ''T shirt sold in gay and lesbian bookstores in the mid-1990s.''<ref name="Ridley">{{cite book |author=Matt Ridley |title=Genome |publisher=Fourth Estate Ltd. |place=London |year=2000 |chapter=Chromosomes X and Y |pages=107 |isbn=978-1857-028355 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=LVdQfSYU4AUC}}</ref> In 1991, J.M. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard examined how widespread is homosexual alias sodomical lifestyle among twins when at least one sibling declares to be "homosexual". They reported to have found that 52 percent of the identical twins considered themselves to be "homosexual". From this they suggested that genetic makeup [[Logic of possibility|may]] be the reason so many identical twins were feeling to be "homosexual," i.e. following the homosexual alias sodomical lifestyle. For their hypothesis to be fact, however, there should ''never'' be a case when one identical twin would be so called "homosexual" and other heterosexual. It is genetically impossible since both identical twins share 100 percent of the same genes.<ref name="Satinover1996">{{cite book |title=Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth |author=Jeffrey Burke Satinover |publisher=Baker Books |date=1 February 1996 |pages=83 |isbn=9780801056253 |url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/62588.Homosexuality_and_the_Politics_of_Truth}}</ref> Should sodomical behaviour be genetic, then both identical twins would always be either "homosexual" or heterosexual. Bailey and Pillard's findings of only 52 percent discredits their own hypothesis thus in fact they have showed that nongenetic factors play a significant part in shaping so called "sexual preference".<ref name="RBC">{{cite book |title=When Passions Are Confused |author=Jeff Olson |publisher=RBC Ministries, discoveryseries.org |year=1996 |pages=14 |url=http://jesus-revolution.com/Documents/When_Passions_Are_Confused_Understanding_Homosexuality.pdf}}</ref> The scientific community realises that ''“our genes do not make us  

do it”''.<ref>{{cite book |title=My Genes Made Me Do It! - Homosexuality and the scientific evidence |author=NE Whitehead |edition=3 |place=New Zealand |date=October 2013 |chapter=9. The “discovery” of the “gay gene” |url=http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch9.pdf}}</ref>

do it”''.<ref>{{cite book |title=My Genes Made Me Do It! - Homosexuality and the scientific evidence |author=NE Whitehead |edition=3 |place=New Zealand |date=October 2013 |chapter=9. The “discovery” of the “gay gene” |url=http://www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch9.pdf}}</ref>

The closed-minded partisans of antiscientific LGBTI/gender ideology feel however offended by [[scientific observation]]s and they call the [[scientific discovery|scientific discoveries]] and data, contrary to scientific principles outlined by philosophers of science such as [[Karl Popper]], a ''“hate”''. Such was the case in Richmond, Virginia where [[Beth Panilaitis]], the executive director of Rosma, a [[pressure group]] promoting [[Gay agenda|LGBTI agenda]], called for restricting the provision of scientific information on local billboard to the general public in a [[totalitarian]] manner<ref name="Billboard2014">{{cite web |title= Gay Rights Activists Outraged Over Billboard’s Message About Homosexuality and Genetics |author=Billy Hallowell |publisher=The Blaze (originally WVUE-TV) |date=11 Dec 2014  |url=http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/11/nobody-is-born-gay-activists-outraged-by-billboards-message-about-homosexuality-and-genetics/ |quote=“Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay,” she said, according to WVUE-TV. “Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. No one is born gay.” |accessdate=30 Jan 2016}}</ref> despite that information is regarded as fundamental human right ''i.a.'' by Resolution 1003 (1993) of Parliamentary Assembly of Europe.<ref>{{cite web |title=Resolution 1003 (1993) |publisher=Parliamentary Assembly of Europe |url=http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=16414&lang=en |quote=8. Information is a fundamental right which has been highlighted by the case-law of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights relating to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights ... The owner of the right is the citizen, who also has the related right to demand that the information supplied by journalists be conveyed truthfully, in the case of news, and honestly, in the case of opinions, without outside interference by either the public authorities or the private sector.}}</ref> [[Bill Harrison]],  executive director of Richmond Gay Community Foundation, another LGBTI pressure group, went with nonsensical antiscientific fury even further and de facto absurdly argued, by using the [[non sequitur]] fallacy, that learning about a person to have quit sodomical lifestyle, for example such as [[Michael Glatze]], can cause ''“many people to commit suicide”''.<ref name="Billboard2014"/>|group=note}} or ''‘gay epi-marks’''<ref>{{cite web |title=Homosexuality May Start in the Womb |author=Elizabeth Norton |publisher=AAAS |url=http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb?ref=hp |date=11 December 2012 |accessdate=2 January 2016 |quote=The "epi-marks" that adjusted parental genes to resist excess testosterone, for example, [[Logic of possibility|may]] alter gene activation in areas of the child's brain involved in sexual attraction and preference.}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|cf. [[Wishful thinking]]: ''"Although we cannot provide definitive evidence that homosexuality has a strong epigenetic underpinning, we do think that available evidence is fully consistent with this conclusion."''<ref name="Canalized Sex">{{cite journal |title=Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development |author1=William R. Rice |author2= Urban Friberg |author3=Sergey Gavrilets |journal=The Quarterly Review of Biology |volume=87 |issue=4 |date=December 2012 |pages=343-368|doi=10.1016/S0016-0032(38)92173-8 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167 |accessdate=28 January 2016}}</ref>|group=note}}, and the invocation of such agency contrary to [[Occam’s razor]] is the sign of a mind not merely unscientific, but also either uninformed, or, even worse, [[psychological manipulation|manipulative]].  

The closed-minded partisans of antiscientific LGBTI/gender ideology feel however offended by [[scientific observation]]s and they call the [[scientific discovery|scientific discoveries]] and data, contrary to scientific principles (i.a. setting alternative explanations when dealing with a phenomenon) outlined by philosophers of science such as [[Karl Popper]], a ''“hate”''. Such was the case in Richmond, Virginia where [[Beth Panilaitis]], the executive director of Rosma, a [[pressure group]] promoting [[Gay agenda|LGBTI agenda]], called for restricting the provision of scientific information on local billboard to the general public in a [[totalitarian]] manner<ref name="Billboard2014">{{cite web |title= Gay Rights Activists Outraged Over Billboard’s Message About Homosexuality and Genetics |author=Billy Hallowell |publisher=The Blaze (originally WVUE-TV) |date=11 Dec 2014  |url=http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/12/11/nobody-is-born-gay-activists-outraged-by-billboards-message-about-homosexuality-and-genetics/ |quote=“Identical twins have the same genes or DNA. They are nurtured in equal prenatal conditions. If homosexuality is caused by genetics or prenatal conditions and one twin is gay, the co-twin should also be gay,” she said, according to WVUE-TV. “Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. No one is born gay.” |accessdate=30 Jan 2016}}</ref> despite that information is regarded as fundamental human right ''i.a.'' by Resolution 1003 (1993) of Parliamentary Assembly of Europe.<ref>{{cite web |title=Resolution 1003 (1993) |publisher=Parliamentary Assembly of Europe |url=http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=16414&lang=en |quote=8. Information is a fundamental right which has been highlighted by the case-law of the European Commission and Court of Human Rights relating to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights ... The owner of the right is the citizen, who also has the related right to demand that the information supplied by journalists be conveyed truthfully, in the case of news, and honestly, in the case of opinions, without outside interference by either the public authorities or the private sector.}}</ref> [[Bill Harrison]],  executive director of Richmond Gay Community Foundation, another LGBTI pressure group, went with nonsensical antiscientific fury even further and de facto absurdly argued, by using the [[non sequitur]] fallacy, that learning about a person to have quit sodomical lifestyle, for example such as [[Michael Glatze]], can cause ''“many people to commit suicide”''.<ref name="Billboard2014"/>|group=note}} or ''‘gay epi-marks’''<ref>{{cite web |title=Homosexuality May Start in the Womb |author=Elizabeth Norton |publisher=AAAS |url=http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2012/12/homosexuality-may-start-womb?ref=hp |date=11 December 2012 |accessdate=2 January 2016 |quote=The "epi-marks" that adjusted parental genes to resist excess testosterone, for example, [[Logic of possibility|may]] alter gene activation in areas of the child's brain involved in sexual attraction and preference.}}</ref>{{#tag:ref|cf. [[Wishful thinking]]: ''"Although we cannot provide definitive evidence that homosexuality has a strong epigenetic underpinning, we do think that available evidence is fully consistent with this conclusion."''<ref name="Canalized Sex">{{cite journal |title=Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development |author1=William R. Rice |author2= Urban Friberg |author3=Sergey Gavrilets |journal=The Quarterly Review of Biology |volume=87 |issue=4 |date=December 2012 |pages=343-368|doi=10.1016/S0016-0032(38)92173-8 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668167 |accessdate=28 January 2016}}</ref>|group=note}}, and the invocation of such agency contrary to [[Occam’s razor]] is the sign of a mind not merely unscientific, but also either uninformed, or, even worse, [[psychological manipulation|manipulative]].  

Despite the fact that nonsensical [[LGBT|LGBTI/gender ideology]] has no more scientific credibility than spiritism, its spectre haunts us even now. It is still reported uncritically in [[mainstream media]]; for example, in 2015, an article titled ''“'Gay genes': science is on the right track, we're born this way. Let’s deal with it.”'' popped up in [[The Guardian]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jul/24/gay-genes-science-is-on-the-right-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it

Despite the fact that nonsensical [[LGBT|LGBTI/gender ideology]] has no more scientific credibility than spiritism, its spectre haunts us even now. It is still reported uncritically in [[mainstream media]]; for example, in 2015, an article titled ''“'Gay genes': science is on the right track, we're born this way. Let’s deal with it.”'' popped up in [[The Guardian]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jul/24/gay-genes-science-is-on-the-right-track-were-born-this-way-lets-deal-with-it

|author=Qazi Rahman

|author=Qazi Rahman

|accessdate=2 January 2016

|accessdate=2 January 2016

}}</ref>

}}</ref>

Tragically, the so called ‘LGBTI people’ and their countless supporters are victims of the ideomotor effect. In line with the [[ABC theory of emotion]], they remain steadfast in their [[belief]]s, rejecting the idea that verbose expressions of being ''‘born that way’'' are nothing more than their projected [[fantasy]]{{#tag:ref|cf. Campaigners [for so called "Same-sex marriages"] have been using the language of rights in an attempt to add moral force to what are nothing more than personal desires.<ref>{{cite web |title=Gay marriage is not a 'human right': European ruling torpedoes Coalition stance |author=Steve Doughty |publisher=The Daily Mail |date=20 March 2012 |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html |quote=Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said: ‘For too long campaigners have been using the language of rights in an attempt to add moral force to what are nothing more than personal desires. ‘In many cases they have bypassed the democratic process and succeeded in [[gleichschaltung|imposing their views on the rest of the population]] by force of law. ‘We are seeing the same principle at work in the Government’s sham of a consultation on same-sex marriage.’ He added: ‘The ruling from the ECHR will embolden those whose concerns about same-sex marriage and adoption are not inspired by personal hatred and animosity, but by a genuine concern for the well-being of children and the welfare of society. ‘Instead of rushing to legislate without seriously considering the views of the electorate, the Government should be encouraging a measured public debate on the nature and meaning of marriage.’}}</ref>|group=note}}, authored by their own subconscious and fueled by [[Gay activism|gay propagandists]].

Tragically, the so called ‘LGBTI people’ and their countless supporters are victims of the ubiquitous ideomotor effect. In line with the [[ABC theory of emotion]], these [[Natural_somnambulism#LGBTI_somnambulism|LGBTI somnambulists]] remain steadfast in their [[belief]]s, rejecting the idea that verbose expressions of being ''‘born that way’'' are nothing more than their projected [[fantasy]]{{#tag:ref|cf. Campaigners [for so called "Same-sex marriages"] have been using the language of rights in an attempt to add moral force to what are nothing more than personal desires.<ref>{{cite web |title=Gay marriage is not a 'human right': European ruling torpedoes Coalition stance |author=Steve Doughty |publisher=The Daily Mail |date=20 March 2012 |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117920/Gay-marriage-human-right-European-ruling-torpedoes-Coalition-stance.html |quote=Norman Wells, of the Family Education Trust, said: ‘For too long campaigners have been using the language of rights in an attempt to add moral force to what are nothing more than personal desires. ‘In many cases they have bypassed the democratic process and succeeded in [[gleichschaltung|imposing their views on the rest of the population]] by force of law. ‘We are seeing the same principle at work in the Government’s sham of a consultation on same-sex marriage.’ He added: ‘The ruling from the ECHR will embolden those whose concerns about same-sex marriage and adoption are not inspired by personal hatred and animosity, but by a genuine concern for the well-being of children and the welfare of society. ‘Instead of rushing to legislate without seriously considering the views of the electorate, the Government should be encouraging a measured public debate on the nature and meaning of marriage.’}}</ref>|group=note}}, authored by their own subconscious and fueled by [[Gay activism|gay propagandists]].

==Notes==

==Notes==