Was PCG's Booklet, Redefining Family, Plagiarized?

In August 2013 PCG released a booklet credited to Joel Hilliker entitled Redefining Family to condemn homosexuality as sinful continuing Armstrongism's long standing practice to demonize gays in order to distract members from the problems within PCG.

PCG has kept that booklet well hidden. It is not available online. (In 2014 PCG released the first two chapters as a PDF download entitled The War on Marriage, which was mentioned in a previous post.) But shortly before the booklet's 2013 release a June 28, 2013 article credited to Dennis Leap entitled "The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’" was released that copied large sections of Redefining Family.

Who plagiarized whom? Did Leap plagiarize Hilliker's writings? Or did Hilliker plagiarize Leap's writings?

Plagiarism is theft. It is stealing. It is not just copying words but presenting ideas as though they were yours. Those reading Leap's article online will think Leap wrote it not knowing that it might have been plagiarized from Hilliker's writings. Those reading Hilliker's booklet will read it not knowing that parts of it might have been plagiarized from Leap's writings. Who knows? Maybe an unacknowledged third person wrote it?

Here is the evidence of plagiarism.

***

How did you form your view on homosexuality? Most people don’t reason it out, considering evidence on all sides and sifting truth from error. They simply absorb influences and come to accept certain ideas as normal. They follow what seems right at the time.
The fact is, the great majority are forming views and making decisions and even policies having been influenced, even bullied, by political correctness, peer pressure or societal coercion. There has been a clandestine yet concerted effort to radically change people’s minds about homosexuality. And whether they realize it or not, many people have come to accept and embrace this idea because they’ve been unwittingly manipulated to do so. (Dennis Leap, The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, June 28, 2013.)

How did you form your view on homosexuality? Most people don’t reason it out, considering evidence on all sides and sifting truth from error. They simply absorb influences and come to accept certain ideas as normal. They follow what seems right at the time.
The fact is, the great majority are forming views, making decisions and creating policies having been influenced—even bullied—by political correctness, peer pressure or societal coercion. There has been a clandestine yet concerted effort to radically change people’s minds about homosexuality. And whether they realize it or not, many people have come to accept and embrace this idea because they’ve been unwittingly manipulated to do so. (Joel Hilliker, The War on Marriage, 2014, p. 2.)

***

In 1960, every American state had anti-sodomy laws, many of which prohibited intimate acts between persons of the same sex. Homosexuals hid their actions to avoid prosecution. However, in 1969 homosexuals in New York rioted after police raided the Stonewall Inn, a “gay bar.” This led to the formation of the “gay liberation” movement, which has worked for decades to pass anti-homosexual-discrimination laws. (Dennis Leap, The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, June 28, 2013.)

Before 1962, every American state considered sodomy a felony. Homosexuals hid their actions to avoid prosecution. ... In 1969, after New York police raided a “gay bar” called the Stonewall Inn, homosexuals violently rioted and began to demand that their cause be treated as a matter of civil rights. (Joel Hilliker, The War on Marriage, 2014, p. 4-5.)

***

Pro-”gay marriage” lawsuits began to be filed over four decades ago. Although not nationally publicized, between 1970 and 1973, courts in Kentucky, Minnesota and Washington denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples that filed lawsuits to obtain them. ... The public and lawmakers did not jump on the “gay rights” train immediately. In 1973, Maryland became the first of 31 states to officially ban same-sex “marriages.” But homosexuals remained active and aggressive. (Dennis Leap, The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, June 28, 2013.)

Homosexuals started looking for help in the courts— without success. Between 1970 and 1973, courts in Kentucky, Minnesota and Washington denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples that filed lawsuits to obtain them. In 1973, Maryland officially banned same-sex “marriages.” Thirty additional states followed Maryland’s lead and passed constitutional amendments denying the legal right to same-sex “marriage.” (Joel Hilliker, The War on Marriage, 2014, pp. 5-6.)

***

The first national homosexual-rights march on Washington took place Oct. 14, 1979, with between 75,000 and 125,000 homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender people and straight allies demanding pro-homosexual legislation. The legal fight was on. (Dennis Leap, The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, June 28, 2013.)

The first national homosexual-rights march on Washington took place on October 14, 1979, with between 75,000 and 125,000 homosexuals, bisexuals, transgender people and straight allies demanding pro-homosexual legislation. (Joel Hilliker, The War on Marriage, 2014, p. 6.)

***

In 1981, medical researchers first reported on the health-wrecking symptoms now known as aids. Originally called GRID—gay-related immunodeficiency disease—this fatal illness spread with particular force amid promiscuous homosexual men. Activist homosexuals convinced the medical establishment to change the name to “acquired immune deficiency syndrome.” Even so, the spread of AIDS caused the public stigma of homosexuality to grow stronger. (Dennis Leap, The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, June 28, 2013.)

About that time, however, the homosexual community suffered what seemed to be a deadly blow. In 1981, medical researchers first reported on the health-wrecking symptoms now known as AIDS. Originally called GRID— gay-related immuno deficiency disease—this fatal illness spread with particular force amid promiscuous homosexual men. Activists convinced the medical establishment to change the name to the more politically correct “acquired immune deficiency syndrome.” Even so, the spread of AIDS intensified the public stigma against homosexuality. (Joel Hilliker, The War on Marriage, 2014, p. 6.)

***

“The AIDS epidemic is sparking anger and fear in the heartland of straight America,” wrote Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill in November 1987. “The 10 years ahead may decide for the next 40 whether gays claim their liberty and equality or are driven back, once again, as America’s caste of detested untouchables.” (Dennis Leap, The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, June 28, 2013.)

“The AIDS epidemic is sparking anger and fear in the heartland of straight America,” wrote Marshall Kirk and Erastes Pill in 1987. “The 10 years ahead may decide for the next 40 whether gays claim their liberty and equality or are driven back, once again, as America’s caste of detested untouchables.” (Joel Hilliker, The War on Marriage, 2014, p. 6.)

***

These words appeared in an article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America” in Guide Magazine in November 1987. In this article, the authors outlined a strategy for transforming public perception of homosexuality. “At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more,” they wrote. “We do not need and cannot expect a full ‘appreciation’ or ‘understanding’ of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America.” (Dennis Leap, The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, June 28, 2013.)

These words appeared in an article titled “The Overhauling of Straight America” in Guide Magazine in November of that year. In this article, the authors outlined a strategy to transform public perception of homosexuality. “At least in the beginning, we are seeking public desensitization and nothing more,” they wrote. “We do not need and cannot expect a full ‘appreciation’ or ‘understanding’ of homosexuality from the average American. You can forget about trying to persuade the masses that homosexuality is a good thing. But if only you can get them to think that it is just another thing, with a shrug of their shoulders, then your battle for legal and social rights is virtually won. And to get to shoulder-shrug stage, gays as a class must cease to appear mysterious, alien, loathsome and contrary. A large-scale media campaign will be required in order to change the image of gays in America” (emphasis added). (Joel Hilliker, The War on Marriage, 2014, pp. 6-7.)

***

This article advocated just such a campaign, in astounding detail. The authors’ suggestions were voluminous: Talk publicly about homosexuality, particularly in the media (“almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it”). Encourage the appearance of favorable homosexual characters on television shows and in movies. Portray homosexuals as pillars of society (“In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western civilization”). Claim that famous historical figures were homosexual (“From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman”). Use spokespersons who are indistinguishable from straight people. Keep the discussion broad and abstract, downplaying actual homosexual behavior (“First let the camel get his nose inside the tent—only later his unsightly derriere!”). De-emphasize the fact that people choose to be homosexual (“the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference”). Portray homosexuals as victims in need of protection. Promote the cause using civil rights terminology (“Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme”). Publicize support for gays by more moderate churches. Undermine conservative resistance by representing it as antiquated and out-of-touch. Vilify opponents, associating them with the Ku Klux Klan or Nazis (“make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types”). The article concluded with a multi-step plan for gaining ever greater access to television, radio and the mainstream press. (Dennis Leap, The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, June 28, 2013.)

This article advocated just such a campaign, in astounding detail. The authors’ suggestions were voluminous:
 • Talk publicly about homosexuality, particularly in the media (“almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it”).
 • Encourage the appearance of favorable homosexual characters on television shows and in movies.
 • Portray homosexuals as pillars of society (“In no time, a skillful and clever media campaign could have the gay community looking like the veritable fairy godmother to Western civilization”).
 • Claim that famous historical figures were homosexual (“From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman”).
 • Use spokespersons who are indistinguishable from straight people.
 • Keep the discussion broad and abstract, downplaying actual homosexual behavior (“First let the camel get his nose inside the tent—only later his unsightly derriere!”).
 • De-emphasize the fact that people choose to be homosexual (“the mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference”).
 • Portray homosexuals as victims in need of protection.
 • Promote the cause using civil rights terminology (“Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme”).
 • Publicize support for gays by more moderate churches.
 • Undermine conservative resistance by representing it as antiquated and out-of-touch.
 • Vilify opponents, associating them with the Ku Klux Klan or Nazis (“make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types”). (Joel Hilliker, The War on Marriage, 2014, p. 7-8.)

***

It is easy to forget just how radical this plan was at the time—simply because we now live in the pro-homosexual world they wanted to create. (Dennis Leap, The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, June 28, 2013.)

Public perception has changed so drastically in the years since, it is easy to forget just how revolutionary this thinking was at the time. But these materials make for extraordinary reading today—simply because we now live in the pro-homosexual world these men sought to create. (Joel Hilliker, The War on Marriage, 2014, p. 9.)

***

In 1989, the New Republic published the article “Here Comes the Groom: A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.” “[G]ay marriage could both avoid a lot of tortured families and create the possibility for many happier ones,” author Andrew Sullivan argued. “It is not, in short, a denial of family values. It’s an extension of them.” Sullivan’s article helped thrust the debate out of the academic world and into the mainstream landscape. (Dennis Leap, The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, June 28, 2013.)

In 1989, the New Republic published the article “Here Comes the Groom: A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage.” “[G]ay marriage could both avoid a lot of tortured families and create the possibility for many happier ones,” author Andrew Sullivan argued. “It is not, in short, a denial of family values. It’s an extension of them.” Sullivan’s article helped to thrust the debate out of the academic world and onto the liberal landscape. (Joel Hilliker, The War on Marriage, 2014, p. 9.)

***

In 1993, Tony Kushner’s seven-hour play, Angels in America, which deals with homosexual themes including aids, won the Pulitzer Prize. That same year, Hawaii’s supreme court ruled that the state law barring same-sex “marriage” may violate its constitution, and the U.S. military instituted its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. In 1994, Tom Hanks won the Oscar for best actor for his portrayal of a homosexual with AIDS in Philadelphia. ikea placed its first ad featuring two men as a couple.
In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court established that banning protective laws for homosexuals was unconstitutional with Romer v. Evans. But President Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, defining for the federal government marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Yet Time magazine put Ellen DeGeneres on its cover in 1997 with a bold title in red ink stating, “Yep, I’m Gay.” Even to the surprise of many homosexuals, the strategy was working. (Dennis Leap, The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, June 28, 2013.)

In 1993, Tony Kushner’s seven-hour play, Angels in America, which deals with homosexual themes including AIDS, won the Pulitzer Prize. That same year, Hawaii’s supreme court ruled that the state law barring same-sex “marriage” may violate its constitution, and the U.S. military instituted its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. In 1994, Tom Hanks won the Oscar for best actor for his portrayal of a homosexual with AIDS in Philadelphia. IKEA placed its first ad featuring two men as a couple. In 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court established in Romer v. Evans that banning protective laws for homosexuals was unconstitutional. Time magazine put Ellen DeGeneres on its cover in 1997 with the bold headline, “Yep, I’m Gay.” Even to the surprise of many homosexuals, the strategy to soften America’s heart toward homosexuality was working. (Joel Hilliker, The War on Marriage, 2014, p. 9-10.)

***

In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court, with a 6-3 ruling in the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas, struck down the state’s sodomy law and, by extension, invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, legalizing same-sex sexual activity in every U.S. state and territory. (Dennis Leap, The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, June 28, 2013.)

The next major legal victory came in 2003, with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas. ... The Supreme Court buckled. In a 6-3 ruling, it overturned Texas law that criminalized sodomy.... By extension, the ruling invalidated sodomy laws in 13 other states, making homosexual activity legal in every U.S. state and territory. (Joel Hilliker, The War on Marriage, 2014, p. 11.)

***

“One of the most effective tactics of gay rights activists has been to shift the debate,” wrote the Christian Science Monitor on March 25. “Instead of asking society to expand its view of marriage to accommodate them, same-sex marriage proponents have attacked those supporting the traditional view of marriage as bigots enforcing marriage exclusivity out of animosity towards gays and lesbians.” (Dennis Leap, The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, June 28, 2013.)

“One of the most effective tactics of gay-rights activists has been to shift the debate,” wrote the Christian Science Monitor. “Instead of asking society to expand its view of marriage to accommodate them, same-sex marriage proponents have attacked those supporting the traditional view of marriage as bigots enforcing marriage exclusivity out of animosity towards gays and lesbians” (March 25, 2013). (Joel Hilliker, The War on Marriage, 2014, p. 16.)

***

Most of America is allowing itself to be bullied by an aggressively vocal minority. Pro-homosexuals want Americans to believe there are large numbers of homosexuals who want to receive legal benefits, marry and raise children. The reality is, those large numbers do not exist.
The 2011 census counted approximately 114.8 million households in the United States. In 2010, the Census Bureau reported that same-sex pairs headed about 600,000 U.S. households—0.52 percent. Of those, only 115,000 have children—meaning 0.1 percent of American households are homosexuals raising children. (Dennis Leap, The Shrewd Strategy Behind Same-Sex ‘Marriage’, June 28, 2013.)

The truth is, most of America is being bullied by a viciously vocal minority. The pro-homosexual, pro-same-sex “marriage” contingent wants Americans to believe that there are large numbers of homosexuals who want to marry and raise children. The reality is, those large numbers do not exist. In 2011, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated there were 114.8 million households in the U.S. In 2010, it reported that same-sex pairs headed about 600,000 U.S. households— 0.52 percent. Of those, only 115,000 had children—meaning 0.1 percent of American households are homosexuals raising children. (Joel Hilliker, The War on Marriage, 2014, p. 20.)

***

Looking at these writings it is clear that plagiarism has been committed. Whether Leap plagiarized Hilliker's writings or Hilliker plagiarized Leap's writings it is clear plagiarism has been committed.