Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Reading PCG's Booklet, The War on Marriage

Let us now read Joel Hilliker's 2014 booklet, The War on Marriage. Here Hilliker recites Armstrongism's traditional teaching which condemns homosexuality as sinful. As though PCG members needed reminding yet again on this topic that the COG 1% constantly talk about with the same message. But as will be seen later Hilliker proceeds to denigrate the vast majority of heterosexual marriages as well by saying that his idealized version of marriage is now "so rare" (p. 27). This is a license for PCG's leaders to order their followers how to structure their family life. You can read this booklet on their website.

Let us see what he has to say.

How do PCG's 1% persuade so many PCG members to remain there despite its many problems? Partly it is because PCG members are indoctrinated to be fearful of various people outside of PCG so think society outside of PCG is worse than anything in PCG. And so they stay. One group of people vilified in this way to frighten PCG members into remaining loyal to PCG are homosexuals. Paying three tithes to PCG does not seem so bad if one is fearful and frightened of others. In this booklet the group vilified in this way are homosexuals.

This booklet is the first chapters of Joel Hilliker's 2013 booklet, Redefining Family. PCG is quite secretive about this booklet. Even if you get an account for their recruitment websites it cannot be downloaded from their websites. It is not available online. PCG tries to hide their views against homosexuality. 

There is a problem with this booklet's title. If one says that homosexuals are somehow at war with heterosexuals he might give some readers the idea that the homosexuals are at war with heterosexuals and respond accordingly. Not everyone out there are as stable as one would hope, alas.

Society’s views about marriage and family are changing rapidly. Is it possible your own thinking is being shaped by erroneous reasoning and flat-out social bullying? (Introduction, PDF p. 2.)
When Hilliker writes of "erroneous reasoning" he really means opinions and ideas contrary to what PCG's 1% teaches.

Hilliker also denounces those he opposes as using "flat-out social bullying".

Are the media moguls who are filling their television line-ups with shows promoting homosexual dating, fashion and “family” life sure they are doing the public a service? (p. 2.)
Is he talking about Rupert Murdoch and that TV show Glee?
Are the educators and politicians who are using public money to promote pro-homosexual curricula sure they are acting in the best interests of the people they serve? Are those judges legalizing sodomy and “gay marriage” sure they are reading the law correctly and strengthening the civic life of their nations? (p. 2.)
In times past sodomy, even if heterosexual in nature, was banned and people could be thrown into jail over it. Is Hilliker yearning for such persons to be thrown into jail as though not enough Americans are already in jail?
And are the clergymen who are advocating the appointment of openly homosexual ministers and making public proclamations undermining the traditional view of heterosexual marriage absolutely sure they are interpreting the Bible correctly, and have God’s blessing? (p. 2.)
Such persons are alien to PCG. The PCG 1% do not seem to spend their time with people like that. How do we now that PCG's 1% have bothered understanding such people at all?
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. (p. 2,)
How did Hilliker form his view on homosexuality? It is known from another article of his that Joel Hilliker was born into Armstrongism. He has lived all his life within the world of Armstrongism, first in WCG and then PCG. And all that time HWA's WCG then PCG have always been virulently condemning of homosexuals. The leadership of those organizations have constantly vilified homosexuals. That is where Hilliker formed his views of homosexuality.
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. What about you? Have you already made up your mind on homosexuality? Are you sure you are right? (p. 2.)
Hilliker is vilifying those who wish to integrate homosexuals in mainstream life. He makes them seem sneaky. He insinuates that many such people are unwitting dupes.
You can’t afford to decide on this subject with hazy opinions and assumptions. Your attitude and choices on homosexuality have profound implications for you and your loved ones. (p. 3.)
It is most certainly true that peoples' opinions can profoundly change peoples' relationships with family members and others. Listening to incitement against homosexuals can inspire people to force a homosexual family to attend some gay conversion therapy that may involve horrific acts of abuse.

Chapter 1

A Chronicle of Complaints

In this part of the booklet Hilliker describes how homosexuals organized themselves to protect their interests and reached out to sympathizers to confront the various problems they faced as a community. Hilliker describes these events in a fearful way.
The younger you are, the more limited your perspective is about how rapidly society’s attitudes toward homosexuality have changed. (p. 4.)
And how is Hilliker's perspective not so narrow considering he has always lived in Armstrongite organizations that have been consistently condemned homosexuality as sinful?
Before 1962, every American state considered sodomy a felony. Homosexuals hid their actions to avoid prosecution. (p. 4.)
It was not just homosexual sodomy that was banned. Sodomy between heterosexuals was also banned and they could also be prosecuted under such laws as well.
Up until 1973, homosexuality was officially considered a mental disorder by the American Psychological Association. It was little spoken of and widely regarded as shameful. In many countries, people were still being jailed for being homosexual. (p. 4.)
But has that changed now? Are there reasons for such a change? Hilliker leaves the reader uninformed of such things.
Before 2001, nowhere in the world were homosexuals legally permitted to “marry.” (p. 4.)
And before 1454 there was no such thing as printing by movable type anywhere in the entire world. This line of thinking is not persuasive.
As recently as 2003, consensual sex between two men or two women was still illegal in 14 American states. (p. 5.)
So does Hilliker wants the police to prosecute people like that when they could prosecuted more dangerous offenders?

Hilliker mentions the Stonewall riots in New York in 1969 which is widely cited as the moment the homosexual community became politically active in pursuing their interests as a community.
American public opposition to homosexuality, and even laws against the practice, were quite strong when the “gay liberation” movement began. 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. (p. 5.)
Hilliker then states in a menacing way that they began gaining advocates for their cause in the Colleges.
They managed to gain a foothold of support among intellectuals and academics. A turbulent sexual revolution sweeping the Western world in the late 1960s and ’70s found fertile ground and rooted itself in the West’s top university campuses. Sexual experimentation, including homosexuality, began to fill the dormitories. (p. 5.)
Armstrongism has a long history of demonizing and condemning Colleges because they are scared that their followers may discover that the dogmas of Armstrongism are not the panacea they have been taught that it is. The COGs also vilify academics in order to promote their own colleges such as Ambassador College in times past and the various imitators that exist today among the COGs.
Homosexuality remained publicly stigmatized. However, a breakthrough occurred in 1973, when, under pressure from activists, it was removed from the American Psychological Association’s list of mental disorders. (p. 6.)
It is strange that Hilliker should complain about the American Psychological Association making this change since PCG tend to denigrate such fields of science concerning mental health.

PCG's Ron Fraser once falsely condemned mental health professionals as a big money making con of Germanic origin which concocts made up diseases just to make money. Such denigration of medical professionals is most dangerous and must be opposed. If one needs helps they must be encouraged to look for help from professionals.

Armstrongism has a long history of demonizing doctors and medicine because of HWA's anti-medicine superstition. This deadly superstition is still promoted by PCG. Including Joel Hilliker himself.

Vilifying Heterosexuals (Part 1)
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. (p. 9.)
Note the negative reference to "straight allies". Hilliker is portraying homosexuals as somehow victimizing "us" heterosexuals. But note that some of these heterosexuals that Hilliker is supposedly defending happen to march for gay rights he sees an opponent.

Hilliker is not defending heterosexuals. He is trying to turn heterosexuals against homosexuals. He is trying to turn the majority against a numerically small minority. And Hilliker knows they are a numerically small minority as will be seen later.

Note how Hilliker refers to "pro-homosexual legislation." While homosexuals were treated differently because they were homosexuals before and tried to change the situation. But Hilliker calls them "pro-homosexual legislation" to incite resentment among his readers against a minority.
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. (p. 9.)
There is a lot to get through in this paragraph so let's break it down a bit.
... the homosexual community suffered what seemed to be a deadly blow.
It did not seem to be a deadly blow. It was. Many people died.

It is bizarre that Hilliker would blind himself to their suffering by talking about the deaths and sufferings they endured as though it was somehow not quite real. This is not true. Their pain and suffering were just as real as anyone else. But it seems to reflect what Hilliker wishes were true.

Here we see Hilliker's bizarre and chilling denial of suffering concerning homosexuals. In this booklet Hilliker displays a very disturbing refusal to acknowledge that homosexuals suffer as human beings. There will be more about this denial of suffering later in this post.
In 1981, medical researchers first reported on the health-wrecking symptoms now known as AIDS.
"[H]ealth-wrecking symptoms"? What a strange choice of words to describe a deadly disease that at first was not treatable. At first infection practically meant death since it was unknown to medical science.
... this fatal illness spread with particular force amid promiscuous homosexual men.
The disease was stereotyped as a disease among homosexuals. This caused some people to view it in that stereotypical manner. This stereotype is dangerous and harmful as it caused some people to incorrectly assume that heterosexuals would not be infected with it and caused a misinformed fear of homosexuals.
Activists convinced the medical establishment to change the name to the more politically correct “acquired immune deficiency syndrome.”
What madness! Now Hilliker expects us to believe that calling that most terrible disease AIDS is somehow "politically correct" and consequently shameful.

In fact HIV/AIDS originated from SIV, a disease that afflicted the Central Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodytes). Alas, this disease developed a strain that could infect humans as well.

The first cross species infection into humanity appears to have been with a cut hunter in the rural area of what was then called the Belgian Congo around 1921 (circa 1908-1933). He was infected from a Central Chimpanzee, quite likely due to blood contamination. In all likelihood he was a heterosexual male. Unfortunately due to the process of modernization driven by European colonialism then underway it was easier for this disease to start spreading and eventually reached an urban environment and from there spread all over the world. These facts are discussed in The Origins of AIDS by Jacques Pepin (2011) which was discussed in a previous post.

Intriguingly Hilliker makes no mention of the origins of HIV/AIDS from the Congo or the fact that it dates back to around 1921 (circa 1908-1933). PCG had previously falsely stated that sexual behavior contrary to PCG's was responsible for "giving birth" to HIV/AIDS.
Thus we have the concept of “moral relativity,” which spawned the “new morality” of the 1960s, giving birth to a new and uncontrollable communicable disease—AIDS. (Ron Fraser, What's Behind the Crisis in Foreign Relations?, The Philadelphia Trumpet, May 1999, p. 3. See this previous post.) 
Those words of Fraser's are false. And Hilliker makes no attempt to correct this vicious misconception here.
Even so, the spread of AIDS intensified the public stigma against homosexuality.
That was partly because certain persons made claims that HIV/AIDS was some kind of punishment from God against homosexuals.

Alleged Master Plan: The 1987 Article

Hilliker then fearfully mentions a 1987 article.
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. (pp. 6-7.)
Hilliker then proceeds to quote this 1987 article at length. He makes it sound like it was the moment when the homosexuals organized themselves around a centrally planned decision. This 1987 article is presented as though it was the master plan in the alleged great conspiracy by homosexuals.

But it should be mentioned here that PCG itself is a centralized organization. Could it be possible that Hilliker is projecting PCG's centralized structure upon the homosexuals he denounces? He seems to think they are just like PCG in having centralized authority among themselves. Hilliker should be weary about projecting the centralized nature of PCG onto the homosexuals he denounces.

Hilliker mentions that the 1987 article made various suggestions concerning how to reach out to Americans with their message.
Claim that famous historical figures were homosexual (“From Socrates to Shakespeare, from Alexander the Great to Alexander Hamilton, from Michelangelo to Walt Whitman”). (p. 7.)
Hilliker did not bother to mention Cecil Rhodes or Lord Kitchener. Recently PCG published an article extolling the memory of Cecil Rhodes. PCG made no mention of the fact that Cecil Rhodes was a homosexual man.

And what about Mark Bingham? During the 9/11 terrorist attacks the passengers of United Airlines Fight 93 revolted against the murderous Al Qaeda hijackers preventing them from reaching their target thus saving untold lives. One of the instigators of this most glorious and courageous revolt was one Mark Bingham, one of these homosexuals that Hilliker here condemns. Does Hilliker wish we just lived in blissful ignorance of such things and thus denigrate the memory of this American hero? Can anyone blame the 1987 article for that fact?
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”). (p. 8.)
If Hilliker believes that homosexuals choose to be homosexual he should say so plainly and simply, instead of obscuring this assertion while discussing this alleged master plan.
Use spokespersons who are indistinguishable from straight people. (p. 8.)
So Hilliker thinks homosexuals can be clearly distinguished from heterosexuals? What planet is he living on? And how exactly are they to be distinguished precisely? This is a simplistic stereotype. Actually I can well recall HWA fear mongering that homosexuals are hard to detect in order to inspire fear of homosexuals among his followers. Hilliker seems to disagree with HWA on that matter.
Portray homosexuals as victims in need of protection. (p. 8.)
Hilliker does not dwell on this fact but this fear is quite real among homosexuals. Even Hiliker alludes to these facts later on in this booklet as we shall see later. Once again we see Hilliker's bizarre and dehumanizing denial of suffering concerning homosexual people.
Undermine conservative resistance by representing it as antiquated and out-of-touch. (p. 8.)
While Hilliker moans about homosexuals learning how to respond to conservative resistance curiously Hilliker contemptuously makes no mention of these people conducting this conservative resistance. There are many who have and continue to condemn homosexuals and have tried to frustrate various initiatives homosexuals happen to make. But Hilliker never mentions them.

They are never mentioned because Hilliker's group, PCG, teaches that it is the only true church in all the world. Hilliker is trying to recruit new converts for his PCG. He does not want to give attention to any other group. He wants the reader to join his PCG.
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”). (p. 8.)
It would easier to take Hilliker's words more seriously if he didn't sound like someone opposing racial integration as will be mentioned later from page 19 onward. 

We have only Hilliker's word that this article labeled such persons as being like the Ku Klux Klan or Nazis. Even if the quoted article made that comparison the reader only has Hilliker's word that this rhetorical comparison was made.

Bizarrely there is no mention of the fact that the Nazi regime targeted homosexuals for extermination and imprisoned them in concentration camps like so many other people victimized by the Nazi regime.
In February 1988, activists from 175 organizations gathered to discuss the issue. (p. 8.)
This indicates that what was happening was the emergence of a grassroots movement. Something that came from below to assume greater prominence due to the work of many people working together. They did not need the 1987 article. They would have devised other strategies and written other articles if the 1987 article had not been published.

But considering the way Hilliker focuses on that one article he seems to think that these people are working according to a single, collectively agreed plan. A bit like a conspiracy theory. That is not necessarily the case here. But that possibility seems to escape Hilliker's imagination.

This is quite different from how the COGs operate considering that they tend to be quite centralized and fixated upon a single leader such as HWA or any one of his various imitators.

Hilliker has spent all his life in Armstrongism, first in WCG and now PCG. Both are quite authoritarian and centralized organizations. Considering that how can Hilliker be expected to understand how a grassroots movement operates? He has only lived in authoritarian groups that extolled and promoted one man rule. Hilliker is unconsciously projecting the COGs tendency for one man rule onto these people.

Chronicle of Complaints (Part 2) 

Hilliker then fear mongers that this article worked spectacularly well.
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. The transformation of public opinion on homosexuality has not been spontaneous: It has come about in precise accordance with the spectacularly successful strategy of these aggressive homosexual activists. (p. 9.)
Hilliker makes it sound like that this article was some sort of sinister conspiracy that worked spectacularly well. This is a very simplified view about what has happened.

Again it is worth remembering that Hilliker has always lived within authoritarian groups that promote and extol one man rule. In HWA's WCG and then PCG the group followed the words of one man. When he declared one thing or another all obeyed. Those who did not were marginalized at best. Expelled from the group and shunned at worst. Hilliker is assuming that the homosexuals he condemn do the same thing.

Hilliker then recites a list of events that he mournfully says signified the advance of the homosexuals' agenda.
[In 1993] 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. (pp. 9-10.) 
What the unsuspecting reader will not know here is that many homosexuals and those who supported them loathed this “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy as it accepted homosexuals fighting and even dying for the United States but compelling them to hide their homosexual identity and live under the knowledge that if their homosexuality is known by the military authorities it would easily get them thrown out of the military. This policy has since been abolished.

The Dehumanizing Denial of Suffering
In 1994, Tom Hanks won the Oscar for best actor for his portrayal of a homosexual with AIDS in Philadelphia. (p. 10.)
I will say again, it is strange how Hilliker refuses to express any feeling of sympathy for those suffering from AIDS. Once again we see Hilliker's bizarre and dehumanizing denial of suffering concerning homosexuals.

Hilliker then discusses the brutal murder of Matthew Sheppard in 1998. Astoundingly Hilliker seems much more worried and concerned about the enactment of hate crimes legislation caused by this brutal murder then the fact that a follow American had been brutally murdered.
A stunning example of these strategies being put into practice occurred in 1998, when Matthew Shepard, a homosexual freshman at the University of Wyoming, was brutally murdered. Homosexual activists succeeded in turning the media’s attention to the “climate of anti- gay hate” that would lead to such a crime. They targeted Bible-believing Christians, associating anyone who was opposed to homosexuality with the two men who murdered Shepard. For example, they introduced into public discussion—and convinced mainstream news programs to focus on—an ad campaign that offered help to homosexuals who wanted to change their sexual orientation. Despite the fact that the Christian groups mentioned in reports explicitly condemned the mistreatment of homosexuals, the media perfectly served the homosexuals’ cause by publicly linking Bible-believers with murderers.
A later investigation of Shepard’s murder concluded that homosexuality likely wasn’t a factor. But no matter. Using the invented narrative of a Bible-induced climate of hatred that encouraged people to terrorize homosexuals, activists successfully used Shepard’s murder to stir up enormous public pressure to create “hate crimes” legislation. These laws, since passed, now provide special protections for homosexuals—imposing harsher penalties on criminals if they are deemed to have acted out of antipathy for their victims’ sexual preference. (pp. 10-11.)
There is a lot to get through in that section so let us break it down a bit.
Matthew Shepard, a homosexual freshman at the University of Wyoming, was brutally murdered.
Hilliker writes that Matthew Sheppard "was brutally murdered." Chillingly those words are the only time in the entire booklet that Hilliker expresses any kind of sympathy towards Matthew Shepard in this booklet.

It is horrifying to contemplate the fact that Hilliker chooses to express no sympathy or sadness to homosexuals so often in this booklet. Hilliker makes no expression of sympathy to the many homosexuals who died of HIV/AIDS and suffered vilification based on the false accusation that they somehow caused HIV/AIDS to come to be. The complaint of homosexuals of suffering discrimination is mentioned but he refuses to consider if there is any factual basis for this complaint.

Hilliker tries to portray homosexuals as scary and as bullies. But nothing he mentions is as horrifying and chilling as his refusal to express any sympathy to homosexuals who suffer, whether from HIV/AIDS or anything else.

It is as though Hilliker has defined suffering as something homosexuals are not worthy of having. It is as though Hilliker thinks of homosexuals as valuable as wooden mannequins who feel no suffering.

Hilliker has chosen to deny their suffering in order to justify condemning and vilifying them.

That denial of suffering is the single worse thing about this booklet. This denial of suffering is dehumanization. It is hatred. It is vile.

Since Hilliker can view homosexuals in such a dehumanized way that he can deny their suffering in order to denigrate and vilify them there is nothing to stop him from dehumanizing others (Jews, African Americans, Palestinians, Muslims, Japanese, Chinese, Germans, leftists, any group one can imagine) as well in a similar fashion. 
Homosexual activists succeeded in turning the media’s attention to the “climate of anti-gay hate” that would lead to such a crime.
Chillingly Hilliker does not blame the foul murderers for that scrutiny. Instead he blames homosexuals and the media for supposedly exploiting the murder of Matthew Sheppard to promote homosexuals' social standing.

When a man is murdered in the way Matthew Sheppard was it is natural that people would strive to investigate what happened in order to address whatever caused such a horrific murder to make sure it does not happen again. Astoundingly Hilliker seems to deliberately ignore these sincere motivations. Instead he vilifies those who investigated that frightful murder rather than condemning the murder itself.
They targeted Bible-believing Christians, associating anyone who was opposed to homosexuality with the two men who murdered Shepard.
These words are very misleading on PCG's part. Hilliker's PCG teaches that only PCG is the true church. All others are condemned as false. It is disingenuous for Hilliker to refer to these persons as "Bible-believing Christians" when in fact he teaches that every church on Earth except his PCG is false. Why does Hilliker mislead people with these words? Just shows how PCG is willing to say anything to get more tithe paying converts.
For example, they introduced into public discussion—and convinced mainstream news programs to focus on—an ad campaign that offered help to homosexuals who wanted to change their sexual orientation.
Banned by HWA has commented about one of these "conversion therapy" groups.
Despite the fact that the Christian groups mentioned in reports explicitly condemned the mistreatment of homosexuals, the media perfectly served the homosexuals’ cause by publicly linking Bible-believers with murderers.
It is useless for Hilliker for to blame the media for trying to find answers regarding the brutal murder of Matthew Sheppard. Hilliker should blame the foul murderers.
A later investigation of Shepard’s murder concluded that homosexuality likely wasn’t a factor. But no matter.
That is all Hilliker has to say in his insistence that the murderers did not hate homosexuals. The reader has no way to verify Hilliker's assertion.
Using the invented narrative of a Bible-induced climate of hatred that encouraged people to terrorize homosexuals, activists successfully used Shepard’s murder to stir up enormous public pressure to create “hate crimes” legislation.
It is sickening that Hilliker is more worried about hate crimes legislation rather than the fact that an American was murdered. It is astounding that Hilliker minimizes the death of an American man. What sort of American patriot is he to minimize the murder of an American to instead whine about hate crimes legislation? He is probably fearful it might one day be used against his PCG. He is thinking about himself and PCG's interests instead of an American man who was brutally murdered. That is shameful. How anti-American.

Hilliker should blame the foul murderers. It is useless to blame anyone else.
These laws, since passed, now provide special protections for homosexuals—imposing harsher penalties on criminals if they are deemed to have acted out of antipathy for their victims’ sexual preference.
Shouldn't Hilliker be pleased that his government is trying to protect follow Americans? It is those who hate homosexuals who insist on treating homosexuals as different from others. So it should be no surprise that attempts to address the problem of violence against homosexuals should happen to specifically protect homosexuals. It is those who attack homosexuals who choose to single out homosexuals in that way. Hilliker should blame them for this.

Chronicle of Complaints (Part 3)

Hilliker then discusses Lawrence v. Texas in which the Supreme Court struck down laws banning sodomy in 2003. Hilliker denies that the couple concerned were even a couple and states that the incident would have just been resolved quietly. But Hilliker complains that some "High-powered lawyers" insisted on making this an issue which, he insinuates, it should not have been so. (pp. 11-12.)

Hilliker then complains that homosexuals became an accepted part of mainstream society and condemnations of them as being contrary to one's religion had now lost respectability among many. He complains that Canada legalized same-sex unions in 2004 (p. 13).

Hilliker mentions Proposition 8 which passed in California in 2008 after a referendum.
In an election five months later [November 2008], millions of Californians passed a state constitutional amendment, Proposition 8, that banned these “marriages”—but two years after that, one homosexual federal judge from San Francisco struck down that ban. He said religious beliefs against homosexuality harm homosexuals, and that the Constitution guarantees homosexuals the right to “marriage.” However, an appeal against the judge’s decision delayed Proposition 8 getting struck down. (p. 14.)
And do "religious beliefs against homosexuality harm homosexuals"? The possibility that may be so in some cases is never discussed by Hilliker.

He talks about the Supreme Court striking down Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 after ruling on two court cases in 2013.
[The removal of the Defense of Marriage Act] meant that the federal government would now recognize homosexual “marriages” as equal to heterosexual marriages, requiring changes in over 1,100 federal laws and regulations. The Obama administration pledged to act swiftly to extend federal benefits to legally “married” same-sex couples. It was the quickest civil rights shift in U.S. history. (pp. 14-15.)
After reciting those events Hilliker mentions again the 1987 article that he seems to assume in a paranoid way was some sort of centralized organized master plan that worked perfectly.
Throughout this process, the media largely spearheaded the effort to make this issue acceptable in everyday society—exactly as Marshall Kirk had advocated. In the lead-up to DOMA being overturned, media coverage was more than merely supportive—it was the aggressive advocacy of Kirk’s dreams. (p. 15.)
Hilliker then cites Time magazine and a CNN broadcast in order to blame the media for the changed status of homosexuals in society.
The “large-scale media campaign” homosexual activists had planned three decades before was a triumph. Defense of traditional marriage—which until even the year before was the majority opinion in America —was suddenly something the mainstream media characterized as out of touch and intolerant. (p. 16.)
Thirty years is not quick and sudden as Hilliker insinuates here. He is using emotive language in order to compel the reader to panic and think that these homosexuals are so powerful and to view them as some kind of threat. When one panics it is harder for him or her to think clearly and is more open to suggestion. What seems a terrible idea when viewed calmly suddenly seems necessary.
News networks aren’t merely reporting; they are pushing homosexual “marriage” using schoolyard intimidation. How much has this kind of pressure shaped your views on the subject? (p. 16.)
Hilliker is seeking to denigrate any opinion contrary to his own which he was taught by the movement he has lived in all his life. He is cultivating a sense of grievance against homosexuals.

Frightening the Parents

After this Hilliker then insinuates that homosexuals are seeking to indoctrinate young children. He begins to scare monger to the fathers and mothers reading this booklet by insisting that people are out to influence their children to view homosexuals in a way contrary to PCG's teachings.
These young people have grown up in a world that increasingly treats homosexuality not just as normal, but as desirable. In addition, homosexual activists have specifically targeted people as young as they possibly can by working to ensure that the homosexual lifestyle is promoted in public schools. (p. 17.)
What paranoia. Some people seem to have this idea that homosexuality is somehow contagious. What nonsense. It is not. Considering how often homosexuals are vilified by some why would anyone choose to be homosexual?

Hilliker knows the love of parents for their children. He is using that love to make parents fearful and scared of homosexuals and of what might be taught to their children in school. This fear is misplaced. One cannot somehow "trick" a heterosexual into thinking he or she is homosexual.

Hilliker then discusses how in Britain school curricula perceived to be promoting homosexuality was banned in 1988. But, he mournfully tells us, it was overturned under the Blair government in 2003 and by 2009 even the leader of the Conservative Party apologized about it.
And as a further measure of how quickly things change, in 2009, Conservative Party leader David Cameron—Britain’s leading “conservative” politician— went so far as to issue an apology on behalf of his party for ever having passed the legislation in the first place. (pp. 17-18.)
It is intriguing how Hilliker takes for himself the right to condemn David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party in Britain, as not being conservative enough. What hubris Hilliker has in judging and condemning Cameron as not being conservative enough.

Also twenty-two years (1988-2009) is not a short amount of time. By talking about "how quickly things change" in the alarmist way he does is just emotive language designed to make the reader panic and become more open to suggestion.

Hilliker then employs similar fear mongering regarding a New York City curriculum. He even accuses this curricula of trying to spread homosexuality among children which happens to be impossible since homosexuality is not contagious as is falsely insinuated here.
That same year [2011], New York City adopted a new sex-education curriculum, mandatory for middle and high school students, that blatantly advocates homosexuality. Its workbooks direct students to an advice website that celebrates numerous aspects of homosexuality, pornography, multiple-partner sex acts and more. ... It includes a directory of websites and groups where they can meet other homosexuals. Textbooks directing students to this website are issued to children as young as 11.
This is taxpayer-funded, public instruction of our children, aimed specifically at ensuring that they are true believers of the homosexual cause, if not participants in that lifestyle. (pp. 18-19.)
These words are addressed to the parents. Hilliker is exploiting the parents' love of their children and fear mongering that their children are under some sort of threat. He is trying to make the parents panic.

Such fear mongering also encourage his followers to keep themselves socially isolated from mainstream society. Such social isolation will make Hilliker's followers socially dependent on PCG.

When Hilliker says that this New York City curricula is trying to recruit children to become "participants in that lifestyle" he is insinuating that homosexuality is somehow contagious. This is nonsense. You cannot "catch" homosexuality from someone else. Your children cannot "catch" it. If homosexuality was contagious we would all be homosexuals. It is not true.

It is wrong for Hilliker to promote that inaccurate idea to inspire fear and loathing of homosexuals among parents. It is wrong for Hilliker to exploit parents' love for their children to make them suspicious, fearful and antagonistic towards homosexuals using this non-existent threat.

It is intriguing that Hilliker accuses these people of trying to make children "true believers of the homosexual cause, if not participants in that lifestyle." His PCG operates schools and an unaccredited college which indoctrinates the children of PCG members into becoming "true believers of the [PCG] cause" and to become "participants in [the] lifestyle" of being a PCG member. Hilliker seems to be psychologically projecting again.

Politicizing the Toilet

Hilliker then complains about how these laws are to be obeyed just like any other law.
Meanwhile, legal and other actions have been increasingly carried out against ministers, students, parents and virtually anyone who opposes homosexuality. ... Illegal discrimination includes anything perceived as different treatment because of behavior perceived as not stereotypically male or female. “Offenders” include hotel owners who refuse homosexual couples, registrars who refuse to marry homosexuals, foster parents who oppose homosexuality, and adoption agencies that won’t assign children to homosexual couples. (p. 19.)
Is Hilliker worried that his PCG might just be somehow penalized by a court of law for their denunciation of homosexuals?

Hilliker then tries to politicize who gets to use the public toilet and lockers.
Ripple effects from these laws are enormous, and they are already spreading. Transgender law advocates ... are succeeding in efforts to open public toilet facilities and locker rooms to transgenders. Universities nationwide are hosting gender-neutral student housing, bathrooms and locker rooms. In June 2013, a governing body in Colorado ruled that a 6-year-old boy who thinks he’s a girl has the right to use the girl’s bathroom at his elementary school. (p. 19.)
This talk sounds eerily similar to how segregationists forced African Americans to use separate toilets from those used by the white majority.

Back on page 8 Hilliker complained that the 1987 article called for portraying those who oppose homosexuals as being like the Ku Klux Klan. But here Hilliker appears to want to restrict transgender people from using the toilet in public facilities.

He says, "Transgender law advocates ... are succeeding in efforts to open public toilet facilities and locker rooms to transgenders." Does this mean that they were unable to go to the toilet in public facilities? Does this mean they were unable to use lockers? And yet Hilliker seems to have no conception that this would be a terrible burden to people treated in this way. He gives no sympathy to any distress such a situation would undoubtedly cause.

Once again we see Hilliker's hostile denial of suffering. Such a hostile denial of suffering is bizarre and dehumanizing. It is hate. It is vile.

While Hilliker seems to have no awareness of how wrong this hostile denial of suffering is he is perfectly happy to claim that he and people like him somehow suffer because of these homosexuals. He says that people like him and "most of America" suffer from being bullied by homosexuals, a people whose suffering Hilliker bizarrely denies in a dehumanizing manner.

Condemning a Minority
More and more, the correctness of the homosexual position is assumed. Opposing views are silenced using bullying tactics. People are no longer being permitted to exercise free choice in such matters; they are being compelled by the state to comply. The truth is, most of America is being bullied by a viciously vocal minority. (p. 20.)
Hilliker then uselessly points out that homosexuals happen to be a 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. Yet the views of this proven homosexual minority have been forced on the majority. (p. 20.)
There is a problem. This line of thinking is essentially how in times past the white supremacists protected racial segregation. In the segregated States they said that the (white) majority wanted racial segregation. The segregationists said that legal moves to compel racial integration and treat African Americans as equals with the white majority were "unpopular" and "undemocratic". They said the federal government and the Supreme Court had no right to end racial segregation. They insinuated that since racial segregation "only" affected a minority that it is not a big problem and should just be left alone.

One yearning for racial segregation could say, Such laws "only" affect about 15% of the population so why resist it? 

Hilliker is replicating how the white supremacists tried to maintain racial segregation to dominate African Americans. That is disturbing and eerie.

In regards to issues of justice and the law it does not matter if an injustice "only" affects 15% or even "just" 0.1%. It is unjust and must be opposed. We cannot say to one who suffers, Only 0.1% of the population have your problem so just accept it and live with it. This is not good. We must not accept any injustice even if it "only" affects a minority. That is a terrible "argument" if we may call it that.

Again back on page 8 Hilliker complained that the 1987 article called for portraying those who oppose homosexuals as being like the Ku Klux Klan. But here Hilliker uses lines of thinking eerily similar to how segregationists defended racial discrimination. The line of thinking is the same, it is merely directed at another group of people. It is impossible to take that complaint seriously when he talks like one supporting racial segregation.
But considering the pressure coming from so many directions, it is little wonder that popular resistance to “gay marriage” is in rapid retreat. (p. 20.)
Ironically the Palestinians, a people Hilliker often denigrates and vilifies, call their protests against the Israeli authorities "popular resistance" as well. How strange it is that Hilliker is unconsciously mimicking them.

Chronicle of Complaints Ends
This change was rapid. In 1996, just over a quarter of Americans approved of homosexual “marriage.” In 2013, it was the majority position in America. (p. 21.)
Seventeen years is not rapid. He is once again using emotive language to inspire panic and fear in the reader.
Society has undergone a radical shift. It has moved from stigmatizing homosexuality—to stigmatizing those who oppose it. The president of the United States now says that if you don’t embrace it, you are holding fast to “worn arguments and old attitudes.”

And this transformation has been lightning-quick: all essentially since the mid-1980s—within a single generation. Imagine what defenders of traditional family from just one or two generations ago would think about where we are today. (pp. 21-22.)
And who are these "defenders of traditional family" that he never bothers to even name? He does not mention even one by name. This is because his PCG teaches that it is the only true church in all the world. He does not want to give any acknowledgement of them in this booklet because he wants the reader to join PCG.
Yet America’s president says that the crusade to mainstream homosexuality—and to give the movement the legal power to stamp out any opposition— still has a long way to go. What does the homosexual lobby want next? The president makes it sound like it won’t be satisfied until every last citizen has renounced those “old attitudes.” (p. 22.)
Here Hilliker uses what anti-cult author Steven Hassan would call an "indirect suggestion." "What does the homosexual lobby want next?" Hilliker writes. By being selectively vague about the supposed threat he fear mongers about it allows the reader to imagine any kind of horror to be visited upon them by the vilified homosexuals.

In Armstrongism the word "crusade" tends to be very negative. It is also used to incite fear and antagonism towards the Catholic Church.
This revolution against millennia-old morals, beliefs and social structures has been swift, aggressive—and devastatingly successful. Its advocates are convinced that it has been an unmitigated good for society, that a world which tolerates and encourages sexual “diversity” is stronger, healthier, more loving and better off. (p. 22.)
And so ends this condemning chronicle of the homosexuals' political activism. He tries to make homosexuals sound frightening and scary. But what I really found frightening was Hilliker's hostile denial of suffering concerning homosexuals dying from HIV/AIDS and transgender people being unable to use the toilet. That form of dehumanization is frightening bizarre and eerie.

Chapter 2

The Biblical PCG Pattern of Families

So after that negative chronicle Hilliker then insists that PCG's dogma means homosexuals must be viewed as somehow contrary to the divine will. He insists that PCG's God created things a certain way thus justifying viewing homosexuals as somehow contrary to the way thing should be.

In this section of the booklet Hilliker promotes what he calls a "biblical view", "the biblical pattern" or a "Biblical standard" regarding how families should be organized. It is actually the PCG leadership's view and the PCG leadership's standard. This ideal is also used as a license for PCG's leaders to dictate to members how they should organize their families. Considering PCG's authoritarian nature this license to rule over PCG members' families is quite dangerous.

While discussing this chapter I will quote some of Hilliker's descriptions of his idealized family. Be aware that whatever does not fit his ideal is implicitly condemned and this booklet serves as a license for PCG's leaders to order their followers to adhere to the narrow model presented in this booklet.
To one who is indifferent or hostile toward the Creator, it might seem arbitrary. Indeed, there has been a relentless drive over the past half-century in particular to equalize the sexes and push the concept that males and females are not different. (p. 23.)
PCG uses this idea that males and females are different to compel males and females to accept narrowly defined roles rather than trusting lay members themselves to manage their own relationships for themselves.
Is it possible that sex is neither an accident of evolution, nor an arbitrary ornament on creation, but a conscious, deliberate choice and intentional design fashioned by a super-intelligent Creator who used superior reasoning and logic? (p. 24.)
This is not a question. It is what Hilliker teaches but it is confusingly presented as a question to lead the reader to this conclusion for him or herself.

Hilliker then states that marriage is universally practiced among human societies. The animals do not marry. Marriage is a uniquely human thing. Therefore it must only be between a man and a woman. This is to denigrate homosexuals as being somehow scary and "not like us".

Vilifying Heterosexuals (Part 2)
Homosexuals and their supporters believe marriage is a mere tradition. They claim it has been evolving for millennia, and that it’s time for it to evolve to include same-sex couples. (p. 25.)
When Hilliker writes of "their supporters" he is talking of heterosexuals. Men who love women. Women who love men. Hilliker tries to portray homosexuals as bullies. Hilliker portrays himself as one defending heterosexuals who are supposedly victimized by homosexuals. And yet Hilliker condemns those heterosexuals who choose to side with homosexuals.

Hilliker is no defender of heterosexuals. Rather he is trying to turn heterosexuals against the homosexual minority. But some heterosexuals choose not to follow Hilliker's demands. Those heterosexuals are condemned by Hilliker for not following his orders. That is what this booklet is really about: indoctrinating people to obey the orders of PCG's 1%.
Many defenders of traditional marriage also believe it is a tradition, but one that should not be tampered with. They say loosening its definition beyond one woman and one man compromises its unique benefits and opens the door to legalize other outlandish unions. (p. 25.)
Those who have opposed homosexuals have often asserted that if marriages between members of the same gender is allowed other kinds of unions such as polygamy or bestiality will be allowed as a result of legalizing same sex marriage.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it is not really an argument against same sex marriage. It is a way to change the topic.

PCG Ministers to Control Families
They ["defenders of traditional marriage" who are never even named once in this booklet] want the American people to decide the matter through the political process, which includes voting. (p. 25.) 
And so Hilliker condemns the possibility of the Supreme Court legalizing same sex marriage. A possibility which later came to pass after this booklet's release.

Hilliker then says that PCG's God started marriage at the very moment of creation of Adam and Eve.
Until a few generations ago, the concept of marriage and family was taken for granted—generally accepted as desirable—as the basic means of rearing responsible children and producing a stable society. Westerners in particular agreed on the essential outlines: Marriage is a lifelong commitment; divorce is unacceptable; sexual fidelity is prudent, if not essential; children should obey their parents. Most of these conventions trace directly back to the model for marriage outlined in the Bible. (p. 26.)
How strange these words are: "sexual fidelity is prudent, if not essential". He seems to be describing how his idealized past society viewed family relationships. But what does this mean? That adultery is to be discouraged only because it is inconvenient? That faithfulness is merely there for pragmatic reasons, not for any idealistic reason? What strangely uncommitted words for this supposed defender of marriage to say.  

Hilliker then seems to blame heterosexuals for causing homosexuals to emerge by not following PCG's ordained pattern about how to structure families. 
The 20th-century Western world increasingly saw every marriage-related assumption challenged: the role of husband as guide and provider; the role of wife as helpmate and homemaker; the importance of abstaining from sex outside of marriage; the authority of parents over their children. As these ideas were contested, a negative cycle began. Rejecting the biblical marriage model produced more bad marriages. These bad marriages fueled critics’ arguments against the fundamental nature of marriage. The result was a general, misguided dissatisfaction with marriage itself and an inevitable lack of appreciation for and understanding of the institution.

Today, society-wide immorality, pornography, pre-marital sex, adultery, upside-down families and no-fault divorce laws have turned marriage into an almost pitifully inconsequential arrangement. Sixty-two percent of Americans view divorce as a “morally acceptable” way to escape an inconvenient union. Not only have we accepted the plague of divorce—but many now see it as the morally right thing to do in several circumstances. Those marriages that remain intact often suffer from other curses, like infidelity, spousal abuse and role confusion. (pp. 26-27.)
When Hilliker writes of "upside-down families" and "role confusion" he is condemning families in which (in his view) the woman is in charge. Whether the married couple are happy with that arrangement or not is irrelevant for Hilliker. It is vilified as somehow contrary to the will of PCG's God and is therefore condemned.

Condemning such families as "upside-down families" and of having "role confusion" is a license for PCG's leaders to interfere in the family relationships of their lay members.

Hilliker is no defender of heterosexuals. If a heterosexual family should happen to be dominated by the wife (in his view) then gives PCG's leaders a license to intervene and "correct" this situation regardless of whether the husband and wife themselves are happy with their arrangement.

Most Heterosexual Families Condemned by PCG

It is not just homosexuals who are condemned in this booklet. The vast majority of heterosexuals are also condemned.
In times past, the case that marriage stabilized society was easier to make. Now, marriages are so far from the biblical pattern that they do much less to prop up society. Those that truly follow that pattern are so rare (and the general view of family has degenerated far enough) that they are simply no longer considered a realistic exemplar. (p. 27.)
Some defender of heterosexual marriage Hilliker is. Turn out he regards the marriages that follow his narrow definition are "so rare" he complains. Hilliker is no defender of heterosexual marriage. Rather he seems to be conducting "a war" on heterosexual marriages (to mimic his booklet's title) he views as somehow not following his idealized model.

He repeats his idealized model. He calls it "the Biblical model" but it is actually PCG's model.
A responsible, authoritative man who leads his family in love, supported and deeply respected by an industrious woman who keeps the home, and both parents rearing their children to be happy, polite and obedient—this scenario, rather than being held up as an ideal, is considered so impossible as to be laughable. The very concept is scorned and mocked. (p. 27.)
Hilliker then complains that some people should call his model and standard of being discriminatory.
Some even go further and say that the traditional ideal for family is not only unrealistic, but harmful —that its very structure is a type of slavery for the wife and oppression for the children. Unhappy families, broken homes and illegitimate children are so overwhelmingly common that it is regarded as insensitive to suggest that such individuals are in any way disadvantaged.
It would be easier for him to refute such a characterization of PCG's model if it was not for the fact that Hilliker clearly insists that men and women have specific roles that must be fulfilled the way Hilliker says. The husband is the head of the family because Hilliker says so. The wife has her duties at home. The husband is clearly more valued by Hilliker and so the husband is promoted as head of the family. Since Hilliker is a man himself how can he understand what it is like being in a subordinate role at home as he demands of women?

I do not condemn his idealized family. What is to be condemned is this strict dogmatism because this attitude is a license for the PCG leadership to interfere in family arrangements. What if a PCG member's family arrangement should somehow be contrary to this idealized standard? Would the PCG minister feel a need to somehow intervene and alter their own arrangement regardless of how the individual family members happen to be happy the way they decided to arrange things on their own? This "license" for PCG's leaders to interfere in family life is to be condemned.

Blaming Heterosexuals and Conservatives

Hilliker then blames heterosexuals for letting same sex marriage to become acceptable. By not living up to Hilliker's standard he insists that heterosexuals are to blame for homosexuals' political and legal activities.
It shouldn’t surprise us that, as an outgrowth of this redefinition, the very idea of marriage involving one man and one woman has come into dispute.

Considering everything that society (including “conservatives”) has done to undermine the sanctity of marriage—accepting fornication, out-of-wedlock births, abortions on demand, adultery, no-fault divorce, feminist role reversals, deadbeat dads and working moms—one might conclude that it seems rather arbitrary for people to suddenly decide that same-sex unions are what crosses the line. (p. 28.)
PCG says it is the only true church in all the world. Consequently even those outside of PCG who are receptive to the message of this booklet must also be discredited as well. Blaming heterosexuals for the acceptance of homosexuals in mainstream society is Hilliker's way of discrediting anyone with a similar message against homosexuals.
Considering our failures, surely some humility is in order. (p. 30.)
As though PCG's 1% who have assumed for themselves the ability to rule over their followers in so many ways could possibly understand humility. How can one believe this shallow claim to be humble? He just condemned most heterosexual marriages by saying that it is "so rare" for his pattern of marriage to be followed.

Hilliker then insists that many social problems are caused because people do not organize their marriages the way PCG insists it should be organized, what he calls "the biblical model". It is actually PCG's model.
All of the problems associated with marriage and family today stem from our departure from the biblical model. You can only recognize the factuality of that statement if you truly understand the biblical model. But it is absolutely right: The further we stray from that model, the greater the heartache and brokenness in our fractured family life. (p. 30.)
It is insinuated all will be well if only one organized families the way PCG insists following PCG's model.This is a false hope for the readers of this booklet.
Why are homosexuals so insistent about gaining the right to marry? Where did this universal institution of marriage even come from? It came from the Bible—the very source that homosexuals dismiss, ignore or ridicule. (p. 30.)
Actually a lot of homosexuals are religious and Christian. There are even church congregations that cater specifically for them. So Hilliker is wrong to stereotype homosexuals as being antagonistic towards the Bible as he says here.

But Hilliker lives in an Armstrongite information bubble. All his life he has lived in Armstrongite organizations (HWA's WCG then PCG) that have always condemned homosexuals all the days of his life. So he is ignorant of these things.

Structure Your Family My Way or Else
Whether or not you believe deeply in the Christian Bible, it is an objective fact that the further that families drift from the biblical model, the worse they get, and the more the society they underpin falls apart. Given this widespread failure within our marriages and families, shouldn’t we go back and look to the Author of marriage and family, to see what He has to say? (p. 31.)
Hilliker is not leading people to the God of the Bible but PCG's God. He is insinuating that all kinds of problems will somehow be solved if only one listens to PCG. This is a way for the PCG leadership to gain the consent of their followers to rule over them and even interfere in one's family arrangements.
They can dress up what they’re doing in the language of “committed relationships” and “love.” They can claim homosexuality will help “fix” marriage and family. (p. 32.)
Hilliker just said that if one follows PCG's model of family then that will fix the reader's marriage and family. Now he condemns homosexuals of trying to fix marriage. Hilliker is psychologically projecting here.

Hilliker then ends this booklet with these words.
Why male and female? Why marriage? Why do we reproduce through sex? Why children? Why family? These are questions that demand answers. Homosexual activists avoid them. Conservatives ignore them. Even Christians neglect them. But those answers do exist! They are plainly revealed, to the unprejudiced reader, in the textbook for marriage: the Bible. (p. 32.)
And so Hilliker ends this booklet with a bitter parting barb at people he knows might be receptive to the message of this booklet. He does this because he wants the reader to join PCG. It is a way of discrediting the competition.

And on the last page it is revealed that this booklet is the first chapters of Joel Hilliker's 2013 booklet, Redefining Family. PCG is quite secretive about this booklet. Even if you get an account for their recruitment websites it cannot be downloaded from their websites. It is not available online.


What a venomous screed of hatred this booklet is. It is against homosexuals and heterosexuals alike.

Especially perverse is his hostile denial of suffering towards homosexuals, even those who were afflicted with and died of HIV/AIDS.

This booklet is wrong to insinuate that education regarding homosexuality as some sort of attempt to make people homosexual. Homosexuality is not contagious and does not spread like that. It is wrong to scare parents with this misinformation.

This booklet is wrong to blame some 1987 article and portray it in an alarmist way as some sort of "master plan" that was faithfully followed successfully. This is a vast oversimplification of the issue.

This booklet vilifies heterosexuals who choose to make common cause with homosexuals.

This booklet shamefully is more fixated on hate crimes legislation instead of condemning the murder of an American citizen.

This booklet deceptively calls those who opposed the homosexuals as "Bible believing Christians" on page 10 but in fact his PCG teaches that PCG is the only true church on all the Earth. All other churches are condemned as false. This booklet is very misleading on that matter.

This booklet does not respect marriage. He said it is "so rare" for marriages to follow his PCG model on page 27. This statement condemns the vast majority of marriages as being somehow unworthy of his approval. It is a license for him and the PCG leadership to interfere in the family lives and arrangements of PCG members.

This booklet refuses to name anyone else who condemn homosexuals. This refusal to even name anyone else indicates that the real purpose of this booklet is to gain tithes paying converts to PCG, not to prevent the legalization of same sex unions.

This booklet tries to attract people by presenting itself as some sort of polemic against homosexuals, but in fact it actually condemns every marriage that does not fit Hilliker's strict and narrow vision of how families are "supposed" to be like. This booklet refuses to trust peoples' initiative and insist every other kind of family relationship is somehow displeasing to (PCG's) God.

This condemnation of most marriages is an attempt to convince the reader to let PCG's leaders have authority over the reader to order them how to structure their families. This condemnation of all families that fail to fit PCG's favored model is a license for PCG's leadership to order their followers how to structure family life. The possibility that the members may be happy with how they created the dynamics of their relationship is never discussed in this booklet. It is just asserted that following PCG's direction will make all be well. In other words happiness has been redefined as obeying PCG's leaders.

This booklet is very misleading. It portrays itself as a polemic condemning homosexuals but actually it condemns most heterosexual marriages as well by insisting that Hilliker's idealized "model" of marriage is now "so rare" (p. 27).

This fear mongering is a distraction to keep PCG members fearful of people outside of PCG so that paying three tithes to PCG and ignoring the problems within PCG seem to be a price worth paying to remain in PCG. 

And while writing these things he gets to live in this house funded by the tithes PCG members pay to PCG.

Hilliker's home at PCG's headquarters. (PCG Information.)

What a misanthropic piece of work this miserable, vindictive screed is.


  1. My own anecdotal experience is that the most homophobic males are boozing alcoholics. It is my perspective that calling attention to homosexuals and condemning them some how makes the boozing homophobe more of a man (since alcohol decreases the "manhood").

    Now it would be interesting to do a sociological study on this, focusing on the Armstrongist Churches where alcoholism runs higher than the norm for society in general. In fact, recent studies show that the stats for "at risk" populations have the percentages lower than for the disclosed percentages for the WCG congregations disclosed by Dale Hampton as he went through the WCG congregations in the 1970s to bring the message about alcoholism to the masses. He said that 18% of the Seattle congregation were alcoholics. That's way higher than the general population. You know, some people might think that Armstrongism attracts alcoholics. I know of congregations where alcoholics came into the church and took over: They looked so like "the converted" in their natural state that really, you couldn't tell "the converted" from the newly baptized alcoholics.

    This makes sense, of course, since Herbert Armstrong and GTA were boozing alcoholics. We're pretty sure that Flurry is given his DUI just after a Feast Day, but without a DNA blood test we won't be able to pin that down definitively.

    Now as for alcoholics and marriage, it should be pointed out that Herbert Armstrong wrote "How to Have a Happy Marriage". I don't remember when it was published -- some time in the 1950s, originally, I think (I'm too lazy to go check, sorry). Yet, there he was, getting a divorce from Ramona. The insulting part was that as members, we ended up paying the $5 million settlement. It should also be noted that Herbert Armstrong's incest with his daughter Dorothy came out in the divorce trial.

    What should we make of this? Whereas, Hilliker would like us to believe that homosexuals are automatically pedophiles (without any substantiating studies to establish the truth), at a time we know that their hero, Herbert Armstrong was one. As David Robinson pointed out in his book, if Herbert Armstrong had been caught in Texas, he would have received the death penalty.

    This is just a minor thing in the scheme of things, seeing as how Deuteronomy declares a death sentence on PCG ministers, since they are all false prophets. It's too bad that Hillliker and Fraser don't take up the mantle to condemn false prophets and warn everyone that whoso becomes one shall not inherit the kingdom of God -- they are to be cast into the Lake of Fire to be burned up and disappear for all eternity.

    I guess they could give the excuse that they were born "that way". God should forgive them of being false prophets because they can't help it because it's in their DNA, but then, if they don't acknowledge the very recent scientific studies that homosexuality is DNA heritage based (along with alcoholism), they really shouldn't get a free pass for being false prophets.

    Throw them in the Lake of Fire, I say.

    And if they happen to go to a biker bar unfriendly to false prophets and they are taken out to be mercilessly tortured and killed, so much the better.

    It would be symmetric justice. It's doubtful anyone would mourn them and the perpetrators would probably get off with a slap on the wrists (perhaps convicted of a lesser crime of illegal parking [on top of the false prophet] and given a ticket free from jail time).

  2. Well, alcoholics might perceive the gateway into homosexuality as being some guy or gal, out on the town, making the bar scene, very horny, but striking out pretty badly with the opposite sex. Then, suddenly, at a vulnerable moment, and three sheets to the wind, being approached by a gay person offering sexual favors, succumbing, and then actually liking it, and seeking to duplicate the experience. And, I suppose that such things do happen from time to time, but most homosexuals insist that they were born with their sexual orientation, just as heterosexuals are born with theirs. Some are even dismayed, and consumed by self-loathing upon discovering this in often shocking ways.

    What the ACOG extremists are witnessing is not a war in which homosexuals are winning, as one more proof of the end times. Instead, they are seeing the homosexual orientation being brought out in the open, rather than being suppressed and repressed. It is the emergence of a more humane approach to people who people who were ill understood throughout large parts of history.

    Some people are natural contrarians, but very few people would willingly choose to be part of a highly persecuted minority. The problem with that line of logic when dealing with Christians, is that most Christians did actually choose to be part of a persecuted minority. Christians know that they were not born Christian, so, in some cases, a false parallel is drawn, making it easier for Christians to believe that gay people would also make a conscious decision to practice a lifestyle, in spite of probable persecution, or even death.

    In the 1960s, "kind" people would seek understanding for their minority friends by saying such things as "Oh, don't you realize that so and so would have wanted to be white if he had been given a choice?" The fact is, black people as an example, actually enjoyed being black. They just hated the inconveniences involved in being treated as less than by the majority. Most would have preferred simply being able to be all that they could be without artificially imposed limitations, just as the majority is able to do.

    We can't really know where all of this is going. Obviously, societal changes often make certain groups feel threatened, even as they make others feel less threatened. While nobody anywhere is suggesting laws compelling all people to become bisexual, some groups are treating the changes we see as if that were actually the case. But, it is inconsistent with their beliefs that in the end times everyone will be compelled to embrace the Catholic faith.