Disney’s ‘Gay Days’ are canceled. Don’t pop the champagne just yet.



After 35 years, the future of Disney’s “Gay Days” looks grim. The group that organizes the event announced that shifting hotel agreements and the loss of key sponsors forced it to cancel the celebration in 2026. Organizers still urge gay fans to visit the parks on the usual dates and wear themed attire, but the coordinated celebration appears headed for a quiet end.

Whatever happens next, one point matters: Evangelical Christians tried to cancel Gay Days with on-again, off-again boycotts for decades. What finally wounded the LGBTQ leviathan was not conservative activism, but cultural apathy.

Apathy does not mean Americans suddenly disapproved of Disney’s agenda. It means normal people stopped granting it the honor of a fight.

I remember the first wave of evangelical pushback as Disney began signaling support for homosexual lifestyles in the 1990s. Conservatives already watched pop culture coarsen through music, movies, and video games, yet they still treated Disney as a family-friendly institution aimed at children. That is why it shocked them to see the company behind “Snow White” and “Cinderella” host celebrations of homosexuality and extend benefits to same-sex partners long before the Supreme Court imposed gay marriage on the country.

Evangelical denominations answered with a strangely inconsistent boycott. One year, the Southern Baptist Convention urged members to avoid Disney; the next year, churches showed up for Night of Joy, Disney’s Christian music festival.

When Gay Days began in 1991, gay marriage remained deeply unpopular. “Will & Grace” had not worked its magic on the popular imagination, and politicians such as Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton still felt compelled to posture as defenders of traditional marriage as late as 2008. If any moment favored a decisive cultural rebuke, that was it. Christians offered sloppy, intermittent resistance, while Disney only leaned harder.

From park to propaganda

Disney’s support for homosexuality moved from park celebrations and employee benefits into its entertainment. Progressive messaging crept into television shows and movies until the woke revolution turned it into a flood. “The Little Mermaid” became black, gay couples kissed in “Star Wars,” and diverse girlbosses dominated Marvel. As acceptance of gay marriage shifted from taboo to required corporate orthodoxy, Disney replaced entertainment with propaganda.

The company then collided with Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) after Florida moved to restrict the mutilation of children and limit the amount of LGBTQ messaging pumped into public schools. Legislation that the press laughably branded “don’t say gay” sent leftists into a panic. Executives called emergency meetings. Rumors flew that Disney would pull up stakes and flee the Sunshine State.

BlazeTV host Christopher Rufo helped surface video of a corporate meeting where Disney executive Latoya Raveneau announced her “not-at-all-secret gay agenda” to inject LGBTQ themes into kids’ shows. Disney embraced the agenda early, worked to make it dominant — especially among children — and refused to slow down once the woke revolution reached full speed.

Why Gay Days collapsed

So why did Gay Days suddenly fall apart now? Apathy.

Apathy does not mean Americans suddenly disapproved of Disney’s agenda. It means normal people stopped granting it the honor of a fight.

Many families quit watching new releases, not as part of a coordinated boycott, but because the product became preachy, weird, and dull. Others kept their subscriptions but tuned out the messaging and rolled their eyes. Either way, the ritualized drama lost its electricity.

Corporate sponsors follow attention, and attention followed the next outrage. A movement built on being shocking cannot survive once it becomes background noise. When every kids’ show feels like a lecture, even sympathetic viewers start craving something else.

Gay Days did not collapse because Christians perfected a strategy. It collapsed because the culture stopped caring enough to show up, even to cheer. Apathy is not victory, but it can starve a cause faster than protest.

Progressivism needs an enemy

Popular political movements need cultural momentum, and progressive movements feed on transgression. Leftists want to feel like they are fighting the stuffy pastor in “Footloose.” They want to feel cool, rebellious, and righteous. Without dialectical tension, progressivism loses velocity.

When activists fought the religious right, they enjoyed the perfect enemy: just enough moralizing to spark rebellion, but little chance of sustained, effective opposition.

Conservatives could work up outrage on television and even skip a holiday trip, but they rarely sustained a boycott. Republicans generally worship business and profits, so GOP politicians avoided pressure on true pain points such as corporate sponsors and boardrooms. Conservatives served as a political battery, supplying just enough resistance to keep LGBTQ activists energized while imposing few costs. Democrat operatives could not have engineered a better environment.

RELATED: The West’s forbidden truth: Ethnic cleansing is now official policy

Blaze Media Illustration

Machiavelli’s warning

In “The Prince,” Niccolo Machiavelli advises rulers to leave opponents alone or crush them entirely. A complacent enemy grumbles but avoids risk. A crushed enemy cannot retaliate. The most dangerous enemy suffers a minor bloodying: he gains the motivation to fight and keeps the means to harm. Conservatives gave the LGBTQ movement exactly that minor bloodying — outraged finger-wagging with no consequences.

No one lost a job for pushing a gay agenda in Disney parks, shows, or movies. Corporate sponsors rarely withdrew. Disney kept making money. Republicans played the role of cartoonish but harmless foe, delivering speeches about family values while imposing no penalties.

The movement did not lose because the right defeated it. It lost because it exhausted its cultural energy.

Even a strong boxer collapses after he punches himself out. Gay marriage won so quickly and so thoroughly that activists carried the momentum into harder causes such as the trans movement. Support, attention, and funding shifted to the new battlegrounds, and older, boring causes like Gay Days slid into irrelevance.

The lesson is simple. If the right fights, it must pick battles carefully and commit fully to winning them. Secure decisive victory in one arena instead of scattering resources across dozens of losses. Choose targets because they anchor your enemy’s strength, not because they offer an easy headline. If you fight, you must crush the enemy’s capacity to operate; otherwise, you invigorate his cause while draining your own.

Clumsy half measures feed your foe, and you end up hoping he defeats himself. That is not a plan for a protracted culture war.

Miss America redefines ‘women’ — and punishes those who object



While the Miss America pageant has long been known for featuring the most beautiful women in the country, organizers are now opening the competition up to biological men and removing the crowns of those who disagree.

When Miss North Florida Kayleigh Bush refused to sign a contract that featured the pageant’s updated policies because it changed the language to claim that men can be considered women and eligible to compete, she was stripped of her title.

And BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales is seriously disturbed, saying, “Miss America is now allowing trans people to compete.”


“Now they’ve got updated rules. Contestants have to be women aged 18 to 28, unmarried, no children, and U.S. citizens. However, ‘women,’ air quotes, includes those born female or an individual who has fully completed sex reassignment surgery via vaginoplasty,” she explains.

BlazeTV contributor Matthew Marsden is as shocked as Gonzales.

“The mental gymnastics that they have to go through — which is, by the way, going to tank the organization. It’s going to be over,” he says, before pointing out that it’s a “communist play.”

“They want to say that ugly is beautiful. They want to say, ‘Look at that beautiful building.’ And you go, ‘Uh, it’s a concrete building.’ … But isn’t it funny? That’s what they’re doing,” he says.

“What they’re trying to do is mess with your head. I mean, really, they’re trying to tell you, ‘Hang on a second. Beauty is ugly. Ugly is beauty. Don’t look at this. Don’t look at that. A man’s a woman. A woman’s a man,’” he continues.

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred takes on news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

'Queer' US figure skater trashes Trump admin before taking social media break over 'hate' and 'threats'



Olympic figure skater Amber Glenn accused the Trump administration of attacking her "human rights."

Glenn's sentiments came in a pre-Olympics press conference last week, where she made her case to reporters that the "queer community" is stronger than ever.

'I will be limiting my time on social media for my own well-being.'

Before Glenn won gold in team figure skating this week, she said it has been "a hard time for the [LGBTQ] community overall in this administration."

She then claimed her "human rights" were at risk.

"It isn't the first time that we've had to come together as a community and try and fight for our human rights. And now especially, it's not just affecting the queer community, but many other communities, and I think that we are able to support each other in a way that we didn't have to before, and because of that, it's made us a lot stronger."

The 26-year-old then pledged she would use her platform during the Olympics to "encourage people to stay strong."

However, just a few days later, Glenn said she needed to take a break from social media over "hate" and "threats."

"When I chose to utilize one of the amazing things about the United States of America (Freedom of speech) to convey how I feel as an athlete competing for Team USA in a troubling time for many Americans I am now receiving a scary amount of hate/threats for simply using my voice WHEN ASKED about how I feel," she wrote on an Instagram story, according to the Wrap.

"I did anticipate this, but I'm disappointed by it," she went on. "I will be limiting my time on social media for my own well-being for now, but I will never stop using my voice for what I believe in."

Then Glenn flipped on that commitment too.

RELATED: 'I'm really proud': American snowboarder refuses to take the bait on question about representing USA

- YouTube

After comments about limiting her social media surfaced on Saturday, Glenn seemingly took just one day off from her online activism and returned to her social media.

Upon her re-emergence, she shared a picture of her gold medal team and a post about "all the queer athletes who won medals" so far at the Olympics.

This was followed by a shared post with the Human Rights Campaign that featured a quote from her saying she has been receiving hate but will "never stop" using her voice. This of course omitted the portion where Glenn said she would be limiting her social media usage.

The next day, Glenn posted an interview she took part in where she discussed being an "advocate for mental health and the LGBTQ+ community," which is "making figure skating more supportive, inclusive, and open."

RELATED: Olympic skier who wrote 'F**k ICE' in snow now says he is victim of 'hate and vitriol'

Photo by Tim Clayton/Getty Images

Glenn's social media is a near constant feed of mental health and gay activism. Before her alleged break, she posted a video about her being "the first openly LGBTQ+ woman to represent the U.S. in Olympic singles figure skating."

The same post included the popular phrasing of "respect and pay female athletes."

Another post talked about Glenn bringing "visible, unapologetic queerness" to the 2026 U.S. Figure Skating Championships in Missouri.

Glenn will likely get another chance to speak with reporters around her free skate short program competition, which takes place on February 17.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

America’s old cultic trick: Sex, salvation, and the return of polygamy



American religious history is littered with cult leaders who promised a blessed life through deviant sexuality. From the earliest frontier movements to the modern era, the pattern is remarkably consistent: a charismatic figure announces that traditional Christian morality is oppressive, outdated, or unnatural — and that true freedom, enlightenment, or spiritual power is found through sexual transgression.

Today’s polygamy apologists are not offering anything new. Like cult leaders before them, they package sexual license as enlightenment and rebellion as honesty.

The sexual revolution of the 1960s can be understood as a much larger cultural wave of the same desire. “Any way you want it, that’s the way you need it,” became a slogan of liberation, echoing the older Luciferian maxim, “Do what thou wilt.” The point was not merely freedom from social constraints, but freedom from moral law itself.

The LGBTQ+ movement followed this trajectory and intensified it by questioning the very idea of nature altogether. Gender was no longer something discovered or received but something invented by the autonomous mind. Reality itself became plastic, malleable to inner desire. If the mind declares it, then it must be so.

That impulse represents the more openly “liberal” side of the sexual revolution. But today we are witnessing what some might call a more “conservative” version gaining traction: a renewed interest in polyamory and polygamy. This, too, bears all the classic marks of rejecting Christian marriage — only now it does so in a more crafty way, cloaking itself in appeals to nature, history, and even Scripture. This camouflage makes it especially dangerous.

The first move modern polygamy advocates is an appeal to what comes naturally. Men, we are told, are not designed to be with just one woman for life. What is the proof? Male desire. Men experience lust for multiple women; therefore, monogamy must be unnatural.

This argument collapses on closer inspection. It amounts to saying that because men experience disordered desire, they should not be expected to govern it. Lust becomes its own justification. By this logic, no appetite — sexual or otherwise — should ever be restrained. Gluttony, rage, greed, and violence would all be “natural” simply because they occur.

Others dress this same claim in evolutionary language. Men, we are told, are merely advanced apes whose biological purpose is to spread their seed as widely as possible. This argument is simply an abdication of moral reasoning. If evolutionary impulse defines moral obligation, then fidelity, sacrifice, and self-control become irrational. Civilization itself becomes a mistake.

Proponents of polygamy then pivot to the Bible. Didn’t Jacob have two wives? Didn’t David have many? And Solomon more than all of them?

Therefore — what, exactly?

These are not normative examples for the Christian. Scripture never presents polygamy as an ideal. At best, it records God’s tolerance of sinful arrangements within a fallen world, never His approval. In fact, the biblical record consistently highlights the misery, injustice, and disorder produced by polygamous households. The entire account of Jacob having children with four women is an account of their contest and jealousy.

Most strikingly, the very man most often invoked by modern apologists — Solomon — is the author of Scripture’s greatest celebration of monogamous love: the Song of Solomon. The man with many wives wrote the Bible’s most eloquent testimony to exclusive devotion between one man and one woman. That irony should give pause.

From the beginning, marriage was instituted as a one-flesh union. One man. One woman. One covenant. When adultery occurs,it is not the creation of a new marriage but the violation of an existing one. Bringing in a third, fourth, or fifth person breaks the union between one man and one woman as the man moves on to the next woman. This is why God uses adultery as His primary image for Israel’s sin. The prophets do not praise Israel’s “polyamory” with other gods; they condemn it as betrayal.

RELATED: Michael Knowles explains why he isn't a Christian Zionist

Photo by Olivier Touron/AFP via Getty Images

In the New Testament, Jesus explicitly reaffirms this creational order. Appealing not to cultural norms but to Genesis itself, He teaches that from the beginning God made them male and female and that the two — not three, not many — become one flesh. Jesus was perfectly aware that pagans often practiced polygamy.

Paul makes this even more explicit in 1 Timothy 3. As the gospel advances into pagan cultures where polygamy existed, Paul does not relax the standard for Christian leadership. An elder must be the husband of one wife. Polygamist marriages of people who converted to Christianity were not dissolved, but they were not held up as ideal in the place of Christian marriage, which points us to Christ’s monogamous love for his church. A man should have known better, even as a pagan, and thus Christian leadership was preserved for those who understood what marriage pointed toward from the beginning.

From beginning to end, the biblical story is monogamous. The Old Testament image of God and Israel gives way to the New Testament image of Christ and His bride, the church. History itself culminates not in a harem, but in a wedding: the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Christ has a bride — not brides.

Today’s polygamy apologists are not offering anything new. Like cult leaders before them, they package sexual license as enlightenment and rebellion as honesty. Like wolves in sheep’s clothing, they aim not at hardened skeptics but at the unguarded and naïve.

Christians must be better equipped. Know the Scriptures. Understand the arguments. Do not be deceived by appeals to desire dressed up as nature or sin disguised as tradition. The sexual revolution — whether “progressive” or “conservative” — always ends the same way: with broken people, broken families, and broken faith.

Truth, by contrast, calls us not to indulge our lusts, but to master them. The Christian marriage points us to Christ’s monogamous love for his church.

Foreign-born 'trans' fraudster BUSTED: Man posing as woman likely to be deported after stealing nearly $1M in COVID cash



A native Salvadoran faces likely deportation after pleading guilty in connection with nearly $1 million in COVID-related fraud.

On Tuesday, a man who calls himself a woman and prefers the name Ruby Corado learned that he will have to spend 33 months behind bars followed by two years of supervised release. Corado pled guilty to one count of wire fraud back in July 2024.

Corado was previously charged with bank fraud, wire fraud, laundering of monetary instruments, monetary transactions in criminally derived proceeds, and failure to file a report of a foreign bank account. Prosecutors dropped the other charges in exchange for the guilty plea.

'You betrayed this country.'

In 2020, Corado applied for two federal COVID-relief loans on behalf of Casa Ruby, the now-defunct nonprofit he founded in Washington, D.C., ostensibly to help homeless LGBTQ+ youth. An Economic Injury Disaster Loan and a Paycheck Protection Program loan, both from the Small Business Administration and totaling $956,215, were then deposited directly into a Casa Ruby account, according to a defense sentencing memorandum.

However, Corado instead wired at least some of those funds overseas and hid them from the IRS, prosecutors claimed, according to NBC Washington. Corado also escaped to El Salvador in 2022, apparently to evade federal authorities.

Prior to sentencing, Corado submitted a statement to the court, admitting to funneling at least $200,000 to El Salvador. He claimed he had hopes of establishing Casa Ruby services there

"I am sorry that my mistake impacted my work," he told the court.

RELATED: Transvestite founder of LGBT group caught 2 years after fleeing country; faces federal fraud charges

Photo by Linda Davidson/Washington Post/Getty Images

In his statements during the sentencing hearing on Tuesday, D.C. District Judge Trevor McFadden issued a scathing rebuke of Corado.

"You betrayed this country," McFadden said, according to WUSA9. "You spotted an opportunity to defraud the American people."

McFadden also professed himself "very dubious" that Corado tried to bring Casa Ruby to El Salvador, noting that the defense offered no evidence that Corado had attempted to establish any nonprofit there.

McFadden also ordered Corado to pay back the SBA in full.

The defense had argued for leniency, requesting that Corado, who identifies as a "transgender woman," be able to serve his sentence at a local jail or perhaps even at home out of fear that the Trump DOJ will place him in a men's facility in accordance with his "biological sex":

DOJ policy has moved to align federal detention practices with directives rejecting gender identity in favor of "biological sex," resulting in transgender women being transferred into men’s facilities and in efforts to curtail gender-affirming medical care. Attorneys representing transgender women in BOP custody have described these shifts as placing their clients in "incredibly dangerous" situations, effectively emboldening predators and exposing inmates to foreseeable harm. As one longtime advocate explained, the signals sent by these policies can determine "whether a person lives or dies."

Whether Corado will be housed in a men or women's facility remains unclear, though he was incarcerated in a men's jail after his arrest in March 2024. What is clear is that Corado will likely be deported back to El Salvador after his sentence is concluded.

"Your deportation is likely if not certain," Judge McFadden said.

Corado also faces a civil suit regarding alleged failure to pay Casa Ruby employees. Though that suit was paused pending the criminal proceeding, it may soon resume now that Corado has been convicted.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Doctor Stumbles All Over Herself When Asked If Men Can Get Pregnant

'The goal is the truth and to establish a biological reality.'

Pennsylvania School District Settles With Mom After Secretly Calling Her Daughter A Boy

'J.G. responded by stating that he did not have a brother named Caleb'

Like most gay men, I wasn't 'born this way' — and I refuse to lie about it



“Why are you gay?” intoned Tucker Carlson in an African accent. Then the internet exploded. The voices of countless homosexuals and their supportive family members rose in unison to a pitch so shrill it could crack silicon data chips.

They trotted out all the predictable labels. Homophobe. Bigot. Christian nationalist. Carlson was promptly denounced across social media as a homophobe, a bigot, and a purveyor of hateful Christian nationalism — simply for asking the question we are not allowed to ask.

'I’m not crying because you’re gay,' she said. 'I’m crying because I know that life is going to be harder for you.'

It happened on Carlson’s December 4 podcast, which featured an extensive conversation with “Dangerous Faggot” Milo Yiannopoulos. For those who don’t know, Yiannopolous is a right-wing cultural commentator and provocateur with a pronounced histrionic gay affect. Today, he says he has abandoned homosexuality.

Trauma response

Before I go farther, it’s necessary to clear some underbrush. I am interested in the content of what Yiannopolous said, not in what anyone thinks of him as a person. Whether one thinks he’s honest, dishonest, annoying, or charming is irrelevant. What he says is what I’m interested in.

So what did he say?

"In almost every case, and certainly in every male case, [homosexuality] is a trauma response. It is not a sexuality."

Milo Yiannopolous speaks for me. I endorse what he said and believe it to be true. I believe I became a homosexual because I grew up under a mother with narcissistic personality disorder, a father who left before I could ever meet him, and an attempted murderer and pedophile for a stepfather.

Let me clear away some more underbrush, though it will probably be fruitless.

1. Yes, I believe the large majority of male homosexuals are homosexuals because of childhood circumstances and trauma.

2. Yes, I believe that most of those who claim that they had no childhood trauma are not being candid — including, in some cases, not being candid with themselves. Personal and professional experience leads me to this conclusion.

3. No, I’m not claiming that every single male homosexual had abusive parents. Yes, I recognize that some male homosexuals come from stable, loving families. I have male homosexual friends who fit this description.

What we used to know

We have lived for so long with the culturally enforced mandate to believe in “born this way” that we have to remind society of what it used to know just yesterday. Those of you in middle age will remember that until the past 25 years or so, homosexuality was understood to be the outcome of an abusive or neglectful childhood.

Not only psychiatric researchers, but everyday Americans noticed that most male homosexuals had troubled or nonexistent relationships with their fathers. They noticed that male homosexuals were unusually close to and emotionally enmeshed with their mothers. They noticed that those mothers often had overbearing, domineering, or melodramatic personalities.

If you’re younger than 40 and reading this with shock, I’m telling you the truth. This view was normal, but it was deliberately re-cast as “homophobia” and “ abuse against gays” in the past 25 years by the same activists who brought you “trans kids,” breast removal of healthy teen girls, and cross-sex hormones for teen boys who “are actually girls.”

That’s the set that brought you “born this way.”

'Science' fiction

As I write this piece, I’m struggling with how to give readers some citations. The trouble is that on the topic of homosexuality, just like with all things “COVID,” most people think there’s something called “the Science.” Even based right-wingers who rejected the authoritarian commands that tried to compel us to take mRNA “vaccines” and wear masks jump right to “show me THE SCIENCE” when the subject is the origin of homosexuality.

When the topic is this emotional, people stop thinking and start emoting. They start pretending that humans can’t know anything about the world, can’t recognize any patterns, and can’t come to any conclusions unless a Scientist published a Paper in a a Peer-Reviewed Journal.

Nevertheless, I’ll try. Surprising though it may be, the psychiatric and psychological literature, starting with Freud in the early 20th century, has long noted the pattern I described above. And most, though not all, male homosexuals were sexually abused as children or as minors. (I am a homosexual, but I was not molested as a child.)

Commentator and “ex-gay” Joseph Sciambra has published several bibliographies that round up much of this literature.

Normally, people don’t demand “the Science” on other subjects. No one demands “the Science” before noticing that most teenage drivers are more erratic and dangerous and therefore it pays to drive defensively around them. Everyone knows this, not because they read “the Science.” They know it because they have eyes, ears, and a brain that detects patterns.

Gay Old Party

Today, even conservatives are invested in the “born this way” gay narrative. While I’m pleased that the right wing came around on unfair laws that penalized homosexuals simply for being homosexuals (not laws that properly punished lewd public behavior), I’m not pleased that the average Republican now treats “born this way” as the end of the conversation.

The gay activist set has conquered the right wing. Those conservatives who find the position taken in this piece hard to bear have been manipulated emotionally by gay activists.

If you’re a conservative who finds this uncomfortable or “mean,” I think I know another reason why. You have homosexuals in your family whom you love (so do I, friends). Some of them are your children. And if they’re your children, you’re hearing an implicit accusation: “He’s saying I’m a terrible mother who made my son gay.”

No. I’m not (necessarily) saying that, even if you “feel” that I’m saying that. I don’t know you, and I don’t know how you raised your children. As a peer support coach, I’ve spoken to many moms and dads with gay children. These are loving moms and dads, but sometimes they made mistakes, or divorce or other trauma came to pass in the family.

Even the most loving parents will make mistakes, and the culture outside the parental home is ravening at your children and pushing them to adopt deviant and hedonistic lifestyles. Even the best parents can’t keep all of that out.

RELATED: Milo Yiannopolous dares to tell the truth about homosexuality

Phillip Faraone/Getty Images

'Coming out' to my mother

Let me tell you the story of a night in 1986 when I “came out” to my mother at age 12. Align readers know from my past columns that my mother was an abusive, deranged woman who veered into psychopathy at times. But there were moments when a real woman with real feelings came through.

I sat on the avocado-green pleather daybed we used as a couch. My mother was in her armchair, the square glass ashtray and a pack of Merit Ultra Light 100s at her side. It was 8 p.m., and my mother had sent the other children to bed because I had something important to tell her. I think she knew what was coming.

I told my mother that I was gay and that I felt duty-bound to tell her the truth about it. Looking back at myself at 12, I shudder that I was already forming myself into a “gay identity” that would trap me in promiscuity, addiction, and emotional disturbance for decades to come. But I didn’t know any better then.

My mother started crying. It wasn’t her usual self-pitying kind of crying, and it wasn’t her angry crying that would escalate to slaps across the face and screamed insults.

“I worried for so long that I would do this to you, that I would make you gay,” she said while she looked down at her hands. “I never gave you a father, and the father figure I brought into your life turned out to be a monster.”

This was one of the few times in our life together that I can remember when my mother seemed genuine and honest and seemed to care about my well-being. I think her sense of responsibility and guilt was real (my mother wasn’t much for feeling normal parental responsibility).

“I’m not crying because you’re gay,” she said. “I’m crying because I know that life is going to be harder for you. I’m terrified that you’ll get a disease and die early. Please be careful.”

Because my mother had already parentified me, turning me into her “surrogate husband” and emotional caretaker (almost universal with personality-disordered mothers and their children), I started comforting her.

“You didn’t do anything to me, Mom. I was born this way,” I said.

And I believed it.

The limits of tolerance

It is true that my mother never sat down one day and said, “How can I derange my son and turn him into a homosexual?”

But what my mother feared did happen. The abuse, the depravation, the disordered emotions in my childhood home did make me a homosexual. How I choose to behave is my responsibility, but I did not “choose” to be sexually disordered this way. I was just a child.

If you’re reading this and you’re a homosexual or the parent of one or a loved one, and you don’t believe this applies to you, then go in peace. But please let those of us for whom this is important — let us have this conversation. Too many emotionally triggered people do everything they can to shut it down.

They accuse homosexuals like me of being “abusive” and of “hurting” them. No such thing is occurring. All the sympathy "allies" claim to have for homosexuals when we are “born this way gays” evaporates the moment we change our minds. They insult us and call us insane, with more vitriol than actual anti-gay bullies who beat us up in high school.

Silence equals death

We are going to have this conversation. We’re not going to be silenced or manipulated into being good, quiet little gay boys to fit someone else’s fantasy of having a “fabulous” best friend or son.

I lived the “fabulous” life, and it nearly killed me through alcoholism and self-destructive promiscuity. The way I lived brought despair. And I am typical. I am not “just an unusual gay.” My life story looks like the life stories of the majority of gay men. Yeah, I know. They tell you that isn’t true.

They’re lying because they’re terrified that something they’ve relied on too heavily to define themselves as human men may have been a lie all along. I know, because I lied this way too.

Yes, I’m still attracted to men and not attracted to women. I don’t believe I have the ability to change those subjective feelings, but I may find otherwise in time. For seven years I’ve been single and celibate, and I plan to remain so.

Others must choose their own path in their own time. Nothing I’ve written here can honestly be construed as an attack, or an assault, on other homosexuals or those who love them. The truth is not an act of hate or abuse.

What’s real and true matters, and it’s well past time to tell the truth about the lie we call “born this way.”

Milo Yiannopolous dares to tell the truth about homosexuality



Don’t dismiss Milo Yiannopoulos.

He may be provocative, but he’s right. In his recent two-and-a-half-hour conversation with Tucker Carlson, Yiannopoulos dares to speak the truth about homosexuality.

Instead of a mechanical 'cause' such as genetics, it is more accurate to think of a set of factors that contribute to the development of persistent same-sex attraction.

It is a truth many are afraid to acknowledge, despite its firm grounding in scientific research. In fact, I found myself wondering, “Have they been eavesdropping at the Ruth Institute?”

'Born' fallacy

At the top of the list: Yiannopoulos explains that the “born gay” idea was invented as a marketing strategy. He accurately summarizes the strategy laid out in “After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear & Hatred of Gays in the 90’s.” Treat “sexual orientation” as if it were genetic, comparable to race.

Yiannopoulos rejects the “sexual orientation paradigm” or “essentialist paradigm.” He does not believe “sexual orientation” is an inborn trait that is an “essential” feature of a person’s personality.

And he is right.

Gay is not the “new black.” There is no gay gene. The twin studies are inconsistent with the idea of a genetic “cause” of “gay.” I outlined the evidence against the “born gay” idea in my report Refuting the Top 5 Gay Myths.

A trauma response

Although “gay” is a complex of thoughts, feelings, political commitments, and much more, when people say “gay,” they most likely mean “sexual arousal template.” We have been sold the idea that a “gay” man or a “lesbian” woman has an arousal template “oriented” exclusively toward people of the same sex.

The gay activists are really saying two things combined. First, people are born with a sexual arousal template preloaded into their brains. Second, this template cannot be changed.

Yiannopoulos takes direct aim at this package deal, when he says “[homosexuality] is a trauma response.” Trauma can shape the development of a person’s arousal pathways. He cited his own case. He had a mobster father, whom he did not want to emulate. As a teenager, he was sexually abused by a priest who was kind to him.

People are born with the potential to develop a sexual arousal template that is oriented toward the opposite sex. But sometimes, something happens to derail that normal developmental process.

People who self-describe as gay, lesbian, or bisexual typically have more difficult childhoods than others. They report more adverse childhood events, including a higher likelihood of childhood sexual abuse. Many in the psychology profession deny that there is a causal connection. But people who have lived the experience will tell you otherwise.

Including Yiannopoulos.

Must stay gay?

Instead of a mechanical “cause” such as genetics, it is more accurate to think of a set of factors that contribute to the development of persistent same-sex attraction.

Yiannopoulos listed some of those contributing causes: an absent or unattractive father figure, an overbearing mother, sexual abuse. No one factor always “causes” same-sex attraction in every person. At the Ruth Institute, we have interviewed numerous people who have Left Pride Behind who report some version of this story.

Yiannopoulos and Carlson talked about the bans on so-called “conversion therapy.” They were shocked that anyone would try to regulate conversations between a client and a therapist. "Why are you keeping people gay against their will?"

You can complain all day long about Yiannopoulos. But he is right. That is exactly what these laws are doing. We at the Ruth Institute ran a campaign in June called “Must Stay Gay Is NOT Okay!” Believe me: We did not run out of things to talk about!

They discussed the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case that will decide whether these bans violated the U.S. Constitution. The Ruth Institute submitted an amicus brief to the court in this case, called Chiles v. Salazar.

RELATED: A Christian looks back on Pride: 'I was in hell'

Photo by: Godong/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Finding real hope

Most importantly, Yiannopoulos gives hope to people who want more for themselves than a life shaped by an LGBT identity. Therapy can help, especially if you focus on healing the part of you that was wounded. The sexual feelings change in the process.

Finally, Yiannopoulos made no secret of his personal religious conversion. He has been touched by love, the ultimate love of Jesus Christ. Interviewees have told me some version of this story again and again. In fact, I experienced it myself. Same-sex attraction wasn’t my particular problem. But participation in the hookup culture, abortion, and contraception certainly were my problems. I needed the grace of the confessional, the Eucharist, and, no doubt, the prayers of many people who loved me more than I knew.

Come to think of it, maybe Yiannopoulos and Carlson weren’t really listening in on our conversations at the Ruth Institute after all. Maybe it's just that when people go searching for the truth, they end up in roughly the same place.

No one is born gay. No one has to stay gay. No matter what you have been through, gay is not the final word about your identity. Jesus has healed many people. He can heal you.

Milo Yiannopoulos is right.