A homosexual ‘war conference’
With homosexuality front and center in the news these last few days, in particular President Obama now saying he supports same-sex marriages, I prepared to post about it today by reviewing past commentaries I’ve written. And I see that I’ve had a lot to say about homosexuality in the last 10 years.
I’d like to resubmit some of what I’ve written here, because this issue is becoming increasingly important to address, and if you don’t think it’s a big deal, you need to know that’s all part of the plan.
Here’s what I wrote back in August of 2003.
“In February 1988, a ‘war conference’ of 175 leading gay activists, representing organizations from across the land, convened in Warrenton, Virginia, (near Washington, D.C.) to establish a four-point agenda for the gay movement.” This is a quote from a book written by Harvard-trained social scientists and homosexual activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen titled After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s. In it they proposed “[d]ismissing the movement’s outworn techniques in favor of carefully calculated public relations propaganda” that is designed to control public discourse so that homosexuality would no longer be seen as deviant or abnormal.
They suggested using a three-stage strategy of desensitization, “jamming”, and conversion. The desensitization is achieved by a “continuous flood of gay-related advertising, presented in the least offensive fashion possible. If straights can’t shut off the shower, they may at least eventually get used to being wet.” The saturation is seen, and felt, in the entertainment media, the press, the schools, the medical community, the liberal churches, and corporate America.
Jamming is a cruel manipulation to make the dissenter feel rejected or despised by depicting him or her as a “homohating bigot.” And, as Kirk and Madsen put it, “…our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof…whether he is conscious of the attack or not. Indeed, the more he is distracted by any incidental, even specious, surface arguments, the less conscious he’ll be of the true nature of the process-which is all to the good.”
Conversion is “conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media.” All the above quotes are directly out of Kirk and Madsen’s book.
It’s clear to me that homosexual activists have been effectively using this covert and subversive strategy for at least the last 15 years. Even former president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women and self-described lesbian feminist Tammy Bruce has spoken out against their deceptive campaign in her book The New Thought Police. In comparing it to conventional consumer marketing she says, “What is pitched is different-a product brand versus an issue-but the method is the same. In each case, the critical thing is not to let the public know how it is done.”
As I demonstrated in my post about homosexual activist Dan Savage, though the pro-gay lobby and their constituents are almost exclusively portrayed in the media as the good guys and those who oppose same-sex marriage as the opposite, that’s a gross misrepresentation. There are haters on both sides.
Gay activists can’t claim the high road while bullying and manipulating and keep from falling off a cliff. And if this is ‘war,’ we’ll never have peace until both sides lay down their arms.
So here we have the classic question of ethics. What do we focus on; the ends or the means? If bad deeds are committed for a good, a good that can be enjoyed by a significant segment of the population, is that morally acceptable or morally justified? Furthermore, if the good does not harm the rest of the population, is it more morally acceptable or justified?
Thanks for reading and commenting. Morality is key, as you indicate, but more and more we want to pick and choose which morals we will live by. Someday we may be down to . . . none. Without faith in God, morality is just pragmatism which can be tweaked and discarded with the changing times, and homosexuality is easily accepted. But God is real and He has something to say about it. But He had a lot more to say about those who do not love their neighbor, and this is where I need to park before each day’s battle in the culture wars.
So how do you feel about the Old Testament? I’ve had several Christian friends tell me that the Old Testament’s laws were made obsolete by Jesus’ death. But if that’s the case, then homosexuality is not that big of a deal. It’s to be forgiven and forgotten; Jesus’ core message was to love one another and God. It seems that you may actually be the person that is picking and choosing in this situation. Just an observation.
Great blog. Interesting.
Hey…I know who this is 🙂 But what I don’t know is which of the wretched 6 you are. I’ll have to follow your blog at least until I figure it out.
Thanks for reading mine!
Tafacory, I’m no Old Testament scholar, but here’s the way I understand it: Much of the OT is obsolete because it foreshadowed Jesus’ death until He came, like the animal sacrifices. Or they were rules and regulations to set them apart as God’s people, to distinguish them from the nations around them and demonstrate God’s holiness. These do not apply to us because the Jews were (and are) a special race, people, nation chosen by God and with that came specific restrictions and commands for who and where they were at the time.
But, of course, if you consider the whole OT obsolete, then loving God is no longer required nor loving your neighbor. We can all have fun lying, stealing, and murdering and adultery is no big deal neither.
So how do I know that homosexuality is still forbidden? you might ask. Good question. At the very least because it is portrayed as sinful before the Law and afterwards in the New Testament. In Genesis 13 the men of Sodom (of course, where we get our word sodomy) are called wicked and “great sinners against the LORD.” In the New Testament it is spoken very strongly against in Romans 1 as well as I Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.
And yes, we are to love one another. But the “first and greatest commandment” is to love God, and if we are calling something good that He calls evil, we are not loving Him.
I think there’s a mistake in your thinking. It’s the slippery slope fallacy. Homosexuality does not necessarily cause gambling, lying, theft, etc. It could. That’s a possibility. But how often do you think that happens? What evidence is there that a person who is homosexual that embraces that identity, that lifestyle, that worldview is inevitably going to end up committing numerous crimes? Going off of hearsay is extremely foolish. Not pragmatic at all.
Regarding the Old Testament, one could also argue that these men were wicked because they wanted to rape the men, not just because they wanted sex with them. If you read into the context the men just say that they want to have sex. But it is implicitly clear that these men are there to rape others. Granted, this is just one explanation and not a very strong one at that, but it must be considered.
Lastly, you seem to fail to make a distinction between homosexuality as a sin and homosexuality as an identity. It’s one thing to participate in sinful acts, which arguably includes homosexuality. But the homosexual is not evil just because he has predispositions to homosexual desires and inclinations. If that were the case, we’d all have to hate one another. There could be no loving of our neighbors. We’d all be fighting each other to love God more since, in His eyes, we’re all hopelessly depraved anyways.
I think you misunderstood me. What I was saying was, if all the Old Testament was obsolete, then the 10 Commandments would be also…i.e. do not lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, etc.
And I agree that a predisposition to homosexuality is not sinful.It’s the homosexual acts that are. As are plenty of other acts like viewing pornography, immodesty, lewd behavior. And greed and rudeness and self-righteousness.
But even if the Bible or God did not command those rules, it does not mean that humans would not embrace them. That would be to assume that there can be no morality outside of God’s commandments. But there are many secular people who live more moral lives than religious adherents.
It is true that atheists can lead moral lives. That is because they too are made in God’s image and He has given each of us a conscience. As it says in Romans 2:14-15, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness…”
But without God there cannot be objective morality, so an atheist has no basis from which to argue that one behavior is better or worse than another.
I think your last comment is a very sly one, but one that too many people buy into. If we are discussing morality from a philosophical realm, there can be arguments to show that even if objective morality exists, it exists apart from God, i.e., it exists independently of God and whether or not one worships or even believes in God. But to show you that your reasoning is incorrect, let’s perform a thought experiment. Take the statement, “There is morality because God exists.” Now we’ll take the opposite of that statement “There is no morality because God does not exist.” But note here that when we reflect upon these statements, they do not have the same feel or perception as other truth claims. There is no logical contradiction to them. Now, take another example “Married men cannot be bachelors.” But if we negate this “Married men can be bachelors.” Here we run into an inherent contradiction. Standard definitions applying, this is an example of a contradiction meaning that it is impossible for it to be true. It is necessarily false and the original is necessarily true. But our previous claims about God and morality do not have the same structure or feel. I would argue that this demonstrates that God and morality coexisting is not a necessary truth. But if it is not a necessary truth, then perhaps it can be shown to be false. And that’s when the works of philosophers like Nietzsche, Nielsen, and others come into play. A world without God is not guaranteed to be a world of oppression, death, violence, slavery, famine, and chaos. While it is possible and even plausible, the lack of God’s existence does not translate into human misery. Humans can create morality to be objective or they can be programmed via biological means to accept objective morality. God is not a required part of the equation. Cheers.
Though I’m not sure I follow your “thought experiment,” I don’t believe it is valid. In your first statement pair about God, you negated both statement clauses. In the second you only negated the relationship between being married and being a bachelor. A correct correlation would have been to say “Unmarried men can be bachelors,” which, of course, is true.
But in order for morality to be objective, there must be an objective standard. And no human being who must follow an objective moral code can be the one who establishes it.
You make a good point. My example does need to be revised but the point stands all the same. “Morality exists because God exists” and “Moral does not exist because God does not exist” is similar to “Married bachelors exist” and “Married bachelors do not exist.” But we see with the latter that the first statement is a contradiction, a necessary falsehood. But that does not happen with the statements referring to God. Thus it is not a necessary truth that God and morality are inseparable.
As for moral objectivity, why can natural selection and the other mechanisms of evolution be responsible for the development of human morality? That would be something independent of human existence that nonetheless could be responsible for the presence of human morality.
The point I’m trying to make T, is that without an objective moral standard outside of humanity, you would have no moral basis for insisting that it is wrong for me to take anything of yours for myself. I could even argue survival of the fittest…if you had something that would be beneficial for my health and survival and I had the ability to take it from you, I should.