Homosexual Agenda
homosexual ideology, along with the strategies used to implement such. The goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in public school, restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining special treatment for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. Advocates of the homosexual agenda seek special rights for homosexuals that other people don't have, such as immunity from criticism (see hate speech, hate crimes). Such special rights will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of broader society. The homosexual agenda is the biggest threat to the right of free speech today.
President Barack Hussein Obama and nearly all Democrat politicians now advocate the homosexual agenda, reflecting the growing financial power of the homosexual network. Obama's self-centered obsession with his own reelection, and fundraising for his campaign, has caused him to create a national political issue out of this, rather than deal with other issues like the economy.
Among all the liberal belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish - unlike the vast charity performed by churches, homosexual charity can be considered an oxymoron.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia referred to the "so-called homosexual agenda" in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion).
Contents[hide] |
The Homosexual Agenda
Joseph P. Gudel, in That Which is Unnatural[1] contended that the homosexual movement,- has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority." Gudel quotes various sources evidencing this.
- We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right — as heterosexual Americans already have — to see government and society affirm our lives. [2]
- What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise — is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality." In response, Time opined, "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.[3]
In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News and World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.
The first-grade book, "Children of the Rainbow", stated on page 145, which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household." Another children book is Heather Has Two Mommies, which is about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."
Leo commented,
- A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life).[5]
This and the general agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called After the Ball, by gay rights activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:
- "The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." [9] "Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned..."[10]
- "Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible." (They use late night air waves and special channels, as well as their right to peacefully assemble to do so.)
- "Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
- "Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
- "Make gays look good."
- "Make the victimizers look bad."
- "Get funds from corporate America."
| “ | Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.[12] | ” |
Specific goals
The goals of the homosexual movement include:- Ignoring Christian morals and discouraging religiously based laws.
- Reminding the world that marriage is a legal term and standing in the US, not a spiritual one as believed by Christians.
- Ignore the clear message of the Bible that homosexuality is a sin and an abomination unto God because their first amendment rights allow them to.
- Remind conservatives that there cannot be a gay gene, just like like there cannot be a "black gene" because complex things like these are caused by complex interactions between genes.
- Censoring evidence that the "gay gene" is a hoax. After all, it would have to be multiple genes interacting together.[13]
- Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to be "hate-speech"[14][15][16]
- Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality[17]
- Lobbying for equal employment rights.[18][19]
- Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation, which would be equally wrong for heterosexuals to do.[20]
- Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality[21]
- Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference[22]
- Teach tolerance of homosexuals in schools.
- In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as preschool. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, "If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual," or "If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian." Children at that age also do not have the hormones to experience sexual attraction, so they cannot understand this yet.
- Demands protections from job discrimination. [23]
- Suing an online dating website for discrimination. This was because sexual orientation is a federally protected group, as such, this company was breaking the law. [24]
- Undermining the resolve of latent homosexuals so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality[25]
- Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples[26]
- Indoctrination of public school children to support the homosexual agenda
Although notable gains toward achieving its goals continue to manifest, homosexual activists have recently been expressing a high level of dissatisfaction with the Obama administration. Commenting on such, Massresistance.org, an organization which opposes the homosexual agenda in Massachusetts, noted that the President has,
- signed an order extending federal benefits to same-sex partners.
- pushed an extreme hate crimes bill in Congress.
- declared his intention to repeal the Defense of Marriage.
- pushed a pro-homosexual and transgender version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.
- appointed homosexual activists to high level positions, including Harry Knox, of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign, and Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which educates kids in the public schools.
- declared February to be "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month."
- Demanded the State Department allow gay couples to use their married names (from marriages or civil unions) on US passports.[29]
Strategies and psychological tactics
Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in specious argumentation, such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations (see homosexuality and biblical interpretation), and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.[30] This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be "judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character"[31], as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This includes the use of demonstrative protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] In addition, one pro-homosexual commentator recently took the homosexual community to task for being racist in their practice of homosexuality.[43] Another strategy used by supporters of the homosexual agenda is to publicly deny that such an agenda exists.[44]While not all homosexuals agree with the use of deceptive psychological tactics, these have been promoted by leading homosexual activists. The aforementioned book, After the Ball, is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which two Harvard-trained (homosexual) psychologists [45] Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen (pen name Erastes Pill, who was also schooled in social marketing) advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims instead, while making all those who opposed them to be evil persecutors. As a means of the latter, they promoted jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the gay agenda are publicly smeared. Their strategy was based on the premise that, "In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector. The purpose of victim imagery is to make straight people feel very uncomfortable."
"Jamming" homo-hatred (disagreement with homosexual behaviors) was to be done by linking it to Nazi horror, advised Kirk and Madsen. Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered, hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, and a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed. Thus, "propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths..."[46][47]
Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes,
There can be no doubt that Christianity represents the greatest obstacle to the normalization of homosexual behavior. It cannot be otherwise, because of the clear biblical teachings concerning the inherent sinfulness of homosexuality in all forms, and the normativity of heterosexual marriage. In order to counter this obstacle, Kirk and Madsen advised gays to "use talk to muddy the moral waters, that is, to undercut the rationalizations that 'justify' religious bigotry and to jam some of its psychic rewards." How can this be done? "This entails publicizing support by moderate churches and raising serious theological objections to conservative biblical teachings." [The latter of which attempts homosexuality and biblical interpretation examine and expose.][48]Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof. "...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not"[49] “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”[50][51]
Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records: "It makes no difference that the ads are lies... because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones."[52]
The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle.
“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”[53]
David Kupelian, author of The Marketing of Evil, describes Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, stating,
Kirk and Madsen were not the kind of drooling activists that would burst into churches and throw condoms in the air. They were smart guys – very smart. Kirk, a Harvard-educated researcher in neuropsychiatry, work with the Johns Hopkins Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and designed aptitude tests for adults with 200+ IQs. Madsen, with a doctorate in politics from Harvard, was an expert on public persuasion tactics and social marketing.[54]Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 47.[55] The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.
Often cited as an early example of such tactics was the role of homosexual activists in persuading the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Dr. Ronald Bayer, though being himself a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, described this removal as being the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, rather than any new scientific discoveries.[56] In so doing, like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda is seen to threaten basic freedoms, principally the First Amendment.[57]
The charge of homophobia has also been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in promoting the homosexual agenda. Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a bigot persecuting victims, the widespread use of the term "homophobic" attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.[58]
In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, "Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda." As an example of such fear within the APA, in addressing 100 fellow professionals Cummings related that while writing "Destructive Trends in Mental Health," with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists were invited to participate. However, these flatly turned them down, as they feared loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. "We were bombarded by horror stories," Dr. Cummings said. "Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.[59]
Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article, The Gay Agenda stated: "Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law."
Erik Holland, author of The Nature of Homosexuality, perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that "anyone who questions their labeling someone [is] a homophobe himself. Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic." In addition, according to pro-homosexual author Vernon A. Wall, "even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance."[60]
It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it in which they imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one.
Influence in the academic world
Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled First Things (Aug/Sept. 1993) how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm.| “ | [Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as "homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.[61] | ” |
Opposing Christian Agenda
Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:- Threatening to shut Salvation Army soup kitchens in New York if they cannot exclude homosexuals from employment [62]
- Encouraging email activism
- Producing and disseminating gay reform information
- Influencing local media in what stories they produce
- Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation[63]
- Calling anyone who supports gay rights a 'sinner' or other untrue insults.
No comments:
Post a Comment