The Soul-Crushing Scorched-Earth Battle for Gay Marriage

American Thinker ^ | Aug 11 2012 | Robert Oscar Lopez

[scottjewell]

How much is victory worth? And after you win, if you win, what do you have to show for it?

As these principles go with warfare, so they go with propaganda. The Greek word polemos, "war," led not to the English word "war," but rather to the English word "polemics."

The gay movement is not a random assortment of motley rebels. It is highly organized, with major nerve centers in places like the Human Rights Coalition. The movement has its prominent generals, such as Dan Savage and Wayne Besen.

In other words, this is a movement equipped to pick its battles. In 1999, history was made because Vermont's high court legalized same-sex civil unions. The battle plan then could have been to focus on civil unions, forging a new model of romantic commitment in a nation where the old notion of "marriage" had long suffered from stasis.

The war could have been won and over by now. In polls that break down three choices for respondents -- (1) no recognition of same-sex couples, (2) civil unions, or (3) marriage -- civil unions tend to get the highest support.

By using civil unions as the framework, gays and lesbians could have redefined the concept of gay family to encompass new forms of cooperative foster care, for instance, rather than trying to erase the role of biological fatherhood and motherhood.

[scottjewell]

Very good point; thanks for that.

[Bigg Red]

I agree that the piece is well written (Okay, I admit that I read only this excerpt), but I think he misses a major point here:

The battle plan then could have been to focus on civil unions, forging a new model of romantic commitment in a nation where the old notion of “marriage” had long suffered from stasis.

^^^
It seems to me that he is missing the fact that the left wants to blur the lines in all of the moral and cultural underpinnings of Western Civilization. So it is not a case of nurturing their own perverted version of a central institution; they feel compelled to completely obliterate the normal person’s concept of marriage. And, sadly, they are winning.

[scbison]

It is actually a facist movement as today’s homosexual lobby has ties the Nazi Germanany (Ie Harry hay).

[scottjewell]

Yeah, I would have to agree with you there. He is seeing civil unions as more innocuous and underestimating the pernicious nature of gay advocacy. It is sad that they are winning, but the saeculum of history shows they will not continue doing so. It would be a break with all known facts of American and European history if a huge backlash were not in the offing. Looking forward to it. ;-)

[scottjewell]

Yes - no doubt about it, they use fascist tactics.

[G Larry]

“Scorched-Earth Battle for Gay Marriage”

We know how the last one turned out......in Sodom and Gomorrah....

[scottjewell]

Yeah, scorched earth for sure...

[blueunicorn6]

Married males and females have children. Always remember that the liberals want the earth’s population down to 30 million people. Homosexuals don’t produce children. The liberals could care less about homosexuals. They just want fewer people.

[Skepolitic]

I think they are being used and encouraged by the Marxists who want to destroy the whole concept of family

Actually, Marxism is just one element of a larger set of ideologies that require the destruction of the family. It goes back to Plato's Republic: collectivists of all stripes have this objective.

Homosexuals suffer from the reality that their identity is defined by a particular variety of sinful behavior. Most gays will never be satisfied with toleration. Rather they demand acceptance and even celebration of sin.

[ansel12]

We also have to remember that the image of mother and father at home around the dinner table every night is a pretty new one. Men went to sea for years, they were conscripted and were gone for years, there was a much higher death rate among young women, particularly in childbirth, and in any case children left home, either for school or for work or sometimes for marriage, by the time they were 14.

I don't buy that, sea service and Army service has never been the norm for the masses, and most households required male and female in each one to do everything that needed doing during the waking hours. A dead mother was replaced as quickly as possible and this idea that kids left home at 14 is not correct.

Kids were needed at home just like the man and woman were, and the marriage at 14 was far from normal. The average marriage age for women and men has always been in the 20s, at least for centuries, it wasn't useful to raise children to merely have leave at 14.

[dagogo redux]

Bingo, and thanks to you both for great posts.

This is simply one front on the Marxist “Long March Through the Institutions,” and one of the fronts most important to them. Seeking to undermine the staunch philosophical pillars behind the Constitution, Christian Morality and Capitalism, they have infiltrated academia, the media, board rooms and the government over the past hundred years.

The blood ties that bind human Family provide even more primal and fundamental structure to a society, however, than do religious and economic philosophies, and the Marxists have sought to undermine that as well. Since the 1960s they have attacked Family ferociously, with devastating effect. From within the infiltrated institutions, the Marxists instituted the Gay and Feminist Agendas, offering various enticements to the “useful idiots” of those victim groups, persuading them to enlist for their most brazen assaults.

I believe, however, that they have - to use some further military metaphors to describe their militant actions - not so much “met their Waterloo,” or advanced “a bridge too far,” but instead have followed in the ill-fated footsteps of Napoleon and Hitler by pushing into Russia. Like the vast terrain and the brutal winters of Russia, there are forces at work here far more primal than those they calculated for. They will not, perhaps, suffer outright defeat in battle, but will be crushed by their hubris instead.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Gay marriage is, to me, a lot like home-run records fueled by steroids. Regardless of whether you call it marriage or not, there will always be an asterisk in the books as far as I’m concerned.

[Phlyer]

this alone is not enough to create a dysfunctional child. Nor does having two parents at home automatically guarantee

It gets very tiresome to have someone take a statement and distort it in an unjustified and unfair fashion - then assume they make some point by doing so.

I never said that *every* child in a broken family turns out bad, nor that two parents "automatically guarantee" anything. To take a statistically valid statement and declare it is wrong because the extension of it to absolute status doesn't hold is not only illogical, it's flat out stupid.

Though we actually agree on the underlying point - that homosexual marriage is bad - I would not want you 'arguing' on my side because the overwhelming fallacies in your argument undermine points that would be valid on their own merit. Do yourself a favor and get a logic textbook - and read it.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The proponents of the homosexual agenda have a very weak Achilles’ heel, however. One that they are highly sensitive to and panic at its mere mention.

Homosexual pedophilia. For decades the homosexuals have been desperate to distinguish themselves as completely different from homosexual pedophiles.

Importantly, normal adults can look at children of the opposite sex, and women can say that boys are “handsome” and men can say that girls are “pretty”, and in most times and places, people will think nothing of it. It is just a statement of fact and implies no possible action.

However, when an adult homosexual looks at a child of the same gender, and compliments them on their appearance, most everyone will consider it a predatory statement.

Interestingly, there are very strict boundaries for heterosexual adults and their interaction with children of the opposite gender, especially if those children are older. But the assumption, the concern, is more likely to be of “normal” sexual attraction, or (voluntary) “statutory rape” even though it is still pedophilia.

That is, for heterosexuals, there is greater concern about interaction with adults, the older the children are.

But with homosexuals, the greater concern is for *younger* children of the same gender, and less concern for their sexuality with older teenagers (such as for Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar”, homosexual Kevin Jennings, who offered encouragement to a homosexual adult man and an underage teenage boy he was having sex with.

Yet in any event, this difference is the silver bullet to the heart of the werewolf that is the homosexual agenda.

Used judiciously, there mere mention of homosexual pedophilia will turn the public strongly against the homosexual agenda, be it homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption, whatever.

And as of yet, the homosexuals have not devised an effective defense to its mention other than to say that heterosexuals can be pedophiles too. Which is a very weak argument, indeed.

[scottjewell]

Yes, all true.

However: I fear that they have indeed found an effective defense: You and I may not find it so, but the public has swallowed it wholesale.

The Jerry Sandusky scandal was viewed as a pedophile scandal, and not a “gay scandal”. David Badash who is a very prominent pro-gay rights activist had zero problems condemning Sandusky. He knew too well that the gay rights campaign has driven a HUGE divide in the public mind between “gays” ( just decent folks who want to marry and adopt children, like Mitch and Cameron on the wildly popular ‘Modern Family’ series) and pedophiles (those evil and bizarre people that run after children). It did not matter to the public whether Sandusky had attacked girls or boys. Just that they were children. He is considered a pedophile and not a gay pedophile, though every victim was male.

[Little Ray]

IF the gay lobby accepts the “civil union” option, the issue goes away. The homosexual leadership and lobby lose the major issue that feeds them and pays their rent, and Democrats lose an issue with which to bash the ‘Pubbies.
That is why the issue is NOT going away.

[scottjewell]

You’re probably right, and since it’s not going away, perhaps it will blow up in their faces.

[Bigg Red]

It would be a break with all known facts of American and European history if a huge backlash were not in the offing.

***
From your keyboard to God’s Ears....

[BurningOak]

Far as I can tell, we are winning the political battles and they are winning the culture war. The real battlefield is in the heart and mind of the American teenager.

[Little Ray]

Dunno. The media has had a lot of luck desensitizing people to homosexuals. The media depiction of homosexuals is (mostly) nothing like what I’ve seen in social circumstances...