Skip to comments.The Soul-Crushing Scorched-Earth Battle for Gay Marriage
Posted on 08/11/2012 4:16:39 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It was the pure greed of gay advocacy (and their liberal advisers) that wouldn't stop at civil unions, and I hope they have a wave of electoral defeat this fall. They are hubris personified.
It is excellent. Throughout history, children have been brought up by people who weren’t their biological parents, or by single women, sisters or friends who had somehow ended up having these children in their care, or even occasionally by single men who had somehow inherited them from a sibling or even a friend, and sometimes even in institutions of better or worse quality. While it would no doubt have been better for them to have been brought up by a stable loving couple (a man and a woman), most of them turned out just fine.
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.
But making the whole thing ideological, which is what the professional gays have done, and trying, as the author says, to erase biological parenthood, is harmful beyond belief. And as he points out, completely unnecessary.
I don’t know why gays are doing this, but as he says, it is a scorched earth policy and they don’t care who they destroy, including other gays (because he’s right, being “married” will not make them happier or solve their problems).
I think they are being used and encouraged by the Marxists who want to destroy the whole concept of family or even biological reality and have the state take over the rearing of children and, someday, even their “production.”
Thanks for your excellent comments.
I would agree that in addition to the over-reaching tendency of gay advocacy itself, there is a quasi-Marxist strain backing the same sex marriage movement, who are seeking nothing less than the disastrous transformation of society.
The left is big on changing names in the hope that the connotations of a respected word will somehow transfer to their pet causes. My guess is that they will eventually win on “marriage” too, and that word will lose any positive connotations it used to have. If we’re smart, we’ll fight as much as possible, but if we lose we’ll respond by abandoning the tainted word “marriage” and using a Greek or Latin version of the word to refer to real marriages. It’s not the syllables that are sacred, it’s the meaning that God gave us for the relationship that we used to describe with that word.
Yes, and in a sense this means that the gays cannot really win, in the end, on marriage. As you note even if “marriage” would come to include same sex couples in the mind of the public, this would not magically elevate it ontologically. Nor would it negate the actual religious meaning.
I still hope there is a strong push back against gay marriage, though, because the advocates are self-deluded enough to believe in their hollow victory and to flaunt it.
According to a study done a few years ago those children who turned out just fine knew the difference between uncontrollable circumstance situations versus deliberate (selfish, to say nothing of deviant)circumstances.
Read t’s dilution Stupid by Dr. Kelly Hollowell,J.D., Ph.D. published in WND (2/23/2011(original @2004) ; Marriage and the Constitution by Ken Blackwell AUg.8,2010; American College of Pediatricians (ACPEDS) on the Dec.21,2005 open letter to Congress on Defense of Marriage Amendment;and The Family under Siege; chapter on Unnatural Affections ,George Grant PHD editor and especially the excerpt from the 1987 Sept issue of the Advocate Article p.29 by Steve Warren of ACTUP Warning to the Homophobes (demanding same sex marriage the same year the supreme Court redefined Marriage calling it a relationship that”can receive benefits including property and Government benefits.”;1788 Edward Gibbon the
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire included one causual
aspect was the rapid increase of divorce,undermining the dignity and sanctity of the home ,the basis of human society; higher and higher taxes; Mad craze for pleasure; building of gigantic armaments -when the real enemy was the decadence of the people; and #5 the decay of religion.See also Toynbee and his 1960’s warning of American decline —and Jim Black— When Nations Die :Ten warning signs of a nation in decline— Then as we so often said in the public school drill Bend over, place your head between your legs —and Kiss your A— goodby.”Fasten your seatbelts it’s about to get a little dicey.
That’s my point. Just because children are not brought up in a long-term two-parent (male and female) household doesn’t condemn them to a miserable life...unless the reason they are brought up that way is ideological (that is, rejection of the concept of that type of family).
And with the gays, this has nothing to do with children or parenting: it’s all ideological, to force not only acceptance but adherence to their strange cult of their private parts.
I’m not talking about amoral single parents in a welfare culture. I was referring to the fact that throughout history, children have been brought up by people who weren’t their parents or in non-family circumstances, and this alone is not enough to create a dysfunctional child. Nor does having two parents at home automatically guarantee that a child will turn out well. They might be two completely dysfunctional parents, child abusers, neglectful, etc.: in other words, it is the behavior of the person taking care of the child that counts.
The author’s whole point is that it is the ideology that does this, and the whole goal of the “professional gays” is to force this ideology on everybody. They already had legal rights to visit each other in the hospital, name anybody they wanted in their wills and even their living wills, etc. But what they want to do is force not only a new definition of marriage, but a new definition of being. So it’s all ideology, although I think the driving force behind it goes beyond the gays themselves (well, leaving aside Satan).
If you think gay marriage is bad, wait until you see what’s coming: I read that there is an EU bill that would prevent any identification of a child’s biological sex on his or her birth certificate - until an age when the child can “choose” what sex he or she wants.
Marriage involves a man and a woman, and two men or two women cannot be “married,” but I’m nonetheless sure the impossible will soon be not only legal but required (that is, churches will have to perform these travesties).
Just in the same way, you’d think that a biological fact cannot be “chosen.” But since we have cut loose from natural law, the foundation of the US Constitution, and are subject now only to positive law (that is, man- or state-made law), the state wants to prove that it can do whatever it wants: including redefining biology and created nature.
Every marriage is a civil union in the eyes of the state.
Therefore, the mistake was ever yielding to gays on civil unions at all.
I have no problem with individually negotiated partnerships defining the rights to each other (hospital visitations, division of personal property) among any number of people.
But I oppose any kind of union that confers public benefits or rights respecting children on gay relationships because that’s not the purpose for which those benefits were designed and financed.
When communism "died" it didn't go away, it simply went underground and took over all of the various "rights" groups so it could continue the age-old Marxist "class struggle" in another guise, for it is "victimhood" which is the life-blood of Marxist ideology. This article is simply an illustration of this with regards to the so-called "gay rights" movement.
With regard to the agenda, no appeasement is possible. Concession in one area will only fuel further demands in another. Because there is no coherent positive message here, only a visceral desire to tear down the current order. Because the goal is always the same: Anarchy which leads inevitably back to oligarchic rule to "restore order".
On this point history is quite clear. The only choice is Rule of Law or Rule of the Strong, with the latter being the dominant form of government for most of human history. Marxists are very good students of history while the "useful idiots" they enlist to their "cause" (knowingly or more often unknowingly) are not. In this Marxist ideology itself is just a "flag of convenience" for the goal is always the same: Rule of the Strong. The "genius" of Marxism is how easily it recruits the naive to assist in their own enslavement. And nowhere is that more true than in the modern "gay rights" movement.
>>livius: I dont know why gays are doing this
>>scottjewel: I think they are being used and encouraged by the Marxists who want to destroy the whole concept of family or even biological reality and have the state take over the rearing of children and, someday, even their production.
The Marxists and their concepts are just a tool in the fight.
Look to the root cause. Satan is every bit as real as God, and as the old song goes, “on earth is not his equal”. This fight for the very identity of mankind has Satan’s fingerprints all over it.
Well, well said.
I can just see the future (from my front door):
My son and his lady are talking about their future plans. She suggests "Marriage". He responds "Get married? Like GAY people? Uhg, no way!..."
That is an excellent point re civil unions.
Yes, in the end all moral battles do divide into good versus evil. Ontologically, these concepts are always at the root of all movements.
Amen to that!!!
I’ve said this before, but homosexuals will one day regret this “marriage” fight. Once the insurance companies have the ability to easily identify a person as homosexual (as they will when two “spouses” are of the same gender in a family), then they will be able to easily track and record the actual cost of insuring homosexuals. And the actual cost of insurance for homosexuals will skyrocket.
Even if the government intervenes and forces them to provide insurance at artificially low rates, then the facts of how dangerous homosexuality is will finally be documented.
Maybe we can call it a "civil union", with all the legal benefits of marriage but none of the negative connotations that will be associated with "marriage" as redefined by the far left fringe.
Very good point; thanks for that.
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.
It is actually a facist movement as today’s homosexual lobby has ties the Nazi Germanany (Ie Harry hay).
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. ;-)
Yes - no doubt about it, they use fascist tactics.
“Scorched-Earth Battle for Gay Marriage”
We know how the last one turned out......in Sodom and Gomorrah....
Yeah, scorched earth for sure...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You’re probably right, and since it’s not going away, perhaps it will blow up in their faces.
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....
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.
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...
Really. Good writing, and a devastating insight from a "gay family" insider.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.