Skip to comments.From their own mouths, Pt 1: LGBT Lobby plans to 'wholly transform the definition of family'
Posted on 02/04/2013 11:29:37 AM PST by Morgana
Opinion Print Article | Email Friend | Reprint Permissions From their own mouths, Pt 1: LGBT Lobby plans to 'wholly transform the definition of family'
by Hilary White
Fri Feb 01, 2013 19:52 EST Comments (20) Tags: family, homosexual activism, same-sex 'marriage'
ROME, February 1, 2013, (LifeSiteNews.com) Transforming the very fabric of society; and radically reordering societys view of reality: these are what being queer means to the ideologues behind the homosexual political movement that is currently sweeping through legislatures around the world. Is this the insane ranting of a right-wing Christian conspiracy theorist? Is it yet another attack by wicked Pope Benedict XVI on innocent gays doing nothing more than seeking a better place in society?
No, theyre the assertions by a lesbian academic about the real purpose and goal of the LGBT political movement.
When Christians and other opponents of the homosexual agenda say this, we hear the screeching of the media pundits around the world. Its all about equality! Equality!! About overcoming centuries of mindless prejudice ! We hear it so often, we could practically write the script ourselves.
But the quotes above are from the late lesbian homosexual thinker and activist Paula Ettelbrick, who was not the only member of the homosexual movement to forthrightly lay out the plan. As far back as the late 1980s, well before gay marriage was a glimmer in the eye of the most radical leftist politician, she wrote, Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society.
We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering societys view of reality, she wrote.
In case there were still any question whether the entire gay marriage political debacle was about equality, Ettelbrick went on to say in a1989 article in OUT/LOOK entitled,Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation? that though she objected to the idea of same-sex marriage itself, the fight was still useful as a political ploy. Although she believed homosexuals are fundamentally different from straight people and should not want to buy into our patriarchal and inherently oppressive institutions, she counseled, People should marry for symbolic not economic benefits.
Other lesbian academics have been equally open about the real goals.
Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.
Nan Hunter, a professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, wrote in the National Journal of Sexual Orientation Law (yes, there is such a publication) that the purpose of legalizing gay marriage was to destabilize marriages gendered definition, thus disrupting the link between gender and marriage, thereby subverting its power differential.
Indeed, she chronicles efforts to force the issue by activists dating back to the early 1970s.
Michelangelo Signorile wrote in OUT magazine in 1994, A middle ground might be to fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry, not as a way of adhering to societys moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.
He added, It is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture.
In case these seem merely like the wild rantings of obscure academics speaking only to the bats in their ivory belfries, another more recent admission comes from PinkNews, the main online journal of the homosexual movement in Britain.
Chris Ashford, a Reader in Law and Society at the University of Sunderland, said on Friday that, although winning the gay marriage fight has been a major step forward for the movement, it aint over yet.
Britains leading gay political lobby, Stonewall, has said that with the passage of the bill (yes, its more or less a foregone conclusion, and has been since it was announced) the political fight will be over. Equality achieved.
What does equality look like? It looks like being normal, being the same as the dominant heterosexual majority, or at least, a fantasy image of that majority We will aspire to a monogamous, state-sanctioned relationship stop those group-sex shenanigans and embrace normality.
But, Ashford says, Legislative victory should not mean identity erasure.
There remain numerous sexual freedoms to campaign on yes sexual thats what gay rights is about, not merely a civil rights campaign and there are battles still to be won. Battles relating to pornography, the continued criminalization of consensual sexual acts, re-constructing our ideas of relationships in relation to sex, monogamy and the illusion that only couples might want to enter into a state-sanctioned partnership, are just a handful which spring to mind, he wrote.
The gay marriage bill, he concludes, is not the end of the journey, or the final piece in a jigsaw. It is just another step albeit a significant one on a never-ending journey.
While most of the mainstream media and the political class, whether out of fear of reprisal or genuine collusion, rigidly restrict the discussion to topics of rights and equality. And it has certainly worked. The equality tactic has been the strongest weapon in the movements political arsenal when pointed at the generalized fear in western societies of being seen to be discriminatory, a fear that has metastasized into a national mental pathology in Britain.
We are told that it is unfair to restrict marriage to heterosexual couples, as though we are all in perfect lockstep agreement that there is any other kind. We are accused, strangely, of racism and discrimination when we so much as ask difficult questions.
So terrorized have the Western peoples become of being called these schoolyard names, again particularly in Britain, that I have witnessed ordinary citizens censor their thoughts, halting in mid-sentence in a private discussion out of fear that they may say something unacceptable.
This terror essentially a grotesque swelling of the English phobia of making a social faux pas is the origin of the odd phenomenon of straights turning suspected homophobes over to the authorities for punishment:
Municipal governments sacking and disciplining employees who refuse to play along;
Teachers screaming threats at school children and turning them over to police for using a term like gay-boy;
Elderly B&B owners being sued and put out of business for refusing a bed to gay men;
Parents threatened with prosecution and jailed when they object to their children being taught about the joys of gay sex in school.
Perhaps we should redefine homophobia to mean the, largely justified, terror of offending homosexualist bullies.
When Pope Benedict XVI, one of a tiny handful of leaders on the global stage willing to talk about what were really talking about, said that the pressure for gay marriage in the West threatens the future of humanity, the worlds media went into a screaming frenzy.
But here are the homosexuals themselves saying exactly the same thing, and the media is standing by with the tissues. It makes the question about who is working for whom redundant.
And all the useful idiots thought "fundamental change" was a good idea.
I recall Barbara Bush in the summer of ‘92 endorsing pretty much the same thing.
OK, so it really is not just about tolerance.
It is about forced participation now.
I plan to opt out.
Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering societys view of reality, she wrote.
Obama is a vehicle for the homosexual agenda. Likely a bicycle.
If Obama had a son, he’d be gay.
Well at least homosexuals know what a family is and that means they know where to attack, the institution of marriage.
The homosexuals want to define a family as a bunch of kids they can use in an orgy.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
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.