Gays' great game plan leads to political correctness gone amok.

Gays' great game plan leads to political correctness gone amok By Joe Fitzgerald Recent Columns by Joe Fitzgerald Monday, February 9, 2004

As homosexual activists reveled in the victory that was theirs last week, the sanctioning of their aberrance by the state's highest court, even the most militant among them must have marveled over the ease of their triumph.

All they asked for was acceptance, which is different from approval, and who but a hatemonger could be against that?

So how did we get from that point to where we are now, where we've been ordered by judges, not answerable to us, to not only accept homosexual partnerships but also bestow upon them every right of marriage, an institution ordained and defined from the beginning of time as the union of a man and a woman?

How is it that, by the imperial power and political whim of four ideological renegades in robes, we are told we must forfeit standards handed down through the ages just to accommodate trendy mores?

``Much of America has lost its moorings,'' Sen. Robert Byrd, the West Virginia Democrat, noted back in 1996 when the U.S. Senate, by a vote of 85-14, reaffirmed marriage meant uniting one man and one woman. ``We've lost our way. What took thousands of years to build is being dismantled in a generation with a speed that is awesome.''

That same year, the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth sponsored a State House exhibit called ``The Shared Heart,'' which, according to its organizers, offered ``affirming images of lesbian, gay and bisexual young people.''

Those who protested that flagrant proselytism were maligned as ``homophobes,'' a word invented to stifle opposition by intimidating dissenters. It was, and remains, an effective tool.

Indeed, a few months earlier in New York, a nationally prominent gay activist named Kevin Jennings gave a speech, ``Winning the Cultural War,'' in which he boasted of inroads being made here in Massachusetts.

``Effective framing of the issue was the key to the success of the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth,'' he said. ``We explained how homophobia represents a threat to students' safety by creating a climate where suicide is common.

``We threw our opponents onto the defensive and left them back-pedaling from day one. In Massachusetts, no one could speak against our frame: `Why, yes, I do think students should kill themselves.' This allowed us to set the terms for the debate.''

Give him credit for a great game plan because people repulsed by what's happening now are still terrified of appearing hateful, which is what brought us to this moment where normalcy sits in the back seat while perversity sits at the wheel.

Nor is it hateful to urge those who feel the same way to contact legislators immediately, demanding corrective action.

That won't go over well in some circles, but bear in mind the crowd that once pleaded for tolerance has become the most intolerant of all, thumbing its nose at values that have defined us and daring us to offer objection.

When you know in your heart what you're saying is right, it doesn't make it easier to speak out; it just makes it a whole lot harder to remain silent.

... bear in mind the crowd that once pleaded for tolerance has become the most intolerant of all, thumbing its nose at values that have defined us and daring us to offer objection.

An excerpt from "Culture of Vice:"

"The homosexual cause has moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest. As Robert Reilly notes a society can withstand any number of person who try to advance their own moral disorders as public policy. But it cannot survive once it adopts the justifications for whose moral disorders as its own. This is what is at stake in the culture war...
For any individual, moral failure is hard to live with because of the rebuke of conscience. Habitual moral failure, what used to be called vice, can be lived with only by obliterating conscience through rationalization. When we rationalize, we convince ourselves that heretofore forbidden desires are permissible. We advance the reality of the desires over the reality of the moral order to which the desires should be subordinated. In our minds we replace the reality of moral order with something more congenial to the activity we are excusing. In short, we assert that bad is good...
It is often difficult to detect rationalizations when one is living directly under their influence, and so historical examples are useful. One of the clearest was offered at the Nuremberg trials by Dr. Karl Brandt, who had been in charge of the Nazi regime's Aktion T-4 euthanasia program. He said in his defense: “...when I said `yes' to euthanasia I did so with the deepest conviction, just as it is my conviction today, that it was right. Death can mean deliverance. Death is life.”
Unlike Dr. Brandt, most people recover from their rationalizations when remorse and reality set back in. But when morally disordered acts become the defining centerpiece of one's life, vice can permanently pervert reason. Entrenched moral aberrations then impel people to rationalize vice not only to themselves but to others as well. Thus rationalizations become an engine for revolutionary change that will affect society as a whole.
The power of rationalization drives the culture war, gives it its particular revolutionary character, and makes its advocates indefatigable. It may draw its energy from desperation, but it is all the more powerful for that. Since failed rationalization means self-recrimination, it must be avoided at all cost. For this reason, the differences over which the culture war is being fought are not subject to reasoned discourse. Persons protecting themselves by rationalizing are interested not in finding the truth, but in maintaining the illusion that allows them to continue their behavior. For them to succeed in this, everyone must accede to their rationalization. This is why revolutionary change is required. The necessity for self-justification requires the complicity of the whole culture. Holdouts cannot be tolerated because they are potential rebukes. The self-hatred, anger, and guilt that a person possessed of a functioning conscience would normally feel from doing wrong are redirected by the rationalization and projected upon society as a whole (if the society is healthy), or upon those in society who do not accept the rationalization.
The homosexual movement's rationalization is far more widely advanced in its claims. According to Jeffrey Levi, former executive director for the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, “We (homosexuals)_ are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a right to protection from wrong. We have a right - as heterosexuals have already - to see government and society affirm our lives.” Since only the act of sodomy differentiates an active homosexual from a heterosexual, homosexuals want “government and society” to affirm that sodomy is morally equivalent to the marital act. “Coming out of the closet” can only mean an assent on the level of moral principle to what would otherwise be considered morally disordered.
And so it must be. If you are going to center your public life on the private act of sodomy, you had better transform sodomy into a highly moral act. If sodomy is a moral disorder, it cannot be legitimately advanced on the legal or civil level. On the other hand, if it is a highly moral act, it should serve as the basis for marriage, family (adoption), and community. As a moral act, sodomy should be normative. If it is normative, it should be taught in our schools as a standard. In fact, homosexuality should be hieratic: active homosexuals should be ordained as priests. All of this is happening. It was predictable. The homosexual cause moved naturally from a plea for tolerance to cultural conquest. How successful that conquest has been can be seen in the poverty of the rhetoric of its opponents. In supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, the best one congressman could do was to say, “America is not yet ready for homosexual marriage,” as if we simply need a decent interval to adjust ourselves to its inevitable arrival.
The homosexual rationalization is so successful that even the campaign against AIDS is part of it, with its message that “everyone is at risk.” If everyone is at risk, the disease cannot be related to specific behavior. Yet homosexual acts are the single greatest risk factor in catching AIDS. This unpleasant fact invites unwelcome attention to the nature of homosexual acts, so it must be ignored..."

Call gay marriage what it is, an abomination, political correctness gone amok

I doubt that any of the Mass Supreme Court justices were gay. I've noticed that the gay 'agenda' is carried out by mostly straight people.

Which forced me to ask,
Where did all start?

Some people say that the current sexual revolution started when some Protestant denominations dropped birth control as a sin in the 1930s

Others claim that all started with the hippies and the 1960s.

At any rate, it seems that most Christians take the Bible as seriously as the horoscope. When it agrees with them, the Bible is the Word of God. Then it disagrees with them, the Bible is the Book of Excuses.

(AgapePress) - The Barna Research Firm is defending a recent survey which found some disturbing statistics regarding born-again Christians and divorce. The survey found that born-again Christians were just as likely as non-believers to divorce. In fact, the survey found that the divorce rate is higher for Christians when compared with non-believers.

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.