What We Can Do To Help Defeat the "Gay" Agenda

The following informal essay has two parts, the first consisting of ideas of what individuals or small groups can do to help thwart, roll back, defeat and otherwise throw a monkey wrench into the onslaught of the "gay" agenda and their stated goal to destroy the moral fabric of society. I am hoping that discussion will ensue, with theoretical ideas as well as accomplished plans. Information and knowledge are the key. Since most people just watch TV and read the establishment media, which are lapdogs of the "gay" elite, they just do not know the truth about homosexuality.

The second part is my analysis of the root cause of the homosexual movement, going a bit deeper than environment and molestation. It is "religious" or "spiritual" in aspect, so anyone who wishes to avoid that type of discussion can avoid it! This analysis is germane to the cure, not only of the homosexual agenda, but the untrammeled hedonism and libertinism of which homosexuality is the poster child.

[Note: I am not attempting to recap the immediate causes of homosexuality, or prove that it is not inborn, or give evidence as to why same sex acts are abnormal, unhealthy, or immoral, or to prove that homosexuals can change. FR already has hundreds of archived articles of this nature.]

A friend of ours homeschools her children, so as to protect them from the horrible influence of public schools, instill her personal moral values, and give them the best education possible. She knew that homosexuality was unhealthy, immoral, and unnatural, but until I gave her books and booklets I purchased from Scott Lively's website (www.abidingtruth.com) she was not able to articulate her viewpoint. After studying the materials I provided, she became a one-woman task force, gave her elderly father books to read, and shared the books with the charter/homeschool teacher. The teacher, who also had not been very well-informed, had her mind blown (so to speak) and ordered more materials for herself, and placed a link to Lively's website on her personal website. Lively has a number of very informative booklets that can be purchased in bulk cheap, and they are great for distributing. So because I informed one friend, many others have been informed. This particular charter school is all for homeschooled children, and there are about 500 families involved.

By purchasing Lively's materials (or reprints from other groups such as NAARTH and the Family Research Council) and making them available at your church, synagogue or other house of worship, many people can become informed. Materials can be purchased and mailed or given to pastors at other churches, or any organization or club that you belong to.

I have found that if I talk to people in the line at the grocery store, or the cashier, often people are happy to find that others have the same viewpoint, but they are afraid to admit that they think same sex acts to be unhealthy or wrong. Just by speaking up in public, we can encourage others to think for themselves, and not be intimidated by social pressure.

Of course, letters can be written to newspapers (they've never printed one of mine!), legislators, and media people. We could try calling up local talk radio shows to tell the truth or attend school board meetings to protest the homosexual infiltration of the schools. Of course, by doing any of these things we will be "outing" ourselves as homophobes ;-) but that's the risk one takes by speaking the truth.

And then there are guerilla tactics: print up some fact sheets about the nature of and diseases spread by homosexual acts, statistics about molestation rates, etc - make them colorful and readable, and broadcast them about town. Laudromats, bulletin boards in stores, public facilities, rest stops, community college or other educational institutions, any place you can find. Good places would be where there is a lot of foot traffic, especially where high school kids can see them. High schools kids are really being targeted by homosexual activists, so the more they can see the truth, the better.

Another post-it tactic: make or obtain stickers with the names and phone numbers of organizations that help people overcome homosexuality, and stick them near high schools, colleges, downtowns, and so on. You never know whose life might change because of one phone call. Or, place ads in the classified ads section of local newspapers or weekly magazines with the same information.

Other promotional ideas are bumper stickers (make you own, or maybe someone knows where to order pro-family stickers). Ideas for slogans: Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve; Marriage=One Man+One Woman; Children Need a Mother and Father, Not Two of a Kind; Same Sex Acts Are Not Healthy For Living Things; Want to get AIDS? Be Gay!; Don't confuse "Exit" with "Entry"; Don't Mess With Marriage; "Gay" Sex Isn't Gay…. These could also be signs in car windows, yard signs, signs held at rallies.

Protest at "Gay Pride" Parades. If protesting at such public events, wear protective clothing and go in groups, carry antiseptic handwipes and have a camera and maybe tape recorder. No telling what might ensue. Here's an idea that someone freepmailed to me, and it sounds good:

"I have an idea I'd like to pass your way. I suggest that we get permits to set up tables in front of (or near) our respective churches/synagogues along the local "Pride" parade routes this coming June, with literature about reparative therapy. Each table should also have someone there to document all the juvenile insults and threats thrown our way on a videocam, and send copies of the films to the local tv news to include as part of their coverage."

Everyone needs happiness, love and pleasure. These needs stem directly from the soul, and get interpreted through the body - think of how many people eat because they are lonely, depressed, or in anxiety. A healthy balanced person will eat when hungry, and when in need of companionship will turn to a relative, friend, or even pet for company. The need for love is really paramount, a deeper need than the bodily requirements. What hurts more, a broken heart, or a hungry stomach? Our culture has denied the fact - basic to all religions (probably a few exceptions, but this is not the debate here) - that human beings even have souls, what to speak of the needs of the soul. In fact, the accepted "scientifically based" theory is that humans are just machines, made of chemicals, evolved by accident, and the "self" doesn’t even really exist. In an atmosphere of such impersonal nihilism, it is natural that many people will be easily convinced that real love, real happiness, real heart to heart connection, don't exist.

What can take its place? Instant pleasure. Shopping. Drug and alcohol abuse. Or, most seductive of all, orgasms. And since the sexual organs have no conscience, a wide variety of options is available to people who have been convinced that God doesn't exist, there are no rules - or higher purpose - to life, and instant gratification is the only yardstick to measure happiness with.

There are two kinds of happiness - the kind that comes from the outside - eating, sex, comforts, and the devices or arrangements that facilitate such, as well as more intangible pleasures such as accomplishments, goals achieved, music, arts, learning, and so on. The second kind of happiness comes only from within the heart, and this happiness is our relationship with God. Jesus said that the Kingdom of God is within us, and the same truth is stated in Hindu scriptures (the Vedas) as well. A surrendered soul can experience the loving embrace of God anywhere, any time - if he truly desires and strives for this loving relationship. The experience that God is my best friend, my only refuge, my source of happiness, and indeed, the very foundation for and purpose of my existence - is the only real meaning of religion. Currently, in many religions, the concept that God is a real Person is left out, glossed over, He is described as an amorphous mystery, or that "we are God", or that He is just energy or a force. But according to Jesus, the teachings in the Old Testament, and the teachings of the Vedas, re-establishing a loving relationship with the Supreme Person is the only thing that will fill the emptiness in our hearts. If this knowledge is denied, as in most of our culture, people will seek to fill this void by any means at hand. And if the moral absolutes that are part of God's instructions to humanity are tossed out, then anything goes. If sexual pleasure is the goal of life, and there are no eternal moral truths, then there is no reason to not accept same sex acts, or, for that matter, any kind of sexual activity.

Therefore, the real antidote to the "gay" agenda, as well as the breakdown of civilization it heralds, is the spiritual awakening of many individuals, and the understanding that such an awakening is not only important but essential.

Here's some noted homosexual spokespeople stating their reasons for pushing "gay" marriage:

(Hint: they aren't interested in holy matrimony, they're interested in destroying the concept of marriage, family, and morality, and they want access to children for indoctrination.)

An excerpt from: In Their Own Words: The Homosexual Agenda:
"Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile, who writes periodically for The New York Times, summarizes the agenda in OUT magazine (Dec/Jan 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 society's moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution... The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake --and one that would perhaps benefit all of society--is to transform the notion of family entirely....Its the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statues, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into the public schools and in short to usher in a sea change in how society views and treats us."

Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle.
Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position."
(Washington Blade, August, 2003).

Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness."
(Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)

Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . 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 society's view of reality."
(partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)

Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "
(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play."
(quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)

1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit." [The list of demands also include the elimination of all age of consent laws.]

Should there be an amendment banning homosexual marriage? Should government legalize homosexual marriage? Neither. Why should government be involved?

In all of the media coverage, we hear little from those whose fondness for each other has prompted them to now elope to either coast. Has the media asked homosexuals that question? We heard that homosexuals would like to offer insurance coverage to their partners. We have heard that homosexuals, for unknown reasons, are unable to obtain health insurance coverage for their partners. Is it against the law for insurance carriers to provide such coverage? We haven’t heard the media ask that question of insurance.

The free market better addresses the issue. Obviously, if insurance is desired and if it is the driving force behind the matter, one would think that a company would make such insurance available. I can name whoever I want to be beneficiary of my life insurance policy. One would think that the same principle could be applied to health insurance. There is a demand for health insurance coverage for households where same sex couples reside. Is it illegal for insurance companies to provide that coverage? Amend that law and leave marriage alone.

There is the matter of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Inherent in those words is that government will not be hostile to an establishment of religion.

And like it or not, the Bible is clear on the right or wrong of homosexuality. By legalizing marriage between homosexuals, government would be openly taking a hostile stance against the religions that believe homosexuality is wrong. Oh, but some religions believe homosexuality is okay.

Obviously then, for government to suggest homosexual marriage is okay would be an affront to those whose religion believe it to be wrong, not only because government would be taking a stand hostile to one religion, but because government would be openly endorsing the religion that believes it is okay.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in a speech to a Philadelphia conference on religion in public life, in May of 1991: “Protecting religious freedoms may be more important in the late twentieth century than it was when the Bill of Rights was ratified. We live in a pluralistic society, with people of widely divergent religious backgrounds or with none at all. Government cannot endorse beliefs of one group without sending a clear message to non-adherents that they are outsiders.”

Whose religious beliefs should government endorse? Those who believe homosexuality is wrong? Or those who believe it is right? The answer is neither. The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.

If it is a matter of insurance and other benefits, we’ve heard the homosexuals’ argument that tells us that there is a market for such services. The question then becomes—who will offer those services? Or are we simply being prepared for the next demand: government health insurance for all?

One of the main reasons the "gay rights" movement has succeeded so well is that early on they infiltrated the media, and since the media elites are leftists almost to a man, it was a done deal. Therefore, the great unwashed have no access to the truth of what homosexuals do, their goals, and so on.

So the cure for ignorance is knowledge, the cure for darkness is light. The information about the reality of the homosexual agenda and lifestyle is organized on FR, with more accumulating daily.

If those of us who do understand the truth email articles to people on our address book, print out articles and distribute them to as many people as possible, more "sheeple" will wake up. We will also see who our real friends are, and who starts avoiding us...

I've read a lot of comments lately from people who previously were "tolerant" who have reached the limit, and are now sick and fed up with the "gay" agenda. We just need to encourage more people to reach that point of nausea, or gay rights sticking in the craw - or as you pointed out, we need to help more people become:

INTOLERANT!

This interview with Alan Keyes should be read in its entirety.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1096038/posts?page=1

Here are the last couple of paragraphs:

***Has this push for gay "marriage" — especially with regard to what's happened in recent days and weeks — put us in a new era?***

Well, I don't know. I think we're in an era where at both a political and social level we're witnessing the dissolution of the republic. I don't know that that's a new era. It's a tragic era. It's an era that our civilization is not likely to survive if we don't deal with these issues in an urgent fashion in order to reestablish the basis for our civilized life and freedom. So, I can't see that this is some new day, no. This is actually the twilight of a day, if we're not careful.

Right now, we are in the midst of a tremendous crisis that will decide the fate of our society.

***Certainly, this is a process that has long been ongoing. I guess what I was wondering was whether this crisis has intensified so greatly that it's brought the issue to a head?***

Yes, I think if there were people who thought that this was not serious, and they weren't paying attention, they ought to pay attention now. This is coming to a head. In this generation, we will decide the fate of the American republic and of the civilization that we know. We can either sit back and let abusive courts and gutless politicians make these decisions, or as citizens who understand what's at stake, we can get involved and demand that steps be taken to act aright. If we do not, this crisis will intensify.

I believe — and this is something I will work to avoid — that a mishandling of this situation will lead to dissolution of our union, because at the end of the day, the Founders put us on a basis that would allow us to handle these questions without confrontation, conflict and violence. These abusive judges and lawless officials are now abandoning that understanding. This is going to have dire consequences for the future of our people.

Hmmm - I guess whatever Seraphim Rex thought would help fight the "gay" agenda, TPTB didn't agree with him/her/it.

Another idea:

Anyone who in their business or professional life has to deal with homosexuals that are claiming that they are "married" and therefore want the honeymoon suite, special deals on car insurance, travel rates, health insurance, or whatever - refuse them. Tell them that legally they aren't married and you can't accomodate (whatever it is they want).

These people need to have their balloon popped. And we need to not kowtow to them. It's worth getting in hot water for this. It's worth even losing our jobs, being called "hater", "bigot", and "homophobe". If we don't stand up against this, we're assisting them.

We need to be on the right side of history.

Hello, new FR member. I notice that this is the only comment you have made on FR so far.

Here is my explanation: If someone is employed by a business that provides healthcare benefits, said employee is paying for some of that with his own money. If said employee has a wife or husband, then the insurance benefits are spread to said spouse, often with not much more money paid out by said employee.

Since a much higher percentage of homosexuals have AIDS, which can cost between $12k up to $17K a year (or more, with complications), and since homosexuals have much higher rates of various kinds of hepatitis, parasites, TB, many other venereal diseases, higher rates of alcoholism, drug abuse, mental problems, and so on - that means the people who are NOT homosexual will be helping pay the higher cost of the homosexual partners' health insurance.

Let homosexuals each pay their own health care insurance. Since they choose to engage in behavior that entails a higher cost, let each of them foot the bill. Why should people who don't engage in such dangerous behavior have to endure higher medical insurance rates so that homosexuals' pretend "spouses" can get covered?

Yes, I think if there were people who thought that this was not serious, and they weren't paying attention, they ought to pay attention now. This is coming to a head. In this generation, we will decide the fate of the American republic and of the civilization that we know. We can either sit back and let abusive courts and gutless politicians make these decisions, or as citizens who understand what's at stake, we can get involved and demand that steps be taken to act aright. If we do not, this crisis will intensify.

I believe — and this is something I will work to avoid — that a mishandling of this situation will lead to dissolution of our union, because at the end of the day, the Founders put us on a basis that would allow us to handle these questions without confrontation, conflict and violence. These abusive judges and lawless officials are now abandoning that understanding. This is going to have dire consequences for the future of our people.

I'm concerned about that too. I remember as far back as the 1970's, my father said that "America will not survive as a political entity" and even said "we will see a second Civil War" and I would be around to see it (I'm 37, will be 38 in July). Dunno if he really saw something coming or was reaching for the tin-foil hat, but I think he was on to something when I saw the fighting over the 2000 election and now issues like this.

If this issue of homosexual marriage keeps going the way it is, then other standards of society will be changed and will fall like a set of dominoes. I've gotten into debate with people from the other side and they call us homophobes, rednecks, old fashioned, and Bible Thumpers. Well, I tried to present our side of the debate but they still shout you down with the same old rhetoric. I've pretty much stopped trying to talk to them, let's face it, you cannot "show a blind dog anything." I might sound harsh here but deep down inside, I feel these people are dead spirtually or if I want to be nice about it, "on life support." I mean they just shout you down like the robots they are, instead of thinking, they react, much like a roach does when you shine a light on it.

I've resolved one thing is that I'll try my best to fight for what is right, I work a lot of hours, sadly, I cannot devote a lot of time but I'll do my best to do my part, albeit small, to try to turn the tide. Somedays I'm optimistic, others I am not, but I do feel that within the last year, there was a sleeping giant that did awake because most of middle America does not want this.

I think the homosexual lifestyle is dead wrong, goes agaisnt God, nature, logic, and so on, but despite trying to reach out, not everyone will be guided to the straight and narrow. I resolved that as long as they keep it private, like all sex lives should be, then it should be live and let live. However, when you come to knock down a staple of our society, then that's when we arch our backs like a cat.

Getting back to my father, well, maybe one day the America we know will break up, I don't know how, but I'd be willing to cut Frisco loose and they become a free sovereign city of its own if they want homosexual marriage, but leave the rest of us alone. Better yet, if they want to marry, they can go to Holland and live there, just leave us and our society alone.

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.