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.

=== It may be a simple as teaching children that homsexuality is wrong.

I think you're going to have to dig deeper than that and not only tell them why heterosexuality is right but figure out a way to frame it as exclusive and sacred AND procreative.

Rotsa ruck.

I'm stage-managing a little play by a braindead Tennesse Williams right now. One of the actors picked up on the fact that homosexuality's perpetually a "dirty" thing in the play.

NONE of the actors understand this to have been the case for at least 25 years and offered that gays 35 and under have no comprehension whatsoever of anything but Pride in their homosexuality ... "things have changed!"

All the "pride" indoctrination by organic intellectuals aside for a moment (it's not really THAT effective without some substantive kernel of truth) ... Homosexuality hasn't changed in the last generation.

What's changed is heterosexuality.

It's heterosexuality that's been "liberated" to the homosexual model. Evidence abounds on this conservative forum where patriots commonly glamorize or at least rationalize the "stress relief" of our troops at brothels, husbands and boyfriends ogle strangely boyish but big-boobed images like Gay Porn afficionados -- shoving it the faces of all and sundry with the audacity of queens humping each other in a gay pride parade, birth control is a GIVEN even among so-called "pro-lifers" who can't seem to understand that acceptance of the birth-control mentality as a "right" cannot possibly stop short of the "failsafe" birth control which only selective homicide assures.

Your points are not in opposition to the opposition to the normalization of homosexuality. Sexual libertinism is a continuum, with man+woman sex divorced from lifelong marriage, fidelity, and children as the norm. IOW, you seem to be saying the why worry about homosexual marriage when promiscuity and sexual libertinism among heterosexuals is so much more grievous?

The answer is that they are different manifestations of the same problem. But one point is that as screwed up as relations between men and women are (generally speaking, as evidenced in your posts) at least there is the potential, between a man and a woman, for having a lifelong commited marriage. Between a man and a man, there is only the potential for sexual aberration. Nothing else. So when one accepts same sex acts, one crosses a line in the sand. It is not just more of the same, it is stepping off the cliff.

Homosexuality has always been forbidden in civilized societies, barring some Greeks here and there. But the norm for accepted sexual behavior has always been marriage. Add to that every monotheistic religion has forbidden same sex acts, and for a good reason. Acceptance of homosexuality opens the floodgates to "anything goes".

I am not denying that the slippery slope has already been slid down in the form of birth control, pre-marital and post-marital sex, abortion, and so on. But I think your focus is a little off. Rather than complaining that people shouldn't single out homosexuality for criticism, I think all forms of degrading and destructive sexual behavior should be condemned. And at the very least, should not be forced on everyone, especially kids in school.

My point is that there is absolutely no use in decrying homosexuality while at the same time reserving for heterosexuality the perks of non-procreative sex and marriages not premised on the formation of Family as reserved strictly for those who can have children on their own without the assistance of artificial reproduction.

People that live in glass houses are not well-positioned to throw stones.

And the notion that we need or even want the imprimatur on marriage from a State which sanctions and even promotes birth control and abortion and which interprets for-profit pornography (to include "faked" images of childsex geared solely to elicit real ejaculations from heteros with a classic homosexual youth fixation) is ludicrous.

The real battle begins when we reclaim a rational and natural respect for human sexuality and Family. Founding one's arguments re: the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage fails absolutely absent the rescinding of artifical contraception and reproduction as "rights" and the return of a right to obligate one's self for Life which has been deconstructed by 'no-fault' divorce.

Another important move would be the rescinding of all assistance for single mothers by which the State hedges its bets that unPlanned pregnancies will end in abortion.

Anything less and we're nothing but hypocrites for pretending that homosexuals are not entitled to the same Artificial Realities heterosexuals enjoy.

I share your views about sexual immorality and degradation. Yet, I am reminded of people - conservatives, who don't want to vote for Bush because he isn't conservative enough. A vote for a third party candidate, or sitting out the election, only harms the conservative cause, increasing the possibility of Kerry or which jackass the Democraps pick, will win. At least with Bush, the behemoth may start turning around.

In a similar way, if people in general - who obviously don't have their morality as fine tuned as you do (or me, I basically agree with everything you say) can at least draw the line at same sex sodomy, there's a chance maybe their view of what is moral and what is not may become more and more enlightened. I don't think it useful to want all or nothing. The Queen Mary can't turn on a dime. Several generations of people accepting immorality as benign can't change overnight. At least if people wake up to the fact that two men ( or two women) commiting sodomy isn't and can't be "marriage", it's a start.

Also, there is something particularly vile about the ramming and cramming of homosexuality down kids' throats especially in school. It must be stopped.

I have read all you posted and it's true we are agreed in most respects. But not all. Particularly this one:

In a similar way, if people in general - who obviously don't have their morality as fine tuned as you do (or me, I basically agree with everything you say) can at least draw the line at same sex sodomy, there's a chance maybe their view of what is moral and what is not may become more and more enlightened. I don't think it useful to want all or nothing.

It is a great fallacy to believe that we can adopt the strategies of the enemy to serve our ends. Most can recognize the evil that is "the ends justify the means."

Few recognize the inherent evil of pragmatism ... a mindset so flawed in such an insidious fashion that the Left would have had to invent it (and it did) had it not existed as a vehicle by which the West would presume the powers of alchemy.

But "incrementalism" is understood as intrinsically flawed by even fewer still.

Truth does not work the same as falsehoods. Deceipt operates like the slow heating of water to make a pot of frogs boil before they know it. Truth is the dousing of cold water sufficient to stop the cooking -- of pasta, veggies or frogs -- in its tracks.

It's deceipt that comes upon a person like dusk -- one minute they still can read in the waning light, the next moment they are blind. But truth is like the sun which illuminates all the moment dawn's rosy fingertips break the horizon.

You cannot "incrementalize" people toward the truth. That's a bait and switch operation doomed to failure every bit as surely as the GOP's staunch defense of the "rape/incest" clause for permissable abortion will ensure the practice remains legal however "reduced" or regulated abortions may one day be.

LJ. One thing you didn't mention is prayer.

2 Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

We are the answer. We have the power to have our land healed. But we need to repent and call on God. Before we do anyting else (and all those other things are needed) we need to pray

Askel5. You bring up lots of good points but they miss the point.

I had a similar discussion with Luis Gonzalez (Hope I spelled that right) the other day. Look at the defense of marriage like the defense of our borders.

Just because we can't stop every last illegal from getting in should we let all of them in? No, we should defend as best we can.

My point is that there is absolutely no use in decrying homosexuality

It is always useful to fight against evil

while at the same time reserving for heterosexuality the perks of non-procreative sex and marriages not premised on the formation of Family as reserved strictly for those who can have children on their own without the assistance of artificial reproduction.

I find nothing wrong with non-procreative sex within the bounds of marrriage as long as an abortifacient is not used. (As I understand it every form of birth control pill is actually abortifacient). I can find nothing in the bible to support banning barrier methods or coitus interuptus.

I also find nothing wrong with medical assistance for reproduction. (There is no such thing as artificial reproduction, Either the sperm joins the egg or it doesn't) Some people need assistance to conceive. Just as God gave us medical knowledge to cure cancers and other diseases God gave us the knowledge to help the infertile to fulfill the command to go forth and multiply. Of course I do not agree with surrogate mothers etc. If we cannot use the knowledge God gave us to cure infertility then we are equally wrong to use medical knowledge to cure cancer. Again I find nothing in the bible that bans use of medical knowlegde.

the return of a right to obligate one's self for Life which has been deconstructed by 'no-fault' divorce.

Agree entirely. Marriage should only end due to adultery or criminal activity (abuse) and the at-fault party should lose everything.

Another important move would be the rescinding of all assistance for single mothers by which the State hedges its bets that unPlanned pregnancies will end in abortion.

One assistance that should exist is prenatal care and adoption assistance. All of this should be in services not in cash. Otherwise I agree. Sex is for married people only.

Performing an abortion should be treated as capital murder. It is always premeditated, the victim is always innocent and defenseless. Legally execute a few of these 'doctors' and the whole problem goes away. (Until we get to that point however we still need to keep fighting)

That all said, refusing to fight the 'homosexual' assault until we have these issues fixed is exactly the same as saying "OK sodomize me and my children legally". Just because we can't stop every fist fight is no reason to make murder legal.

=== LJ. One thing you didn't mention is prayer.

Interesting you mention this and direct it to LJ even if Saint Teresa was hitting me hard on the subject en route to work today. (I'm reading her "Interior Castles" at the moment.)

Fighting the evil of homosexuality is not going to be accomplished by sweeping legislation to outlaw a behavior you have no hope in hell (literally) of stopping. That's something better left to the "each one save one" approach whereby we leave no family member left behind (as best we can).

Understand that I'm opposed to homosexual marriage but I see no possible foundation for arguing that it is illegitimate given the state of affairs of heterosexual marriage right now.

I also don't see the point in pretending we are preserving solely for heterosexuals a privilege of recognition from a "moral" or just state when our government is anything but moral. I think that this flawed debate serves one very insidious purpose that is the pretense of the U.S. Government as some kind of stronghold against evil when -- to the contary -- the U.S. Govenment is a leading proponent of the Culture of Death as couched by its judiciary and exported worldwide under the guise of various US-AIDs.

=== I find nothing wrong with non-procreative sex within the bounds of marrriage as long as an abortifacient is not used.

Most sex is non-procreative. That is only natural.

=== (As I understand it every form of birth control pill is actually abortifacient).

Many more effective means of jacking with the female body are used but the rendering of the womb from natural home to hostile environment is the failsafe operation by which any human life which is conceived is doomed.

=== I can find nothing in the bible to support banning barrier methods or coitus interuptus.

I find it astounding that Christians so devout as to uphold the Bible as the be-all, end-all of human affairs can -- in the same breath -- evidence their refusal to allow the Creator a hand in making their every union fruitful if He so desired.

What gives you the right to shut God out of the one truly potent and world-changing act of the Co-Creator man that is reproduction? Where do you find that in the Bible?

==== I also find nothing wrong with medical assistance for reproduction. (There is no such thing as artificial reproduction, Either the sperm joins the egg or it doesn't) Some people need assistance to conceive.

Where is the acceptance of God's will in this equation?

There are indeed moral means of assisting humans to conceive. But there also are patently immoral means ... including the manufacture of the Excess human life our "pro-life" President used as he legitimized the use of human beings as a cash crop.

Here are some cogent points I hope you will consider as each comports perfectly with the body of Scripture as well as the objective truth of the matter (courtesy of reason) which safeguards from the rationalizations and "personal interpretations" by which each feels entitled to his own comfort level with whatever technology is proferred under whatever guise of "humanitarian" assist.

And, most importantly in my view, they carefully include ALWAYS the third party to the sexual relationship that is the child who -- if God has a hand in the conjugal union -- may be conceived therefrom.

2376. "Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral.

These techniques (heterologous ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION and fertilization) infringe the child's right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage.

They betray the spouses' 'right to become a father and a mother only through each other.'[CDF, Donum vitae II, 1.]">

2377. "Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable.

They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that 'entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.

Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.'[CDF, Donum vitae II, 5.]

'Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses' union .... Only respect for the link between the meanings of the conjugal act and respect for the unity of the human being make possible procreation in conformity with the dignity of the person.'[CDF, Donum vitae II, 4.]"

(To view the context, please visit Article 2376, 2377)

Respect for the Human Person and Scientific Research

You are right that people cannot be "incrementalized" towards the truth. People cannot be pushed, coerced, pummeled, or legislated into truth. Approaching truth (which you and I both understand to be the truth of God) is an individual journey, undertaken volunarily. I also respectfully disagree that it is a "all or nothing" journey. Have you read C.S.Lewis' "Surprised by Joy"? He describes one man's spiritual journey very well.

Just as your very poetic description of deceit being a gradual darkening, like the sunset, it is also described that the dawning of truth in a person's heart is like the rising of the sun. It does not go from pitch blackness to the brilliance of noon, it is a gradual process of enlightenment to the truth of God's existence, His love, and His Person.

But here, we're not talking about somehow getting masses of people to become saints. We're talking about a war, and there are many battles in this war. Just because the war can't be won with one giant symbolic nuke, doesn't make it worthless to fight one battle at a time.

I look at it like this: if ONE child or teenager can be saved from becoming seduced into a miserable life of homosexduality, it is a cause for celebration . If many can be saved, it is a great victory.

Homosexuality is a worse depravity that the other sexual sins we have been discussing. It is so depraved that those who habitually indulge become hardened to God's voice in their hearts, and they are prone to seeking others on which to prey. Sexual license which degrades society is a continuum; but I see no wrong - and great good - to fight this battle, and not succumb to hopelessness, or defeat, thinking that because there is other immorality rampant there is no use in fighting this one.

I find it astounding that Christians so devout as to uphold the Bible as the be-all, end-all of human affairs can -- in the same breath -- evidence their refusal to allow the Creator a hand in making their every union fruitful if He so desired.

God gave us a free will to choose Him or to reject Him. He gave us a free will to choose when to have children, or even to have none at all. No where in the Word does it say that every union of man and woman must result in children. No where. If God determines that it's time for you to have kids then the barrier method of contraception that you've chosen will not work. (rubbers break etc). I don't believe that God chooses to force things upon us in this life. If He doesn't even force Himself upon us why would He force children upon us?

The sex act between man and wife is for more than just producing children. It is the way that we become one flesh. Joined more closely to each other than to any other person. As we can see in the Song of Solomon, it can also be a whole lot of fun.

Enjoying each other is not against the bible (If you have a verse that outlaws it let me know. I've not been able to find one that even hints that every coupling must produce children. I can't even find one that says that every coupling must have the potential to produce children)

What gives you the right to shut God out of the one truly potent and world-changing act of the Co-Creator man that is reproduction? Where do you find that in the Bible?

First of all man is not the co-creator. There is no such person. Everything was created by Jesus. Not by us.

The only real world changing (improving) act that man can do is to lead another person to Christ. Merely producing children does nothing to change the world. And if you fail to lead those children to Christ then you are actually making the world a worse place than it was.

Man cannot shut God out if God decides to be in. God, however, is a gentleman and will not force Himself or His will upon us. He will bring events to persuade us to do it His way but He will not force us. If He would force us than no one would ever go to Hell and there would be no sin in the world. And we know that that is not the case.

==== I also find nothing wrong with medical assistance ...

Where is the acceptance of God's will in this equation?

Expand this beyond reproductive assistance. "well I have cancer. It must be God's will that I die from it right now because I can't use medical knowledge". "Oops, I cut myself. Must be God's will that I bleed to death because I can't use medical knowledge". "Oh no. My child has spina bifida. It must be God's will that he die young because I can't use medical knowledge" Pretty nonsensical isn't it. God gave us the knowledge to use.

I see nothing in the scriptures that prevents us from using medical knowldge to heal people, or to help them honor God's command to multiply

2376.

Agreed. As I stated in an earlier post

2377. "Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable.

Disagree. There is no biblical prohibition against this.

They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act.

I guess that infertile couples are not allowed to have sex because there's no chance of children. Fortunately there is no biblical command that the sexual act must be procreative every time.

The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that 'entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person.

The act of a husband's sperm uniting with a wife's egg is always an act of them giving to each other. If the appropriate cells need a little assistance to complete the act then that's OK. Again I see nothing in the bible to ban this.

While God can open a barren womb (and has biblically) sometimes he uses doctors to accomplish his will. I've seen people healed of cancer miraculously and I've seen God send people to certain doctors to undergo medical treatment because of which they were healed. How can we say to God "You must fix this problem only this way". God gave us medical knowledge. It would be ungrateful to not use it.

I also disagree that it "establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person." Only God can create life. Only God determines our origin and our destiny.

This is akin to saying that because the local mechanic repaired my car he controls what roads it drives on forever. Not true

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.