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

self | February 11, 2004 | little jeremiah

[Askel5]

Your point being?

[Askel5]

=== One thing is that homosexuals are WILDLY promiscuous compared to normal people.

That's due, primarily, to the fact they need not worry about children. And that's why -- thanks to birth control and the programming of children with sex education -- those differences are no longer as striking as you would believe.

I find it hard to believe that in a day and age where "Girls Gone Wild" and freaknik videos are sold on network TV after the late news that there still are those pretending that heteros have some kind of monopoly on feminine modesty, male self-control and general chastity that homosexuals lack.

Where you've "evened the playing field" there's not a lot of difference left between the teams. Our current generation of kids from Rockford County's about to make that crystal clear for those of you yet consoling yourself with differences that no longer exist.

[longtermmemmory]

as an employer it would be easier to just drop the insurance and pay employees the money.

All it will do is force the medical issue where the left has always wanted it, onto the goverment and onto the taxpayer.

[Askel5]

=== 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.

[little jeremiah]

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.

[Askel5]

Which is just what the government wanted in the first place.

They don't dream up these "rights" -- particularly to birth control and the pre-determining of your child's sex (as advocated by the GOP in the 1970 Congressional Record) -- without a reason.

Homosexuals are the State's idea citizen. Make no mistake about it. That's why all "rights" of heteros and the legal decisions of Family & Marriage (and palimony) courts all have served to re-form heterosexuality into a homosexual model.

[Askel5]

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.

[Askel5]

=== 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.


My focus is on the root of the problem. Were it not for that "slippery slope," there would be no foundation for the claiming of "equal rights" by homosexuals in the first place.

You don't fix a math problem by tacking on what calculations you think will bring you back in line. You UNDO the calculations to the point where first you went awry and start again.

Those of a mind that we cannot possibly put the genie back in the bottle might as well resign themselves to the fact that homosexual marriage is not going to be the end, by far, of the State's purposed deconstruction of marriage and family.

[Askel5]

=== nd which interprets for-profit pornography

as "Free Speech" (sorry about that missing bit)

[little jeremiah]

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.

[little jeremiah]

My focus is on the root of the problem.

Did you read the second part of my "essay"?

[Askel5]

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.

[John O]

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.

[Askel5]

=== 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

[EdReform]

[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.]

Links to some of this archived material (special thanks to scripter for compiling it):

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.1)

Homosexual Agenda: Categorical Index of Links (Version 1.0)

Homosexual Agenda Index (bump list)

Homosexual Agenda Keyword Search

[little jeremiah]

The reason I didn't mention prayer was that I wanted to keep "religion" in the second part, because I didn't want to inflame people who may not have a spiritual or religious understanding from considering what they can do to thwart the homo-promoters. That said, I did say that a spiritual or religious awakening is the only thing that will really change our country (and indeed, the world) from a giant handbasket sliding south, to a world where people might at least have a fighting change to live lives free from the overwhelming soul-destroying influence of the grossest types of vicious hedonism.

Prayer can be like breathing. It should become a way of life, a background to one's existence, one's refuge and hope, a constant supplication for the mercy of God. I have no doubt that someone enthralled by homosexuality can change if they dive into prayer. But to even WANT to do this generally requires help of some kind.

[little jeremiah]

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.

[John O]

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

[little jeremiah]

Here's another idea: since most colleges and universities have become hotbeds of homosexual promotion, anyone who is an alumni of such a university or school can inform themselves of what is going on, write letters to said college or university criticizing such homo-indoctrination and activity, send letters to alumni organizations and publications, and STOP the donations, bequests, and so on!

Universities listen when alumni quit sending checks.

[Askel5]

=== God gave us a free will to choose Him or to reject Him

And you reject Him when you exclude Him from the act of conjugal union.