Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Danger Lurking in Duck Dynasty Debacle
Scott Lively Ministries ^ | December 21, 2013 | Dr. Scott Lively

Posted on 12/26/2013 1:32:23 PM PST by fwdude

Memo to Pro-Family Leaders and Activists

The backlash against GLAAD and A&E over the firing of Phil Robertson while encouraging, has also exposed a serious danger lurking in the way some conservatives are looking to homosexuals for support for our position. Laura Ingram had some “gay” writer on her show, and let him get away with characterizing Phil Robertson‘s comments as bigotry. Lots of pro-family people are quoting Brandon Ambrosino’s article in Time http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/19/the-duck-dynasty-fiasco-says-more-about-our-bigotry-than-phils/and open lesbian Camille Paglia has also written a widely distributed piece.

I’m not against these people speaking their minds just because I oppose their lifestyle, but I am against the phenomenon of pro-family people thinking they are bolstering our arguments by using unrepentant “gays” as sources.

First, we never hear from these supposedly “conservative” or “moderate” homosexuals unless it’s to do damage control to protect their agenda (which is to fully legitimize homosexuality in society). We saw the same thing occur in 2012 when the “liberal” homosexual attack on Chic-Fil-A in 2012 sparked a national backlash. Whenever the more progressive wing of the “gay” movement goes too fast and threatens the success of the LGBT marketing strategy, the “conservatives” jump into the spotlight to soothe the public nerves. Why should we help them accomplish that?

Second, we need to recognize that the supposed “liberal” vs. “conservative” polarity in the homosexual alliance is a cleverly crafted illusion to infiltrate the pro-family movement. Of course there are some genuine political and ideological differences among homosexuals, but do not deceived, these cosmetic differences are all subsumed within the common goal of conquest of Christian civilization.

We must remember that the “gay” movement is a single, united cult of cultural Marxists, following the Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic.

Our thesis is the truth of the Bible: homosexuality is condemned by God as an abomination.

Their anti-thesis is that homosexuality is good and normal.

Any “synthesis” of these two contradictory premises is abandonment of the thesis and an outright rejection of the truth of God. “What fellowship hath Christ with Belial?” asked Paul rhetorically in 2 Corinthians 6:15.

Our embrace of people like Tammy Bruce and Camille Paglia (as brilliant as the latter may be to quote on feminist issues) is the “synthesis” phase of the Hegelian dialectic and poisonous to our theology and agenda.

The rise of “conservative” homosexuals is a ruse to sucker us into endorsing “gay rights” in a slightly different form. Think about it for a moment. If these people were truly on our side politically or ideologically they would consider their homosexual inclinations a private matter and a challenge to be overcome, and never publicly identify as “gay.”

Lets have compassion for homosexuals but never align ourselves with them politically or give them a platform to legitimize their lifestyle. Anyone who self-identifies as a unrepentant homosexual is an enemy of the truth, no matter how “conservative” they may sound. Love them as lost sheep, but hate the false premise they live their lives by.

Remember, the Marxist dialectic was taught as a dance to Soviet children: two steps forward, one step back equals a net gain of one step. The “progressive” homosexual agenda represents the two steps forward. The “conservative” homosexual “counter-faction” is one step back. When we endorse “conservative gays” we are helping the entire “gay” movement to advance at the expense of the Bible. Lets not dance with the devil!


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last
Strong language from Scott Lively, but he is spot on.

"...we never hear from these supposedly 'conservative' or 'moderate' homosexuals unless it’s to do damage control to protect their agenda..."

This has been my contention from the start. We should NEVER accept the support of activist homosexuals because their motive is ALWAYS self-preservation of their agenda, never on principle.

1 posted on 12/26/2013 1:32:23 PM PST by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: fwdude
I’m not against these people speaking their minds just because I oppose their lifestyle, but I am against the phenomenon of pro-family people thinking they are bolstering our arguments by using unrepentant “gays” as sources.

Amen!

2 posted on 12/26/2013 1:34:17 PM PST by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
"I’m not against these people speaking their minds just because I oppose their lifestyle, but I am against the phenomenon of pro-family people thinking they are bolstering our arguments by using unrepentant “gays” as sources."

What does ones' sexuality have to do with their opinion? What difference does ones' sexual orientation have to do with ANYTHING? Why does it even enter the conversation?

3 posted on 12/26/2013 1:37:30 PM PST by cincinnati65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan
The rise of “conservative” homosexuals is a ruse to sucker us into endorsing “gay rights” in a slightly different form. Think about it for a moment. If these people were truly on our side politically or ideologically they would consider their homosexual inclinations a private matter and a challenge to be overcome, and never publicly identify as “gay.”

Again I say...Amen! To claim to be a gay conservative is oxymoronic. It's why I don't trust Log Cabin Republicans. They put their 'gayness' in everyone's face and make it the center of their identity.

4 posted on 12/26/2013 1:38:26 PM PST by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

ALSO ... what we need more of is the spread of God’s word on the matter!

Although other parts of Scripture have been quoted on this Duck Dynasty issue with A&E, the following in Romans, chapter 1, is a key part and understanding ... as to how God’s wrath plays into this ... and why this is unique and that it is actually a judgement.

In Romans 1 ... it says

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,

23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves,

25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers,

30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;

32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

THAT would certainly be “dynamite” to LGBT-types ... :-) ...

I’m sure they are “foaming at the mouth” at this part ...

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness ...


5 posted on 12/26/2013 1:39:21 PM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Also, in reference to what someone else said about homosexuality being another sin - just like all the sins listed in the Bible ... I’ll have to point out that it’s QUITE UNIQUE in comparison to other sins. I said the following in another posting elsewhere ... AND ... this shows how God’s wrath plays into it.

The unique thing about what God said in Romans 1 — is that this particular sin is actually a “judgement” from God in that He has them debasing themselves in such a way. THIS (what the LGBTs promote) is actually God’s judgement upon them in that they are to do these things to themselves. They, therefore, receive god’s judgement in the “here and now” for clearly rejecting what god has made clear to the,.

SO ... while these are all sins - fornication, adultery, thieving, drunkenness, slandering, swindling - and will not be allowed into Heaven ... none of these are, in and of themselves - a condition which God imposes upon people for their rejection of what God has made clear to them,

On the other hand — the LGBT lifestyle is a specific condition and judgement of God Himself - upon these people,

AND THEREFORE, God has put upon them the absolute worst of the worst sin possible in a human being - in order to thoroughly DEBASE them to the ultimate extent in THIS LIFE, in the HERE AND NOW and not upon “Judgement Day”.

LGBT-people are a “walking advertisement” of God thoroughly debasing someone to the maximum extent possible, in a human being. They are walking around with a “neon flashing sign” — saying — “Look at me! God has not even waited until Judgement Day to judge me!”


6 posted on 12/26/2013 1:40:04 PM PST by Star Traveler (Remember to keep the Messiah of Israel in the One-World Government that we look forward to coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Huh? I thought Phil was back on the show?


7 posted on 12/26/2013 1:40:53 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Sexual sin is also describe by Paul, speaking by the Holy Spirit of God, as a unique sin in that it is a sin against one’s own body, which was designed to be a true Temple of God.


8 posted on 12/26/2013 1:42:34 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Huh? I thought Phil was back on the show?

Even if true, that's not relevant to what this piece is about. It's about falling for the trap of accepting support from avowed, activist homosexuals.

9 posted on 12/26/2013 1:44:03 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Interesting how homosexuals have apparently gotten so many sites classified as “Unsafe,” and you get a big warning if you try to open it.


10 posted on 12/26/2013 1:44:05 PM PST by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

He is only in episodes that were taped before his suspension. New episodes will supposedly be done without him.


11 posted on 12/26/2013 1:47:17 PM PST by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
My contribution: Stamp out use of the word "homophobe" and all its variations. It automatically assumes that everybody who doesn't like homosexuality is in fear of it. It dismisses people who disagree with them as being not-right-in-the-head.
12 posted on 12/26/2013 1:47:56 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan

It enters the conversation very quickly if you have children being told by their teachers that having sex with someone of the same gender is perfectly fine.

It enters the conversation when you are intimidated into keeping your opinion to yourself when the subject comes up because the bullying tactics of the GayKK don’t allow you to believe what your Bible says. Just ask that Miss America contestant - SHE didn’t bring it into the conversation, THEY did, to set her up.

The homosexual mafia has gotten so confident as of late, that they are orchestrating the subject being brought up for the sole purpose of showing everyone what will happen if they dare to utter disapproval of their practices. They are tyrants.


13 posted on 12/26/2013 1:52:39 PM PST by JudyinCanada
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kaehurowing
Interesting how homosexuals have apparently gotten so many sites classified as “Unsafe,” and you get a big warning if you try to open it.

Huh. So did I. "Unsafe for Children." Right...I just chucked WOT.

14 posted on 12/26/2013 1:52:46 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

Well said.
I’m not at all afraid of homosexuals.
I just don’t agree with them.
That’s not a phobia at all.


15 posted on 12/26/2013 1:53:25 PM PST by nascarnation (Wish everyone see a "Gay Kwanzaa")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
Very interesting Scriptural references. There are a number of places in Scripture where homosexuality isn't just referred to as a "sin," but as a punishment laid on people for their sinfulness. That's cause for some serious reflection in this day and age, folks.
16 posted on 12/26/2013 1:54:43 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("I've never seen such a conclave of minstrels in my life.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Homosexual activists probably have the same agenda as the left who are using the “average” homosexual as a pawn - criminalizing Christianity.

The hatred is visceral among the activists and the left.


17 posted on 12/26/2013 1:54:54 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

thx. I never let anybody get away with that when I’m speaking with them. Short response: “Please choose another pejorative, because I don’t think they fear [fill in the blank].”


18 posted on 12/26/2013 1:57:09 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Bob

OK. I saw a post last week that said he was going to start taping the next season.


19 posted on 12/26/2013 2:07:16 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MrB
The hatred is visceral among the activists and the left.

Yes, and demonic.

20 posted on 12/26/2013 2:10:16 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

Actually, it is the straight liberals that are the true homophobes.

A&E is a great example. What they did was out of fear of the homosexual lobby.

Blessings.


21 posted on 12/26/2013 2:10:49 PM PST by bobo1 (progressives=socialism/commies/fascists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JudyinCanada

That’s where the left is winning this war. A young high schooler thought my two brothers were a homosexual couple because they lived together in the same place. We all reacted shocked, wondering where she got that idea. She didn’t see anything wrong with the idea in the first place.

Parents who have any love for their kids will start getting involved more at the local level and stop this BS.


22 posted on 12/26/2013 2:12:07 PM PST by Ladysmith (Every time another lib loses its job, an angel gets its wings.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
First, we never hear from these supposedly “conservative” or “moderate” homosexuals unless it’s to do damage control to protect their agenda (which is to fully legitimize homosexuality in society).

Clearly, they aren't going to go against their own goals or what they perceive as their own interest. Isn't that true of most people? And aren't "moderates" by definition people who point out that others have gone too far?

We should NEVER accept the support of activist homosexuals because their motive is ALWAYS self-preservation of their agenda, never on principle.

He's talking about 'supposedly “conservative” or “moderate” homosexuals' who aren't necessarily "activist homosexuals." Presumably self-preservation is high on their list of concerns, but they may or may not support a broader agenda.

This doesn't seem to go beyond the obvious. If you want to have nothing to do with the gay thing -- movement, agenda, or whatever -- you might not cite homosexuals even when they agree with you. Homosexuals, even when they agree with you, aren't going to renounce or attack homosexuality. Yes. And? So what?

23 posted on 12/26/2013 2:15:57 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler

Also, in reference to what someone else said about homosexuality being another sin - just like all the sins listed in the Bible ... I’ll have to point out that it’s QUITE UNIQUE in comparison to other sins. ............
**********
I might also add that some sins are more serious than others, as evidenced by the punishments meted out for them. A theft of food by a hungry man for example, would lead only to a penalty of multiple re-payment, whereas the penalty for sodomy was always death.


24 posted on 12/26/2013 2:18:22 PM PST by Socon-Econ ( is no model of USA-style democracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

OK. I saw a post last week that said he was going to start taping the next season.

*************

It would be interesting if you could find that post and link to it.


25 posted on 12/26/2013 2:20:50 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: x
And aren't "moderates" by definition people who point out that others have gone too far?

No. "Moderates" are people who have no principles, who strive to be half ill/half well to avoid the "extremist" appearance of optimal health.

26 posted on 12/26/2013 2:21:02 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

About time someone said this. Our side has caved on the idea of homosexuality as a perversion that has been historically criminalized and in fact violates universal Noachide morality.


27 posted on 12/26/2013 2:21:57 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (The Left: speaking power to truth since Shevirat HaKelim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cincinnati65

Because to homos it isn’t even SSA (Same Sex Attraction) that defines their raison d’être as it is their pursuit of the physical act. And it is all about their effort to “normatize” their behavior (ie: force us to accept it as normal).


28 posted on 12/26/2013 2:24:27 PM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

The lastest I’ve found but can’t vouch for it’s accuracy regarding the suspension .

snip

I Stand with Phil Robertson petition grows

...While A&E has said it plans to air the already-completed fifth season of the show
beginning in January, the Robertson family has said it won’t return to the show
for more episodes without its patriarch.

So far, the network has yet to comment definitively on the future of Robertson, or the
show, after the upcoming season. Robertson has refused to back down from his comments.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/12/26/I-Stand-with-Phil-Robertson-petition-grows/2621388066493/#ixzz2ocerSbYS


29 posted on 12/26/2013 2:28:18 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bobo1
Actually, it is the straight liberals that are the true homophobes. A&E is a great example. What they did was out of fear of the homosexual lobby.

Great observation. It is actually those who grovel before the homosexual orthodoxy out of fear of what the Gaystapo will do to them if they don't.

30 posted on 12/26/2013 2:33:54 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

So when somebody goes too far, you don’t point it out because you’re optimally healthy and all that?


31 posted on 12/26/2013 2:38:48 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: x

You think that being optimally healthy is going too far?


32 posted on 12/26/2013 2:39:43 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

> “We must remember that the “gay” movement is a single, united cult of cultural Marxists, following the Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic.”

Yeah, this is pretty much it in a nutshell. I will attempt lower the level of the philosophical terms to a level that the man in the street can understand.

First, I am happy to see him put quotation marks around the word ‘gay’ because it indicates he knows the usage of this word by homosexuals is a fraud.

Also I will disagree somewhat with characterizing the homosexual ‘cult’, and it is indeed a cult, as a cult of cultural Marxists. Rather they are a cult of fascists with hidden motives who use deceit in just about everything they do.

And the I will make the following comment on Lively’s main point which is at its core “don’t trust them” before I decode his reference to the “Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic”.

The only time when a homosexual will seek a true alliance with those that fear God, is when some aspect of their own survival compels them to make nice with their enemies who are those that fear God. Never mind that those that fear God do not design to make themselves enemies. Those that fear God are those that have the courage to call out sin for what it is in whatever form it is manifest, and to try and avoid it. Because of this homosexuals deem those that fear God as ‘enemies’ because there is resistance is erasing homosexuality from the knowledge of what is sin.

Hegel was an early 19th century German philosopher but this is not so relevant to the meaning of ‘Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic’ for the person on the street.

Dialectic is a term used by philosophers to describe methods of investigating opinions. But this is not really so relevant as well (it is relevant to philosophers).

So it remains to decode ‘thesis-antithesis-synthesis’ in the context of shaping opinions.

Thesis: According to the Bible acts of homosexuality are sinful.

Antithesis: The Bible never mentions ‘homosexuality’. The Bible refers to ‘unnatural’ acts which are committed by both hetero and homo sexuals; and the meaning of ‘unnatural’ from the ancient Greek connotes ‘beyond’ the boundaries of what is considered ‘natural’, for example bestiality.

Synthesis: Homosexuality is natural.

The homosexual synthesis to the person in the street: The fringe groups of Christian haters have it all wrong. Homosexuality is normal and exists among monogamous, loving, responsible and compassionate same-sex couples.

What Lively is saying when he refers to the ‘Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic’ is the homosexual first stringers are smart enough to draw the debate into a discussion where they take an argument against them, put in their opposite argument and then put together a conclusion which favors their side of the argument.

Lively is saying do not give them this opportunity because they aim to confuse and deceive.

And he is spot on about that.

When you listen to the Devil, he has a very smooth tongue and can talk you into anything. He can even convince you that it was God who was the aggressor. Once you walk down that path, you are lost.


33 posted on 12/26/2013 2:46:14 PM PST by Hostage (ARTICLE V)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
We're all part something, part something else.

But politics isn't like health. You can't always be sure of what is the right course of action in given situation. Whatever your position or principles, somebody will always come along and take things too far or move too fast.

So you may actually find yourself a moderate in some people's eyes if you're not careful.

34 posted on 12/26/2013 2:47:12 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan

Can you tell me how gay became the term for homosexual?


35 posted on 12/26/2013 2:48:56 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Bob

I will not watch the shows that are produced without him in them. So I may as well stop watching now.


36 posted on 12/26/2013 2:51:00 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: x

How does one be “moderate” concerning homosexuality?


37 posted on 12/26/2013 2:52:38 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: sport
Can you tell me how gay became the term for homosexual?

Activist homosexuals will say that WE started it.

Seriously, they claim that it was a pejorative given to them by normal society, which they just claimed and ran with. Yet another lie concocted by the brood of liars.

38 posted on 12/26/2013 2:57:29 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sport

Are shows now being produced without Phil?

If so, then shame on the Robertson family! They should refuse to budge until Phil is back.


39 posted on 12/26/2013 2:59:34 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Thanks. I heard that it was a French term. At any rate, I do not subscribe to it. Of course I am not politically correct.


40 posted on 12/26/2013 2:59:49 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: fwdude
So often people obsess over every little difference of opinion in people who they agree with, but view everybody they disagree with as one mammoth monolith with no internal differences or shades of opinion. Maybe it's worth pointing out that reality is rarely like that.

In any case, even your article's writer talks about "moderate homosexuals." He does use the phrase, though he tries to back away from it later, so your quarrel is more with him than with me.

41 posted on 12/26/2013 3:04:04 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: sport

If I use any semblance of the term, I say “geh,” as in “eh...”


42 posted on 12/26/2013 3:04:07 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: x
In any case, even your article's writer talks about "moderate homosexuals." He does use the phrase, though he tries to back away from it later, so your quarrel is more with him than with me.

If you read carefully, you'd notice that he prefaced such a term with "supposedly." That makes a world of difference.

43 posted on 12/26/2013 3:05:55 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Exactly right

Also heard Kirstin Powers call Phil a bigot!


44 posted on 12/26/2013 3:35:44 PM PST by Guenevere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

No.....the Robertson family had just wrapped up their taping for the next season before this happened


45 posted on 12/26/2013 3:38:55 PM PST by Guenevere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

They have REFUSED


46 posted on 12/26/2013 3:41:30 PM PST by Guenevere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

The Robertsons have already stated they will not do the show without him.


47 posted on 12/26/2013 3:57:35 PM PST by montag813 (NO AMNESTY * ENFORCE THE LAW * http://StandWithArizona.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Star Traveler
"Also, in reference to what someone else said about homosexuality being another sin - just like all the sins listed in the Bible ... I’ll have to point out that it’s QUITE UNIQUE in comparison to other sins. I said the following in another posting elsewhere ... AND ... this shows how God’s wrath plays into it."

I agree with you, Star Traveler. It's just my opinion, but I believe there's a reason homosexual acts cause such a visceral reaction of disgust in normal people. God spoke of homosexuality as an abomination, and called it detestable; just as we all have an inborn knowledge of His existence, we are also born with a natural response to such unnatural acts.

48 posted on 12/26/2013 4:38:45 PM PST by CatherineofAragon ((Support Christian white males----the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Glad to hear.


49 posted on 12/26/2013 7:54:01 PM PST by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sport

The word “gay” seems to have its origins around the 12th century in England, derived from the Old French word ‘gai’, which in turn was probably derived from a Germanic word, though that isn’t completely known. The word’s original meaning meant something to the effect of “joyful”, “carefree”, “full of mirth”, or “bright and showy”.

However, around the early parts of the 17th century, the word began to be associated with immorality. By the mid 17th century, according to an Oxford dictionary definition at the time, the meaning of the word had changed to mean “addicted to pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life”. This is an extension of one of the original meanings of “carefree”, meaning more or less uninhibited.

Fast-forward to the 19th century and the word gay referred to a woman who was a prostitute and a gay man was someone who slept with a lot of women, often prostitutes. Sort of ironical that today a gay man doesn’t sleep with women. :-) Also at this time, the phrase “gay it” meant to have sex.

With these new definitions, the original meanings of “carefree”, “joyful”, and “bright and showy” were still around; so the word was not exclusively used to refer to prostitutes or a promiscuous man. Those were just accepted definitions, along with the other meanings of the word.

Around the 1920s and 1930s, however, the word started to have a new meaning. In terms of the sexual meaning of the word, a “gay man” no longer just meant a man who had sex with a lot of women, but now started to refer to men who had sex with other men. There was also another word “gey cat” at this time which meant a homosexual boy.

By 1955, the word gay now officially acquired the new added definition of meaning homosexual males. Gay men themselves seem to have been behind the driving thrust for this new definition as they felt (and most still do), that “homosexual” is much too clinical sounding and is often thought of as offensive among gay people due to sounding like a disorder. As such, it was common amongst themselves to refer to one another as “gay” decades before this was a commonly known definition (reportedly homosexual men were calling one another gay as early as the 1920s). At this time, homosexual women were referred to as lesbians, not gay. Although women could still be called gay if they were prostitutes as that meaning had not yet 100% disappeared.

Since then, gay, meaning homosexual male, has steadily driven out all the other definitions that have floated about through time and of course also has gradually begun supplementing the word ‘lesbian’ as referring to women who are homosexual.

Not satisfied with simply changing its definition once a century, as early as the 1980s a new definition for the word gay started popping up among American youth where now something gay could either mean a homosexual or something that is “lame” or “stupid” or the like. This new definition was originally almost exclusively meant as an insulting term, derogatorily referencing homosexuals.

However, according to a report done by the BBC, most children are still using the word to mean “lame”, but now with having nothing to do with sexuality of any sort and also not generally meant as an insulting term against homosexuals. Now it is used more to the effect of just saying, for instance, “That movie was gay” as in stupid, but having nothing to do with homosexuality in their minds and not generally directed at people (thus not supposedly meant to be offensive to the gay community). Whereas the origins of this new “lame” or “stupid” definition were most definitely meant to be insulting and were primarily directed at people.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/02/how-gay-came-to-mean-homosexual/


50 posted on 12/26/2013 9:29:12 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson