Skip to comments.Danger Lurking in Duck Dynasty Debacle
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 Robertsons comments as bigotry. Lots of pro-family people are quoting Brandon Ambrosinos 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.
Im 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 its 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!
"...we never hear from these supposedly 'conservative' or 'moderate' homosexuals unless its 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.
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?
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.
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 Gods 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 manand 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 ... :-) ...
Im 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 ...
Also, in reference to what someone else said about homosexuality being another sin - just like all the sins listed in the Bible ... Ill have to point out that its QUITE UNIQUE in comparison to other sins. I said the following in another posting elsewhere ... AND ... this shows how Gods 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 Gods judgement upon them in that they are to do these things to themselves. They, therefore, receive gods 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!
Huh? I thought Phil was back on the show?
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.
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.
Interesting how homosexuals have apparently gotten so many sites classified as “Unsafe,” and you get a big warning if you try to open it.
He is only in episodes that were taped before his suspension. New episodes will supposedly be done without him.
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.
Huh. So did I. "Unsafe for Children." Right...I just chucked WOT.
I’m not at all afraid of homosexuals.
I just don’t agree with them.
That’s not a phobia at all.
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.
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].”
OK. I saw a post last week that said he was going to start taping the next season.
Yes, and demonic.
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.
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.
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?
Also, in reference to what someone else said about homosexuality being another sin - just like all the sins listed in the Bible ... Ill have to point out that its 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.
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.
No. "Moderates" are people who have no principles, who strive to be half ill/half well to avoid the "extremist" appearance of optimal health.
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.
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).
The lastest I’ve found but can’t vouch for it’s accuracy regarding the suspension .
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.
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.
So when somebody goes too far, you don’t point it out because you’re optimally healthy and all that?
You think that being optimally healthy is going too far?
> “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.
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.
Can you tell me how gay became the term for homosexual?
I will not watch the shows that are produced without him in them. So I may as well stop watching now.
How does one be “moderate” concerning homosexuality?
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.
Are shows now being produced without Phil?
If so, then shame on the Robertson family! They should refuse to budge until Phil is back.
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.
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 I use any semblance of the term, I say “geh,” as in “eh...”
If you read carefully, you'd notice that he prefaced such a term with "supposedly." That makes a world of difference.
Also heard Kirstin Powers call Phil a bigot!
No.....the Robertson family had just wrapped up their taping for the next season before this happened
They have REFUSED
The Robertsons have already stated they will not do the show without him.
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.
Glad to hear.
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 isnt completely known. The words 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 doesnt 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.