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!
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.
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 ... 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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.