Now that judges in California have manufactured a "right" for homosexuals to call their unions "marriage," lawsuits are expected in other states--especially those with no constitutional amendments protecting marriage, or the few states that don't even have Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA).
That expectation may not necessarily come to pass right away, however, according to an article by OneNewsNow.
The article focuses on a "marriage battle plan" put together by nine pro-homosexual groups: Human Rights Campaign, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD), Lambda Legal, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), Equality Federation, and Freedom to Marry. The plan is called "Make Change, Not Lawsuits" (PDF).
The strategy calls for a slower approach that could have greater impact in the long run than filing lawsuits to force homosexual "marriage" on other states.
Instead, the pro-homosexual document argues that homosexual couples who have "married" in Massachusetts and California should simply put their relationships in front of friends and family and demand that it be treated as normal. That, says Staver, is a process he calls "progressive desensitization."
"Essentially, they are doing the so-called 'boil the frog in the water' routine," he speculates. "They're wanting to, basically, prepare the ground, prepare the ideas and thinking so that, one day, you just simply wake up and same-sex 'marriage' has become commonplace," he explains. "And then, once people accept that kind of relationship, then they're going to bring out the cross-dressers, the transvestites, the trans-sexuals, and other kinds of deviant activity."
The frog in the boiling water. That is indeed what has put us where we are. The homosexual agenda has been pushed just slow enough that the general public never quite wakes up to the danger and "jumps out of the pot." The temperature is so hot at this point, however, our goose is almost cooked.
Pro-family groups and individuals are going to have to wake up and abandon this losing defensive strategy they've fought for decades. Wars aren't won with defensive strategies, and there has undoubtedly been a war against marriage, family, morality and traditional values for a long time. It's time to go on the offensive and regain the ground we've forfeited in the last 50 years.
18 comments:
"And then, once people accept that kind of relationship, then they're going to bring out the cross-dressers, the transvestites, the trans-sexuals, and other kinds of deviant activity."
Bob, I know you didn't write this part, but I'm wondering if you agree with it. Personally, I don't see how cross-dressing is deviant. Kind of funny, maybe, and certainly not an interest of mine, but deviant? What threat does it pose?
I do, Josh. I agree with you that from a purely base and crass perspective (which most of us have to some extent), that yeah, it's kinda funny.
But yes, it's deviant. "Deviant" means deviating, especially from the norm. The norm is that men appear as men, women appear as women. When we blur the distinctions between males and females (as homosexuality and all its manifestations does), we not only violate God's design and distinction for the sexes, we add confusion to society and make a mockery of those God-given distinctions.
I'm proud to be a man, but a woman has every reason to be proud to be a woman. God gave both men and women strengths and weaknesses, and functional areas where they perform better than the opposite sex. Neither of us is less valuable or deserving of dignity than the other, but we are different.
Men should embrace their masculinity and live up to the responsibilities God and nature gave them. It's what's best and most healthy for them, for society, and for developing (and potentially confused) children who may be watching them to learn what's normal. When developing children see deviancy, they may get the mistaken impression that deviancy itself is normal--and that's destructive functionally, mentally, emotionally and spiritually.
And screwed-up people are not good for the health and productivity of society.
I hope that answers your question.
Thanks for explaining, Bob. I understand where you're coming from, but I respectfully disagree. "Deviant" does mean something that departs from the norm, but that's not necessarily a bad or "wrong" thing. Imagine an African Muslim who moves into a predominantly white, Christian town. He certainly deviates from the norm -- his appearance, beliefs, lifestyle, accent, etc. -- but that doesn't necessarily imply anything negative about his morality or personal qualities, and it doesn't mean we should consider him "screwed-up," just because he doesn't fit inside the norm.
I think the same thing applies to cross-dressing, *to a degree*. First of all, cross-dressing/transvestism do not necessarily coincide with homosexuality; in fact, many transvestites are heterosexual. But look at the way people dress today -- the women's "power suit" is a classic example. It's obviously modeled after the men's business suit, and we associate it with a career-driven woman because she's expected to show masculine qualities in the workforce. Women used to be expected to wear dresses and never pants, so by today's modern standards, a woman going to work in a full-length dress instead of pants and a blouse would be considered outside the norm, or deviant. But that doesn't make it wrong.
Another example is Catholic priests, who often wear long flowing robes and various adornments during mass. We don't usually associate men with dress-like clothing, yet there they are. Again, it doesn't fit the norm of what men typically wear, but it's also not wrong.
We commonly stereotype cross-dressers as drag queens and "weirdos," but if you think about it, you'll realize that it's all around us in subtle ways. And besides, if someone measures a man's masculinity based on what he chooses to wear, that person should look deeper.
You have some good points, Josh.
Departure from the norm isn't necessarily bad. The example you gave of the black Muslim in the predominately white Christian town is a good one. Nothing inherently wrong in being black in a mostly white area, and from a strictly objective perspective, nothing wrong with being Muslim in a predominately Christian area.
Your points regarding the way people dress today also has some merit. Some examples such as the female "power suit" are ones that might push the envelope a bit without reaching what we'd think of as "cross dressing." Though I will say that having spent a lot of years working in the corporate environment where "power suits" aren't uncommon, most women still manage to look feminine in them. I would disagree with you substantially about the priests robes; they aren't that common today in secular society, but the robe garment has been common for both sexes for thousands of years, and has slowly worked it's way out of commonality over the last 1000-2000 or so. But even in ancient times, robes were tailored in such a way as to accent the feminine or masculine.
The cross-dresser, however, clearly crosses way over the line, however, with a deliberate and intentional effort to appear the opposite of what his sex is. This can involve wearing underwear that is clearly made for females, dresses (that clearly aren't robes), feminine makeup and such.
In other words, the cross-dresser is making a deliberate attempt to mask his (or her) God-given sex and make it appear the opposite of what it is.
Bob,
You do have some good points, but would you also agree that it's far more acceptable (or at least, less unacceptable) for a woman to appear masculine than for a man to appear feminine? A woman might wear men's boxers as underwear simply because they're comfortable, not to make a radical, in-your-face statement. But if a man wears ladies panties, we automatically assume there's something wrong. Why the double standard?
Not a direct question, just something to consider.
Society in general probably is more tolerant of that. To me, both are equally inappropriate.
Perhaps the double standard has come about because women have been blurring the line with masculinity for a long time with things like masculine pants, masculine shirts, short haircuts, working in roles typically more suited to men's greater physical stamina.
Maybe it's because society looks to and expects strength from men (not to say that women can't be strong, but feminine women usually express that strength in more subtle ways than men), and when a man dresses as a woman, they consider that synonymous with weakness, which is generally unattractive.
I don't know for sure, though. Those are just guesses. All I know is that both male-to-female and female-to-male are equally wrong to me.
Really? You think that a woman wearing men's boxers purely for comfort reasons is inappropriate? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, but seriously interested in how someone could feel that way.
If she's wearing them purely for comfort, then nobody would know, would they?
Huh? That doesn't answer my question.
In other words, if she's wearing them purely for comfort (which frankly I don't understand, but okay), then she's not attempting to be something she's not or portray herself as something she's not, and she's not confusing sex roles, and she's not doing it for the purpose of inciting sexual excitement. And if she's not doing any of these things, then nobody's going to know she even has them on, will they?
Besides, I think we both know that such a scenario doesn't even come close to how a cross dresser would behave.
When calling for a cultural war, be careful what you wish for. You may get it.
There's no need to "call for" a culture war; it's already been here for a long time. Homosexual activists and other liberals declared it a LONG time ago. If you're not aware of that, you've either been off-planet for a while, or you're the average Christian.
Bob,
You seem to have a thing for painting one side of this "war" as homosexual activists and liberals, and the other side as "the average Christian." As I said in another comment on a different thread, while you may not have started the us vs. them mentality, you certainly have the power and opportunity to end it.
But what do you do? Continue looking at the issue as a "war," implying that either side has its set beliefs and goals. Well, if you lived on planet earth, you'd see that it's not quite so simple. Many "average" Christians want to see equal rights for gay people, and many gay activists have different goals; some want to redefine the word "marriage," while others prefer "civil unions" as a way for "marriage" to retain its religious/cultural meaning. Also, some Republicans favor equal rights for gays, while some Democrats do not.
Whichever way you choose to stereotype the issue, you can rest assured that you will lose. Religious fanatics like yourself look more ridiculous and outdated with every passing day. In the end, you come off as little more than a raving zealot.
You're "power to end" this war would be to surrender. That's not going to happen. Sane people don't surrender when they are right, and the health and future of society is at stake.
The "average" Christians to whom you refer who want special rights (homosexuals already have equal rights) for homosexuals are being completely unfaithful to the Bible they claim to base their faith in. The authority for the Christian faith is the Bible, and any claim made contrary to the Bible is an un-Christian claim. I cannot speak for the state of their soul, but in making the claim that homosexuality is not a sin, they run counter to what God says, and that's not something a Christian in good standing would do.
Bob,
No, your (notice I didn't write "you're"; buy a grammar handbook - the editor of an online publication should know the basics, for pete's sake!) power is, as I've said in other comments, to help bridge the gap and do all that you can to ease the bitter opposition that both sides of this "war" are guilty of perpetuating. You know that you're right, and the opponents know that they're right. The only realistic alternative is a compromise.
You defensively interpret this as surrender, but that needn't be the case. You are totally free to represent your opinions on this and any issue, but I think the more productive approach would be to avoid lumping everyone into either "us" or "them." So far, you've managed to label "us" as right, rational, conservative, biblical, moral, responsible, and normal. And you've characterized "them" as immoral, liberal, misguided, lost, screwed-up, deviant, insane, and of course, wrong. Just look at the news you report! Everything I read here typifies gay people in nothing but a negative way -- so how can Christians NOT look good by default, right? It's propaganda, plain and simple.
Speaking as objectively as I can, "you" and "they" all come off as equally alarmist, illogical, argumentative, condescending, uncooperative, self-righteous, and wrong on various counts. I know it's hard for someone who knows he's "right" to see how any of these adjectives apply to himself, but it's important to take a step back and really examine how you represent your side. As things are, it isn't pretty.
If you continue in this fashion, you are only going to create more division, Bob. And I know you blame "them" for starting this so-called culture war, but that doesn't give you license to descend to "their" level of aggressive opposition. Don't forget, there is more than enough blame to go around. Gay activists and their supporters have done questionable and objectionable things, but Christians have done far, far worse throughout history. And I predict that you'll respond with "Well, they weren't following God's truth; they were misguided." That doesn't matter. You can rationalize all you want -- it will never change the fact that Christianity has a lot of blood on its hands, and is responsible for death, destruction, and heartache, on a scale that the dreaded "homosexual activists" will never match. Remember that as you report your stories about how wrong "they" are and how right "we" are.
And frankly, you have no room to speak about sanity. As I've said, the more you base your beliefs and political positions on an ancient storybook about talking snakes, ritualized cannibalism, human sacrifices, virgin births, and an invisible friend who lives in the sky, the more insane you appear.
If you've read what I've written as closely as you allege, you might have noticed that I used the word a couple of other times in this post alone correctly, and though I probably wrote more than 10,000 words altogether yesterday and was so tired when I wrote that comment that I was a walking zombie, I own the mistake. It was one of carelessness, not ignorance.
But that mistake illustrates something about Christianity that I think you're missing. Christians aren't perfect and none of the sane or honest ones have claimed to be. We still have the same old sin nature every human is born with, and it wars with what we know is right. Sometimes we give in to what we know is wrong, sometimes we get careless (like I did with my grammar), and sometimes we don't even bother to read or follow the instruction manual (the Bible).
We wouldn't say that the dictionary or grammar rules are bad or ineffective or worthless because I misspelled or misused the conjunction "you're," would we? Of course not. The book isn't at fault; I was at fault for not following the book.
Compromise is a nice-sounding and nice-feeling word, and it's no wonder so many people embrace it. It's even appropriate in a situation where the stakes are "I want" and "you want." My wife an I compromise all the time on what we'll have for dinner, what movie we'll see, and 1000 other things.
But truth should never be compromised to error. And back to the original subject of this post, homosexual behavior and the concept of homosexual "marriage" are errors. Deep, profound, fundamental errors with serious and extended consequences. For the sake of the individuals caught in this error, and society at large, there should be no compromise. You might as well "compromise" a little salmonella in your food, for legitimizing homosexual behavior and the concept of homosexual "marriage" will make our society just as ill.
You might do yourself a favor and stop listening to the ignorant criticisms of people who don't know the Bible any better than they know some obscure Babylonian text. Read it for yourself with an objective mind and see what you think. Read Genesis and John first, before you bite off some of the harder-to-digest books; they'll give you a well-grounded understanding of where man has come from, where he's at and where he's going. Don't read what someone else has said about it; read it for yourself. Read it with an objective mind and see if it's claims seem credible to you. You might be surprised.
Bob,
I have read the Bible for myself. In fact, I lived it for the first 20 years of my life. I went to church twice a week, sang in the choir, did community outreach projects, evangelized to nearly everyone I knew, and believed with all my heart that I was a true follower of Christ.
Then I went to a liberal arts college and realized that I have a brain of my own.
I have since left the Christian life behind me. Among many other things, I found Christians to be petty, hypocritical, arrogant, and unable to admit when they are wrong.
You seem to be all of these things. You insist that you know the truth, and that anyone who disagrees with you is sadly mistaken. Well guess what: that's exactly what your opponents say about you.
You're just not getting it, are you Bob? Compromise is the only solution. You are not going to back down, and neither are the "homosexual activists and liberals" with whom you so vehemently disagree. And what's more, your opponents believe in their views so strongly because they believe that THEY know the truth.
It's a safe bet that you will never be convinced you're wrong about anything, at least in terms of theology. What makes you think you can convince others to do what you cannot?
One word: arrogance. The same arrogance that I've witnessed in most Christians. The same arrogance that blinds people to reason, humility, and common sense.
Anonymous, somebody sold you a bad bill of goods, and I'm sorry you traded your eternal security for a feel-good phantom.
I don't doubt the convictions of those who are opposed to truth and morality; the Bible says some people will be strongly deluded. But the fact remains that what I'm saying is what the Bible clearly says, and it's even reinforced by science and nature which illustrate that homosexuality is a misuse of the sex organs (and other body parts), and carries with it tremendous health risks.
You can call my convictions arrogance; that's a common protest among people who refuse to admit the truth. It doesn't really bother me.
Since people like me who know the truth and will not compromise on the truth, and those who oppose the truth won't surrender to it, perhaps for our society it will come down to who can convince the voting majority of their position (or who can manipulate the majority of the judiciary, since law and democracy seems of little regard anymore).
If the majority chooses the road to Hell, there's not much I can do about it other than continue speaking the truth. But at least according to Ezekiel 3:18, my hands will be clean.
Post a Comment