Winds of Change in the Gay Rights Movement?
La Shawn Barber bring to our attention this New York Times article (registration required) regarding the gay rights movement and gay marriage:
The leadership of the Human Rights Campaign, at a meeting last weekend in Las Vegas, concluded that the group must bow to political reality and moderate its message and its goals. One official said the group would consider supporting President BushÃs efforts to privatize Social Security partly in exchange for the right of gay partners to receive benefits under the program.
Ms. Barber is still a bit gloomy about the overall outlook – pointing out that a society which has to debate whether or not two men should be allowed to marry is a bit far down the road to perdition; I look at it in a more positive light, however. My view has long been that the gay rights movement strayed from the goal of greater tolerance of homosexuality and became a movement at war with western civilization and it’s Judeo-Christian roots. In short, they went from wanting the very American thing of being left alone to do what they please in private to trying to enforce the notion on everyone else that there was no moral difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality. Over the years I warned gay friends and people I argued with in the gay rights community that this was a shortcut to a massive backlash against the very concept of gay rights. The votes this past November 2nd vindicated me on this – the overwhelming victory in 11 States, some of which also voted for Kerry, for anti-gay marriage proposals clearly shows that the American people hold that there is a moral difference and that it must be maintained in law and custom. It seems that some in the gay rights community are also coming to this realisation. They are also coming to realise, it would seem, that their real friends are among the conservatives who prize individual liberty, rather than among the leftwing statists who were only cruelly using gay Americans as a whip to flog the United States in general and Christians in particular.
While the preponderance of evidence states that homosexuality has a genetic origin, the plain fact of the matter is that genetics do not necessarily determine action – no one has to carry out the desire to have homosexual sex any more than a person genetically pre-disposed to alchoholism has to become a drunk. That said, a person has the perfect right to do what they please (within reason) and it is no one else’s business what they do – just as nobody should be discomforted because they worship the son of a carpenter they consider the Son of God so, too, should nobody be bothered if they act on their belief that personal fulfillment requires them to have sex with members of their same sex. This is pure, distilled conservatism – and if the real desire is just to be able to work and live in society and not be bothered for one’s private, personal proclivities, then conseravtism is the only place to be – and the fact that some in the gay rights movement are considering joining into the fight for privatised Social Security shows a growing wisdom and maturity. They are, after all, really one in the same issue – the desire to control one’s own without let or hindrance from any other.
Getting back to Ms. Barber’s gloom and doom – I understand full well that there is, for a Christian, an unseemliness in such things as homosexuality. We have, as anyone can easily see, a very degraded and trashy society – but my view is that the degradation and trash is all essentially enforced; we are forced to have it because the levers of power, especially cultural power, have been exercised by people with an anti-western, anti-Christian agenda. Tagging along with these fanatics has been a larger, non-fanatic group which has bought the idiotic notion that Christianity in particular, and western civilization in general, is oppressive of individual liberty. Nothing could be further from the truth – even back in the depths of the Dark Ages, western people have had far more individual liberty than any non-western peoples have ever had; the fact that the west has never been enslaved to traditionalism is the reason why it was the west which advanced from bottom to top in the world order while the rest of the world stagnated. If there is, as the article indicates, a dawning realisation of this truth, then we’re getting rapidly on the right track – on track to a time when we can separate the genuine liberal from the false liberal. If we can do this, then we can have a society where we are no longer forced to view filth and degradation on a daily basis but still have a geniunely free society where individuals both look after their own and rule their own.
It is an exciting time to be alive – while American arms are bringing liberty to the darkened corners of the world, American conservatism is breaking down the last bastions of leftism in the United States thus allowing the United States to reclaim it’s ancient liberties while securing the same for others around the world. We must have faith in freedom – and the more strongly we believe in God, the stronger our faith in liberty must be. If we truly hold that God rules the world for our benefit, then we know that when people are given a real choice, they will choose wisely most of the time.
11 Responses to “Winds of Change in the Gay Rights Movement?”
Hello, my name is Matt Margolis, the founder of Blogs For Bush, one of the most successful and popular blogs in 2004, during the presidential campaign.
Blogs For Bush was launched in November 2003 and ended in November 2007. This site is no longer active, but is being kept online as a reference for those interested in the 2004 campaign, and for bloggers wishing to start their own grassroots blog.
Prediction: gays supporting any part of Bush’s agenda (SocSec reform or others) will face the same treatment as Mary Cheney. The Kerry-Bush debate was Clarence Thomas redux. What kept Kerry from repeating the Dems’ Senate Judiciary Committee behavior was less time to prep and the cost-benefit analysis of a campaign deadline.
Hi. Here in Canada the gay movement certainly has taken on steam, after the November elections. It’s a very interesting issue to watch. I tend to support the position of “leave us alone to be as we are”, which is how I think most canadians would like it to be. Forcing the issue onto the national agenda, especially gay marriage rights, is opening up some extremely heated debate.
Keep on writing…
Cheers,
Drew Harris
http://single-christians.net
I agree wholeheartedly with this, Sydney is *the* gay capital of the world, and they have tried to go down the same path, except that they were wiser than to shove the issue before our election in October.
The thing I dislike most about all this is the agressive stance that the Gay lobby groups take on these issues, as though they have some divine right to marriage.
Homosexuality, is still socially unacceptable, however much the left side tries to tell us otherwise, shoving an issue so close to an election, and so close to the average persons heart was a tactic that was bound to backfire on them, and once again shows the arrogance of the left sympathisers who felt that this would put pressure on our Governments to give them what they want.
I admire Bush (and our Howard) for taking a firm stand on this issue, its not an issue to be treated lightly, the left have a whole string of social engineering projects, and agendas they are waiting to inflict on everyone, and some of them are absolutely distressing, they are just chipping away at the moral fibre of our society bit by bit.
I have no problems with Gay people, they live their lives the way they want to, I know some Gay clients who are fairly good to do business with, but I cannot accept their lifestyle as normal, its not normal, I know what goes on in the gay scene, I grew up and lived,and socialised in the heart of Sydney for 30 years, by and large their social life is a life of sensual squalor, thats what they want to do, its fine by me, but I dont want any one telling me its normal, or worse I dont want some left union leaning teacher teaching that this is normal to my children at school.
If heterosexuals flaunted their sexuality the way homosexuals do we would be deemed abnormal……and lets not even to go into the reverse discrimination that they are so good at practicing.
Personally, I now discount MUCH of what the ‘human rights campaign’ talks about, supports or has to offer. They were started with a nobel goal in mind and very real reasons. They have mutated into an organization that is really nothing more than another socialist front. They want everyone smeared with the same paintbrush, there are no rights and wrongs. There are no rich or poor. The world should not celebrate excellence we should, instead, pump up sameness. Their organization leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Process, process, process. The problem is that the homosexual community has gotten their process blocks out of order. First you sell the concept that their behavior is somehow to be considered ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’, which for most people they have not.
Then you start squawking about ‘rights.’ Then maybe you can set the group up as a victim group that needs the protection of the law. But first you have to sell the idea that what they do is ‘normal.’ They have not.
But first you have to sell the idea that what they do is ‘normal.’ They have not.
I think they know they will never convince the majority that what they do is “normal.” So instead, their goal has been to convince the majority that homosexuals are normal people, “just like you and me.” Thus the exposure more and more homosexuals have gotten in the past 5-10 years on TV in shows like Will and Grace, Ellen (Degeneres), Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, etc. Obviously, there isn’t a big enough demographic of homosexuals in the world, let alone the country, for them to put on shows like this if they were geared specifically to homosexuals. But that is not their target audience. While I would guess that many homosexuals enjoy these shows, their main purpose is to draw in the heterosexual audience to “educate” them to the ‘normal’ ways of homosexuals. After more and more of these shows get on the air and are in the public eye, people begin to say, based on characters such as in Will and Grace, “homosexuals aren’t so bad.”
So now people have been hooked by the first part of the homosexual agenda. Once they get people to stop thinking of homosexuals as deviant people with an abnormal lifestyle, the next step is to say that the lifestyle itself is not deviant or abnormal. If they establish that, then they know they can clamor for their “rights.”
But you hit it on the head, Scaramonga. They jumped ahead of their own long term plan. This has been in motion for 10-20-30 years now, it has just been subtle. It was started in brisk motion once they forced the psychiatric community to take homosexuality off the list of psychological disorders (or whatever it had been listed as, meaning homosexuality was in the same group as pedophiles, murderers, etc). Once they forced the psychiatrists’ hand and got the medical world to declare homosexuality could be genetic (meaning it was natural, not a choice), that sent the wheels in motion for the next part of their plan to push their agenda.
However, they got ahead of themselves and became overzealous. I believe they woke up a sleeping giant with their blatant breaking of the laws to force homosexual “marriage” on the country in Massachusetts and San Francisco, etc. Had they not done that, and kept with their brilliant plan to slowly get the country to accept their behavior and lifestyle, I have a feeling they could have succeeded. However, they have, at best, set themselves back years, and, at worst, ruined their movement entirely and lost many who would have sympathized with them.
The one big mistake they made was trying to hijack marriage. Had they come out fighting for civil unions, acknowledging that marriage was a union of a man and woman, but wanting the same rights, they most likely would have gotten it. As it is though, they couldn’t hide their agenda of wanting to tear down the institution of marriage and the Christian community in general because of their non-acceptance of their deviant lifestyle.
It’s ironic though. The homosexual activists probably did more to destroy their own movement than anyone opposing them.
The homosexual activists probably did more to destroy their own movement than anyone opposing them.
Sorta like the donks, no?
This is just one issue among many where the United States is moving to the right, whereas the rest of the Western world is moving to the left.
I would tend to think gay marriage will eventually happen in America (a majority of young voters support it), but opposition is strong. I personally couldn’t care less. It doesn’t affect me one bit.
The problem is…gay and lesbians haven’t really set the “line.” They get really angry whenever people ask what’s to stop incest, polygamy if marriage gets rewritten this way, (the “slippery slope” argument) but they never flat out say that they would make certain such things never happen.
There is, for example, another step down the line that’s right out in the open. So-called “Transgendered.” Not politically correct to say, but this is NOT normal and I will never support it.
And yet at some point, all the gay/lesbian advocacy groups changed to GLBT. I’ll accept the reasoning that if Gay and Lesbian is okay, Bisexual is…(not including multiple partners) but surgically removing one’s sexual organs because you don’t think your gender is “right?”
….no…no….no. There’s so many health problems there, and that’s just physically. (Male bodies are NOT meant to have hormones, etc and vice-versa)
And this is NOT something that was just ushered in through the backdoor. It’s been included part and parcel.
Case in point. The Rocky Horror Picture Show.
This is NOT the example of folks interested in the traditional values of marriage, just with the same gender.
Yet it’s practically one of the flagships of gay culture.
Gay magazines constantly praise it, GLBT groups set up mass-viewings. I have never heard a criticism of it.
And yet…it (nor the concept of transgender) never comes up when gays/lesbians justify that there’s no challenge to the concept of marriage. It’s just not PC to discuss, apparently.
They want it both ways now, go figure:
It Doesn’t Matter Why
Our sympathy for the blind person, regardless of the cause of the blindness, should not extend to tolerance for the blind person engaging in the behavior of driving a car.