Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage

[bonnie]

 

 

Homosexual Activist Admits True Purpose of Battle is to Destroy Marriage

Written By Micah Clark   |   04.06.13

 

Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t  lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen.  On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda.  She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it. 

Here is what she recently said on a radio interview: 

“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. 

The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out thirty years ago. 

I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally… I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three… And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”

(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/why-get-married/4058506)

For quite some time, the defenders of natural marriage have attempted to point out that the true agenda behind the homosexual demands organizations is not marriage equality; it is the total unraveling of marriage and uprooting traditional values from society.  (This will ultimately include efforts to silence and punish some churches that openly adhere to their religious teachings about marriage and sexual morality.) 

While few have been as vocal as this lesbian activist was in this interview, we do have numerical examples proving her point.  When given the opportunity to marry, after laws have been struck down relatively small percentages of homosexuals actually bother to marry compared to their heterosexual counterparts.  This raises question about the true need to unravel marriage for the “fair” extension its benefits.  Only 12 percent of homosexuals in the Netherlands marry compared to 86 percent of their heterosexual peers.  Less than 20 percent of same-sex couples already living together in California married when given the chance in 2008.  In contrast, 91 percent of heterosexual couples in California who are living together are married. 

 Clearly this is about cultural change and tearing down the traditional family ethic, since it seems that most homosexuals living together neither need nor desire to marry, though they do desire to radically change marriage.

 Gays and lesbians are free to live as they choose, and we live in a society which roundly applauds them doing so like never before in our history, but they do not have the right to rewrite marriage for all of society.

 

Edited July 3, 2015 by bonnie

[Gregory Matthews]

The views of a few may not be the views of the majority.  Any group will have people on the edges who do not reflect the majority view.

[B/W Photodude]

Unfortunately, destruction of marriage is a goal that has been expressed by many from several different ideologies. Homosexuals, feminists, and different political persuasions have all expressed this ideal.

[bonnie]

The views of a few may not be the views of the majority.  Any group will have people on the edges who do not reflect the majority view.

Have you ever read  Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen published After the Ball: . This is some 20-25 years ago

 

The very first paragraph does not say all have said this.

Even knowing that there are radicals in all movements, doesn’t  lessen the startling admission recently by lesbian journalist Masha Gessen.  On a radio show she actually admits that homosexual activists are lying about their radical political agenda.  She says that they don’t want to access the institution of marriage; they want to radically redefine and eventually eliminate it. 

 

 

Edited July 3, 2015 by bonnie

[bonnie]

Some of the more interesting things found in this book are...... How many of these tactics can be denied.

It is a little interesting that Justice Keagan responded in her confirmation hearings that "gay marriage" was not a constitutional right

 

Desensitization: Talking about Gays and Gayness as Loudly and as Often as Possible

And I quote: “To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of keen emotion.Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference. The principle behind this advice is simple. Almost any behavior begins to look normal if you are exposed to enough of it at close quarters and among your acquaintances. The acceptability of the new behavior will ultimately hinge on the number of one’s fellows doing it or accepting it. The way to benumb raw sensibilities about homosexuality is to have a lot of people talk a great deal about the subject in a neutral or supportive way. The masses should not be shocked and repelled by premature exposure to homosexual behavior itself. Instead, the imagery of sex should be downplayed and gay rights should be reduced to an abstract social question as much as possible. Novelties cease to be novel if they just stick around long enough; they also cease to activate alerting mechanisms. You’ll have noted this in your own life: if you hear a protracted, earsplitting mechanical screech, you’ll either be so alarmed, or so annoyed, that you’ll be forced to take action; if you hear a softer–though, perhaps, nonetheless annoying–sound, like the ticking of a clock, and can’t shut it off, you will, eventually, shut it out, and may cease to hear it altogether. Apply this to the problem of homohatred. If gays present themselves– or allow themselves to be presented–as overwhelmingly different and threatening, they will put straights on a triple-red alert, driving them to overt acts of political oppression or physical violence. If, however, gays can live alongside straights, visibly but as inoffensively as possible, they will arouse a low-grade alert only, which, though annoying to straights, will eventually diminish. Straights will be desensitized.”

And I quote: “While public opinion is one primary source of mainstream values, religious authority is the other. When conservative churches condemn gays, there are only two things we can do to confound the homophobia of true believers. First we can use talk to muddy the moral waters. This means publicizing support for gays by more moderate churches, raising theological objections of our own about conservative interpretation of Biblical teaching and exposing hatred and inconsistency. We can undermine the moral authority of homophobic churches by portraying them as antiquated and backwards, badly out of step with the times and with the latest findings of psychology.”

Another popular strategy used to undermine the moral authority of Christian churches is to repeatedly point out the moral failings of churches and their leaders. Unfortunately, there are more than enough of such moral failings to keep the gay activists supplied with fresh ammunition.

Jamming: Creating an “Incompatible Emotional Response”

And I quote: “In Jamming, the target is shown a bigot being rejected by his crowd for his prejudice against gays. The ‘incompatible emotional response’ is directed primarily against the emotional rewards of prejudicial solidarity. All normal people feel shame when they perceive that they are not thinking, feeling, or acting like one of the pack. The trick is to get the bigot into the position of feeling a conflicting twinge of shame, along with his reward, whenever his homohatred surfaces, so that his reward will be diluted or spoiled. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways,all making use of repeated exposure to pictorial images or verbal statements that are incompatible with his self-image as a well-liked person, one who fits in with the rest of the crowd. Thus,propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots being criticized, hated, shunned. It can depict gays experiencing horrific suffering as the direct result of homohatred–suffering of which even most bigots would be ashamed to be the cause. It can, in short, link homohating bigotry with all sorts of attributes the bigot would be ashamed to possess, and with social consequences he would find unpleasant and scary. The attack, therefore, is on self-image and on the pleasure in hating. Remember, a bigot seeks approval and liking from ‘his crowd.’ When he sees someone like himself being disapproved of and disliked by ordinary Joes, he will feel just what they feel –and transfer it to himself. This wrinkle effectively elicits shame and doubt, Jamming any pleasure he might normally feel. Our effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.”

Examples of “Jamming” would include: 1) the repeated use of name-calling, e.g., “bigot”, “liar”, “fundie”, “bible-thumper” and “homophobe” to create a feeling of shame; and 2) the repeated use of potentially disturbing accusations, e.g., “you are part of an ever-dwindling minority”, “more and more churches are supporting gay rights”, “you’re losing” and “all of the mental health and medical associations say that there is nothing wrong or bad about being gay”, all of which are designed to make the opposition – such as born-again Christians — feel isolated, marginalized and out of the mainstream of society; 3) derogatory references to God as “your mythical sky fairy” and to His Word as the “buy-bull”; and 4) witness this trail of vitriolic comments from a single commenter concerning just one article re. homosexuality published on a Christian website…

• “You have no right to interfere with the secular political culture of this country.”
• “You can believe this nonsense all you like but do it behind closed doors and in the privacy of your own homes and churches.”
• “I don’t want to hear another word about your weird cultish beliefs in the streets and public squares.”
• “All religious evangelism is assault.”
• “Americans do not share your views anymore.”
• “You are a reactionary post-modern convulsion.”

Portray Gays as Victims, Not as Aggressive Challengers

And I quote: “Gays must be cast as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to assume the role of protector. If gays are presented, instead, as a strong and prideful tribe promoting a rigidly nonconformist and deviant lifestyle, they are more likely to be seen as a public menace that justifies resistance and oppression. For that reason, we must forego the temptation to strut our ‘gay pride’ publicly when it conflicts with the Gay Victim image. A media campaign to promote the Gay Victim image should make use of symbols which reduce the mainstream’s sense of threat, which lower its guard, and which enhance the plausibility of victimization. In practical terms, this means thatsympathetic figures of nice young people, old people, and attractive women would be featured.”

And I quote:“The mainstream should be told that gays are victims of fate, in the sense that most never had a choice to accept or reject their sexual preference. The message must read: ‘As far as gays can tell, they were born gay, just as you were born heterosexual or white or black or bright or athletic. They never made a choice, and are not morally blameworthy. What they do isn’t willfully contrary –it’s only natural for them. This twist of fate could as easily have happened to you! Straight viewers must be able to identify with gays as victims. To this end, the persons featured in the public campaign should be decent and upright, appealing and admirable by straight standards, completely unexceptionable in appearance.”

Witness here the bombardment of our visual media – TV, movies, comics, theater — with homosexual characters looking entirely normal and being fully approved and admired by heterosexual characters, and the continuing (bogus) claims that homosexuals are “born Gay.”

Give Heterosexual Protectors a Just Cause

And I quote: “Our campaign should not demand direct support for homosexual practices, but should instead take anti-discrimination as its theme. The right to free speech, freedom of beliefs, freedom of association, due process and equal protection of laws–these should be the concerns brought to mind by our campaign. It is especially important for the gay movement to hitch its cause to accepted standards of law and justice because its straight supporters must have at hand a cogent reply to the moral arguments of its enemies. The homophobes clothe their emotional revulsion in the daunting robes of religious dogma, so defenders of gay rights must be ready to counter dogma with principle.”

Familiar examples would include couching “gay marriage” in terms of “civil rights”, insisting on adoption “rights” for homosexual couples and demanding that openly gay boys and teens be welcomed into the Boy Scouts of America because “it’s not their fault” that they like boys. All of these issues are being promoted in the name of “equality”, and mainstream America is buying into it.

Conversion: Make Gays Look Good to the Public

And I quote: “In order to offset the increasingly bad press that these times have brought to homosexual men and women, the campaign should paint gays as superior pillars of society: ‘Did you know that this Great Man (or Woman) was ____?’ We are safest, in the long run, if we can actually make them like us. Conversion aims at just this. We mean conversion of the average American’s emotions, mind, and will, through a planned psychological attack, in the form of propaganda fed to the nation via the media. In Conversion, the bigot, who holds a very negative stereotypic picture, is repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs, in magazines, and on billboards and TV, of gay- explicitly labeled as such!–who not only don’t look like his picture of a homosexual, but are carefully selected to look either like the bigot and his friends, or like any one of his other stereotypes of all-right guys– the kind of people he already likes and admires.The image must be that of an icon of normality.”

 

And I quote: “The objection will be raised that we are exchanging one false stereotype for another equally false; that our ads are lies; that that is not how all gays actually look; that gays know it, and bigots know it. Yes, of course–we know it, too. But it makes no difference that the ads are lies; not to us, because we’re using them to ethically good effect. In Conversion, the target is shown his crowd actually associating with gays in good fellowship. Once again, it’s very difficult for the average person, who, by nature and training, almost invariably feels what he sees his fellows feeling, not to respond in this knee-jerk fashion to a sufficiently calculated advertisement.”

 

Make the Anti-gay Victimizers Look Bad

And I quote: “At a later stage of the media campaign for gay rights it will be time to get tough with remaining opponents. To be blunt, they must be vilified. Our goal here is twofold. First, we seek to replace the mainstream’s self-righteous pride about its homophobia with shame and guilt. Second, we intend to make the antigays look so nasty that average Americans will want to dissociate themselves from such types. The public should be shown images of ranting homophobes whose secondary traits and beliefs disgust middle America. These images might include: the Ku Klux Klan demanding that gays be burned alive or castrated; bigoted southern ministersdrooling with hysterical hatred to a degree that looks both comical and deranged; a tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.

A common tactic used nowadays to vilify born-again Christians is to claim that the Bible approves of slavery, polygamy, incest, etc., in order to portray Christians as rank “cherry picking” hypocrites for selectively condemning the practice of homosexuality. Another common tactic is “jamming”, as described above, where born-again Christians, in particular, are constantly subjected to name-calling, e.g., “bigot”, “liar”, “fundie”, “bible-thumper” and “homophobe.” And, of course, this strategy depends entirely upon the eager cooperation of our mainstream, liberal media – TV, movies, magazines, newspapers, comics, theater, billboards and the internet. And, as you will see below, even Christian online magazines are joining in.

The Legacy Lives On

Present day gay activists vehemently deny both any knowledge of Kirk and Madsen and the influence of Kirk and Madsen on the strategies of today’s homosexual movement. They do this because they don’t want the dark and sinister underbelly of the homosexual movement to be exposed to the heterosexual majority. That would hinder their goal of winning the hearts and minds of the heterosexual majority to their agenda. But much of what they are actually doing to further their “gay agenda” is proof positive that they are both the progeny and the legacy of these two pioneers of the homosexual movement. I cited many present day, and all too familiar, examples of this in the sections above, and you can read many, many more examples by clicking HERE and reading the comments at the end of the article. The actions and the words of gay activists themselves demonstrate that the legacy of Kirk and Madsen does, in fact, live on.

The Use of Christian Websites to Attack Born-again Christians

I have personally investigated more than a dozen Christian online magazines that allow readers to comment on their feature articles, and almost every one of them permits gay activists to freely use these very same psychological attacks, via their Comments, against the born-again Christians who are among their readers and commenters.  These publications are free to filter comments any way they want to; the First Amendment does not prohibit them from doing so. Now, I don’t know if the editors of these magazines are simply not aware that the homosexual movement is using them in this way – as a Trojan Horse, in effect —  to attack born-again Christians; or if, perhaps, they already know this, but have their reasons to permit it anyway. But I do know this: everything is done for a reason, but not everything that is done has an excuse. And I do know that born-again Christians should be able to read Comments on Christian magazine websites without being subjected to psychological attacks by gay activists.

[CoAspen]

The views of a few may not be the views of the majority.  Any group will have people on the edges who do not reflect the majority view.

 Unfortunately, views of the few, are all that some people can see....or want to hear.

Rather sad to be stuck in such a fearful world.

[bonnie]

The "few" have carried the ball on this.  Just as sad to fail to see the obvious even when it hits them in the face.

 

Instead of the somewhat snarky comments and the "Thank you God I am not like "those others" attitude can you  refute /deny the success of the excerpts from "After The Ball

Edited July 3, 2015 by bonnie

[joeb]

The views of a few may not be the views of the majority.  Any group will have people on the edges who do not reflect the majority view.

When a leader of a movement admits what its real agenda is it's foolish to ignore what they say.

Of course what she is saying is true.  The entire agenda of the socialists is to remove this country from its origins, and that means remove it from its belief in God.  As God set up marriage, and the family and the Christian faith is the true source of the resistance against the socialist movement, then why doubt that they want to destroy the institution of marriage?  Makes no sense at all to me.

[phkrause]

When a leader of a movement admits what its real agenda is it's foolish to ignore what they say.

Of course what she is saying is true.  The entire agenda of the socialists is to remove this country from its origins, and that means remove it from its belief in God.  As God set up marriage, and the family and the Christian faith is the true source of the resistance against the socialist movement, then why doubt that they want to destroy the institution of marriage?  Makes no sense at all to me.

What makes no sense to me, is that anyone would believe that its some group, be it socialist, communist, liberal, facist, marxist, conservative, etc., etc., etc., that is trying to destroy marriage! Satan has been doing this behind whatever group allows itself to listen to his lies!! That includes destroying the Sabbath also. He has been doing this since the garden of Eden, and did we have all those groups back there?? No we did not!! Those are just outward labels with no meaning of any kind!!